DELIVERED UNTO DEATH FOR JESUS' SAKE (NO. 2)

DELIVERED UNTO DEATH FOR JESUS’ SAKE (NO. 2)

Matthew 26: 26 - 30; Colossians 2: 9 - 11

JT The object in view in these two readings is to show how death marks God’s governmental ways on earth with His people. Characteristically believers accept the divine mind; death having come in through man, it must have its full force. It has a double force as a full penalty; this is seen in the second death as regards the unsaved, but as a vicarious death in our Lord Jesus Christ. Inasmuch as we are still in the body where sin is, it has to be accepted; the government of God requires this. The first one of our race to suffer death was Abel, a believer, who offered up sacrificially to God the firstlings of his flock, and the fat thereof, and he was accepted by God through his sacrifice. It was he who suffered death, not at God’s hand, but at the hand of his brother, a murderer; this was allowed of God. This is to be noted, that the first to suffer death was a believer, accepted of God through sacrifice. His own death did not secure his salvation, but the death of another, yet he died as a martyr for the truth. In the book of Exodus, we learn that when God came in to take His people out of Egypt, death marked His way of deliverance for them. There was to be death in every Israelitish house. It was again the idea of sacrifice; preservation through sacrifice — it is so today — God preserving the households of His people, but it was typically through meritorious sacrifice; the blood on the lintel and the door-post shielded them. Nevertheless death was prevailing everywhere — the most remarkable scene, perhaps, ever witnessed, certainly since the deluge; death in every house in Egypt;

^[p. 333] death in every stable; death in every kennel; the first born of all animals as well as men. It was a remarkable scene of death.

ARS It was absolutely essential for the death of the passover lamb to take place before Israel could be redeemed and taken out of Egypt.

JT Yes. Christ is seen by John the baptist, coming to him as the “Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world”. Through the blood of the slain lamb the houses of the people of God were preserved. Hence baptism, in which death is now seen, follows. It is not related to food, but is as a wall of water on either side of them, an overwhelming power, but the children of Israel went through on dry ground. Death was there, and it became very apparent when the Israelites went through, and the Egyptians were drowned. Death was to be kept before Israel throughout the whole forty years in the wilderness; at least, that was the divine thought in the offerings in Leviticus. Where it was not maintained, and open disobedience marked the people, their human carcases were strewn in the desert. It was therefore prevalent in the godless, as it is today in the world. In Egypt, the waters were turned into blood, symbolic of death; and in the book of Revelation death is most prevalent; rivers turned into blood; children killed with death, etc. The book of Revelation is full of it as against the ungodly, but then it is also applied to believers, because the beast slays the saints. I think it is one of the important matters just now for the brethren to take in, so that we may not be surprised at what is happening; in so far as we have to do with it in our spirits, if not in our bodies, let us be thoroughly in accord with the righteous judgment of God. When we come to the New Testament, we have the passover first in 1 Corinthians, and then Lord’s supper. I thought we ^[p. 334] might follow up what we had this morning, and consider the Lord’s supper as in Matthew, not as a memorial, but food, for the Lord said: “Take, eat: this is my body. And having taken the cup and given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it”. It is eating and drinking here. Then, I thought the circumcision of Christ would complete our subject; it alludes to His death from the point of view of putting off of the body of the flesh. It is putting it off completely “in the circumcision of the Christ” (Colossians 2: 11). From our side this requires the Holy Spirit; hence it is said, “For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God, and boast in Christ Jesus, and do not trust in flesh” (Philippians 3: 3).

AR In Romans 7: 24, it is said, “who shall deliver me out of this body of death?” In Colossians, have we the power to put it off?

JT Yes. “Put to death therefore your members” (Colossians 3: 5). I think the passage we read in Matthew is the one to bring in in regard to the Lord’s supper in relation to our subject. It is not a memorial in Matthew, but food — eating and drinking; but still it is the death of the Lord, because the blood is stressed, and sins are brought into it. “For this is my blood, that of the new covenant, that shed for many for remission of sins”. We see the Lord Jesus as the Victim in Matthew, and His blood poured out for the remission of sins.

CN Would you say why it is connected with the passover supper? They were eating the passover apparently when this is introduced.

JT I think it is intended to show that eating marked the scene. Eating the passover prepared them for this new thing. The Lord brought in His supper, but it was “as they were eating”. It means that we appropriate what is to work out constitutionally here. Of course, it is the death of the ^[p. 335] Lord, but to work out in us in the thought of the body, the body of Christ. “Take, eat: this is my body”.

AAT Is it right, at the Supper, to dwell on the agonies of Christ on the cross?

JT The agonies do not come in here; they do in chapter 27, as also the forsaking. This is light for us, and is one feature of the institution that is to be well noted. The question is whether they are to be brought in, in relation to the actual memorial. The Supper, as delivered to Paul directly from the Lord, for a memorial, is worded differently. The Lord says nothing about sins in delivering it to Paul. 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). Some things mentioned in the gospels are eliminated in the Lord’s word as delivered to Paul; and this I think is what He intends for the assembly. What He delivered to Paul was specially for the assembly. There is an advance in this, from what we get in the gospels, especially in Matthew and Mark. It is a question therefore, whether we should use the wording in Matthew and Mark literally, or whether we should confine ourselves to what Paul received from the Lord. The last word on the Lord’s supper is what Paul received, and I think in the actual service at the Supper we should confine ourselves to that, whilst not overlooking in minds what the evangelists have given us.

FNW You have suggested recently that in the Lord’s supper it is helpful, especially for the younger brethren, to go over the basic ground, so that they are consciously brought into the truth of it. Just how far does the question of sins enter into thanksgiving for the emblems?

JT That is seen in Matthew. He is the only one who mentions sins in relation to the Lord’s supper. Of course, remission of sins is not to be eliminated from our minds, but whether it is to be introduced verbally in assembly service is the question. I doubt that it should be. What the Lord delivered to Paul is the wording that we should employ in the assembly. Whilst not ignoring the teaching in the gospels, I think we should keep to what the Lord delivered to Paul, for it is intended for the assembly. He says, “For I received from the Lord, that which I also delivered to you”. The evangelists do not say anything about its being delivered to the saints; it was not their service to do that. Their service was to write accounts of the Lord’s ministry, according to what the Spirit indicated in their minds, but what the apostle Paul received was delivered definitely to the saints; that is, to the assembly at Corinth, which was a Gentile city, and I believe, therefore, extending to all of us Gentiles. “This is my body, which is for you”, the Lord is quoted as saying. He does not say, Eat, although, eating is spoken of, but He does not mention it in His message through Paul.

The breaking of bread of course involves eating, but the omission of it in the Lord’s message through Paul is to be noted. According to Acts 2, the breaking of bread was “in the house” in the early days of the assembly’s history, and the word ‘assembly’ is not found in the early record. It is said by some to be in Acts 2: 47, but it is not admitted by the best authorities. The breaking of bread was in the house, and of course the idea of the ^[p. 337] assembly did not enter into that. Clearly it was not yet understood. We can understand how they would talk about the Lord’s supper in their houses, including, no doubt, the thought of the forgiveness of sins; but when we come to the assembly, which 1 Corinthians requires for the celebration of the Lord’s supper, there is nothing said about sins.

ANW The memorial gospel, which is Luke, does not give us the abandonment side of the Lord’s death. That would confirm what you have said.

JT Yes. Luke and John correspond with the instruction as to boiling, which was prohibited in the passover. At the consecration of the priests, Leviticus 8: 31, the indirect action of fire was used, but Matthew and Mark would stress the direct action of fire. Priestly intelligence would recognise these indications and follow the presentation of the Supper through Paul.

SMcC Is it worthy of note that Matthew alone mentions “and gave it to the disciples”? Mark and Luke say “to them”, but Matthew specifically says “to the disciples”. I was thinking of his having particularly in mind the making of disciples.

JT Matthew makes a great deal of discipleship; more than the others; he shows how they move in relation to the Lord. The disciples came to Him on the mount; when He entered into a ship, they followed Him; and he quotes the Lord in Matthew 10: 42: “whosoever shall give to drink ... a cup of cold water only, in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward”. Matthew gives everybody his place on moral lines. Discipleship must enter into the partaking of the Lord’s supper, according to Matthew.

SMcC Food, as you have been referring to it, would have a great place in the development of the constitution of a disciple.

JT I think the word ‘disciple’ is important ^[p. 338] in this matter. Matthew stresses severity in things; having to do with divine things we are subject to severe discipline; we are now at the end of the dispensation, and severity has its place. God would stress primary thoughts, and severity is to be expected in the governmental dealings of God. God is making things severer even for His people. The present state of things is, perhaps, severer than any we had experienced. God is stressing the idea of death as attaching to the profession of Christ. The Lord was forsaken, as we have seen, in Matthew, and it is a question of our arriving at this point in going out of the world. It is in view of translation, but in the meantime we are to have the testimony that we please God — like Enoch.

WR Would you say the teaching here would search right to our very roots? The Lord says, “one of you shall deliver me up”. And they being exceeding grieved, began to say to him, each of them, “Is it I, Lord?” (Matthew 26: 21, 22).

JT Quite so. See what happened to the betrayer according to Matthew. Matthew spreads out the history of Judas; what happened to him; how he cast down the pieces of money, and having remorse, went and hanged himself.

CAM Is not dwelling on suffering in connection with the governmental ways of God, likely to depress us as at the Supper. We must not dwell on adverse things there. It is a place of rest.

JT Quite so. You do not bring in mourning or other such things; things which might be quite right outside. The Lord was not depressed as instituting the Supper in any of the gospels; whereas, when in Gethsemane He was; it is a question of where we are. The priest sees what is right. We learn the law from his mouth, so it is a question of our having understanding as to what ^[p. 339] governs a particular position, and not to bring anything else into it.

JTJr In Revelation 6: 8, of the horse marked by death, that is the pale horse, it says that hades follows with him. Could you link that with the pressure in Matthew?

JT I think that is right. The book of Revelation connects with what we have now. We do not come into the extreme character of it, although we may touch the fringe of it. The Lord says, “I also will keep thee out of the hour of trial, which is about to come upon the whole habitable world, to try them that dwell upon the earth” (Revelation 3: 10). We seem to just touch it and are taken out of it.

JTJr The Lord is presented as having the keys of death and of hades before we have the allusion to any of these things.

ABP Is there significance in reference to Enoch, “he was not”. I wondered if that was the end reached in the acceptance of death prior to translation.

JT I think it was. Enoch represents the result in Genesis 5. He is the seventh from Adam. The full result came out in him following on a series of exercises that came down from Adam, who undoubtedly was saved himself. Of Enoch it is said, “he was not, for God took him”. He, as it were, through the discipline, passed out of the view of the world. Stress is on death in Genesis 5. Whereas when we come to Genesis 11, we have what looks very much like it, but it is not the stressing of death, but rather the shortness of life, the actual shortening of human life to make way for the great truth of eternal life.

APT “He has the testimony that he had pleased God” (Hebrews 11: 5. What had been divinely effected in Enoch went through with ^[p. 340] him.

JT Enoch had it. Enoch had that testimony; it belonged to him.

WR Would you say it is only in the measure in which we appropriate the Lord rightly in the Supper that there is conformity of growth in us?

JT Yes. You can see here how the matter is presented in our chapter. “Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread, the disciples came to Jesus, saying, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover?” (Matthew 26: 17). The names of the disciples are not given. “And he said, Go into the city unto such a man, and say to him, The Teacher says, My time is near, I will keep the passover in thy house with my disciples”, (verse 18). Notice again — “my disciples”. “And the disciples did as Jesus had directed them; and they prepared the passover. And when the evening was come he lay down at table with the twelve”, (verses 19, 20). The twelve is a term which alludes, I think, to love underlying the position. “And as they were eating he said, Verily I say to you, that one of you shall deliver me up. And being exceeding grieved they began to say to him, each of them, is it I, Lord? But he answering said, He that dips his hand with me in the dish, he it is who shall deliver me up”, (verses 21 - 23). Then He goes on to say, “The Son of man goes indeed, according as it is written concerning him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is delivered up”, (verse 24). What a word that is at the present time to persons who are unfaithful to the truth! “It were good for that man if he had not been born”. Then Judas, who betrayed him answered and said, “Is it I, Rabbi?” (verse 25). He does not say, “Lord”. “He says to him, Thou hast said”. That is the position. The terrible situation that is brought in as the Supper is introduced.

RWS Do you bring this principle down today, this ^[p. 341] woe?

JT I do; it is a question of how matters are going to end up. Matthew carries the history of Judas along and brings out his remorse. He is the only one who gives us that; but the traitor’s remorse did not save him, even his casting the money into the temple did not save him. There is no hope for him. It shows the solemnity of giving up the truth. Then the Lord’s supper is introduced while they were eating.

FSC They had all this advantage of being searched by the Lord while they were eating, and yet there is no hope for Judas.

SMcC In Matthew and Mark the matter of Judas is raised just before the Supper, between the statements as to the passover, and the Lord’s institution of the Supper. In Luke, where the memorial side is brought in, the matter of Judas does not come in until after the Supper.

JT In Luke it is “the hand of him that delivers me up is with me on the table” (Luke 22: 21). It is a warning to us. We may think lightly of unfaithfulness to Christ, but if He is given up or betrayed this penalty may follow. Modernism has the character of Judas.

JS Would Judas’s position be indicative of the Jews?

JT It would. They denied the Holy One and the Just. This is taking place also in Christendom.

AR Are you also applying it to one who might be in fellowship and turns his back upon the truth?

JT Quite so; John singles him out. In answer to his enquiry the Lord exposes Judas. And He says further, “What thou doest, do quickly” (John 13: 27). “Having therefore received the morsel, he went out immediately; and it was night” (verse 30). He went out into the darkness and did his nefarious ^[p. 342] work there.

RWS Would it be those who have a position of trust, or any one in fellowship?

JT It would specially refer to those in the place of trust or responsibility, now including all in the place of privilege. In principle all Christians are to be regarded thus. The Lord says, “one of you;” “one of you shall deliver me up” (John 13: 21).

FSC The Lord said “mine own familiar friend;” one very near to Him.

JT Just so. The Lord Jesus took that ground when Judas kissed him; when he came back to deliver Him up. The Lord said, “deliverest thou up the Son of man with a kiss?” (Luke 22: 48). One may make gestures of affection for Christ, but yet he did that, and the Lord said, “deliverest thou up the Son of man with a kiss?” — a terrible state was behind it!

FHL Although the apostle in Corinthians takes a different line, does not the Lord’s supper come in as a great test now?

JT It does in 1 Corinthians. There is grace attached to it, because many who were misbehaving in the assembly were real, and would be saved. “On this account many among you are weak and infirm, and good many are fallen asleep” (1 Corinthians 11: 30). They were not in the category of Judas. Others are said to be ministers of Satan; 2 Corinthians 11: 15. The second epistle brings the truth out more crucially, hence some are viewed as false apostles.

Rem The passover brings us to the Supper.

JT Yes, it merges into the Supper in Matthew; the line of demarcation is not stressed. It is Luke who says, “after supper”. The passover was finished.

Rem Does eating of the passover continue now?

JT Not in a literal sense; the Supper is a literal thing; it is a memorial, but it is literally bread and the cup. The passover is not a material thing now.

^[p. 343] It has a moral bearing only; hence, as we had this morning, it comes before the Lord’s supper in 1 Corinthians. “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). We do not have unleavened bread literally; we have sincerity and truth, but when you come to the Lord’s supper, it is a literal institution; it is the actual bread and an actual cup.

Rem “Let a man prove himself, and thus eat” (1 Corinthians 11: 28).

ARS We have come to a very solemn time now, it appears to me, because we find some deliberately leaving the fellowship, doing just what Judas did; it is a very serious matter.

JT It is one of the most solemn things we have to speak of today, the lightness with which some treat this wonderful provision of love — the Lord’s supper; deliberately leaving it in spite of the entreaties of the brethren. It is said of the Lord in John, that He gave Judas the morsel, implying that His grace toward him had not changed, but Judas was hopelessly dark. Thus Satan entered into him, and the Lord said, “What thou doest, do quickly;” and Judas went out.

Ques Would not the Lord in giving the Supper to the disciples, mean that He had confidence that it would be continued up to the time of translation? “He ... gave it to them” (Luke 24: 30). Applying this to the Lord’s supper, it would be put into the hands of those who would value it.

JT Quite so. There is a beautiful word by the translator of this Bible, in the note (f), to what happened at Emmaus (Luke 24) — ‘It has the sense of giving it into their hands as a letter: as verse 42; and chapter 4: 17. He took the house-father’s place, and blessed and gave

it to them’. It does not seem that He partook of the bread; certainly He did not partake of His own supper. “This is my body, which is for you” (1 Corinthians 11: 24). That is the principle of it. It is put into our hands, and we are to continue it as a memorial. “And as they were eating, Jesus, having taken the bread and blessed, broke it and gave it to the disciples” (Matthew 26: 26).

AR He says, “Take, eat: this is my body”. Does that suggest that it is for a continuation of persons here for the will of God?

JT I think so; His body was for the will of God. Matthew has the assembly in mind; that we are to be built up constitutionally for the collective thought; but not only for the collective thought, but for the body, and organism.

ANW The passover in itself would not do. This evidently builds up a constitution beyond what is implied in the passover.

JT Yes; it leads to the organism; it leads to the assembly. It brings out inferentially that the Lord’s supper is for the assembly.

APT Does it link on with the consecration of Aaron and his sons, and the eating of the flesh of the ram of consecration? Is there any thought of priestly service following on appropriation?

JT Yes; “boiling”, because there, Leviticus 8: 31, as we were saying, it is more what attaches to the Lord’s supper. “This is my body”, the Lord says. John 6 is the eating of His flesh, which is not the thought here. Eating of the Lord’s supper is to develop the constitution for the body, for the assembly.

Rem Does this correspond to the first chapter of Daniel, where Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, we are told, had pulse as their food?

JT Yes; that food built up a suitable constitution for their service. I believe Matthew has that ^[p. 345] in mind. It is contemplated that conditions will be exacting, and we have to be ready to go through them.

AC Would you mind saying a word about giving thanks? The Lord gave thanks; we are generally impressed by the giving of thanks at the Supper.

JT “And as they were eating, Jesus having taken the bread and blessed, broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat: this is my body. And having taken the cup and given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it” (Matthew 26: 26, 27). Now if we look at 1 Corinthians, we shall see what Paul received: “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” (1 Corinthians 11: 23, 24). The giving of thanks for the bread is plainly stated in the new wording of it as given by the Lord to Paul, but when we come to the cup, it is “In like manner also the cup, after having supped” verse 25. That is to say, after the partaking of the passover. The word ‘supped’ there refers back to the passover, of which they had partaken, so that the Lord’s supper is carefully separated from the passover. The giving of thanks for the cup is involved in the words “In like manner” — whether for the bread or the cup, the idea of thanksgiving is there.

AC The disciples were affected by how the Lord did this. As we come together in assembly, should the brother who goes to the table so give thanks for the emblems that the brethren have a proper impression of the Lord?

JT Yes. It ought to be a priestly act, so that Christ is suggested in the one who gives thanks for the bread and ^[p. 346] the cup.

AR The thought of the organism ought to be always in our minds. Would the eating enable me as a member of the body to enter into the suffering of all saints? — “if one member suffer, all ... suffer”.

JT That is one thought in it, and a very important word for us now, because although we may not be affected in a bodily way by what is going on, we certainly should be in our spirits. “Remember them that are in bonds as bound with them”. The Lord does not say in Matthew, ‘for you’. It is “Take, eat; this is my body”.

ABP Would you say that the present conditions in the world, which have been allowed of God, may have in view the development of body feelings?

JT I am sure that is so; the brethren are drawn together in mutual feeling, by the pressure. We are all affected. I believe it is working out just that way; tender sympathy is developing. This is the point in mind in what we have before us here. The Lord says of the cup, “Drink ye all of it. For this is my blood, that of the new covenant, that shed for many for remission of sins” (Matthew 26: 27, 28). The remission of sins is not found in Mark or Luke.

SMcC That would be in keeping with the administrative character of the gospel, bearing on the assembly. The remission of sins would be in keeping with that.

ANW Would you carry the thought of forgiveness forward into the organism and our relations together in the body?

JT The matter of forgiveness seen here is significant, and should affect us as members one of another. It is here, however, purely the sacrificial thought. The forgiveness of sins is involved in this precious death, in the blood of the new covenant. Therefore it is on a wider basis than 1 Corinthians 11. What the Lord delivered to Paul eliminated this. Evidently he does that designedly to make it suitable ^[p. 347] for the assembly. In 1 Corinthians 11 the saints are viewed as “in assembly”, and the Supper must be suitable to that; the believer’s household is not enough now — “Have ye not then houses for eating and drinking?” (1 Corinthians 11: 22), the apostle says. It is an assembly matter, and therefore the Lord eliminates certain things and introduces other things. He stresses the idea of memorial; and in regard to the cup He says, “this do, as often as ye shall drink it, in remembrance of me”. There is emphasis given to the idea of remembrance in connection with the cup, and there is no reference to the remission of sins.

Ques What are we to understand by the word “Drink ye all of it”?

JT That means that every Christian ought to have part in it; not drink all the ingredients, but that each person should take it; no Christian should exempt himself. If he is a real believer and loves Christ he will not exempt himself from partaking of the cup. Of course he must show to the assembly that he is qualified.

Ques Would the idea of the body have unity in mind?

JT It would, but the body implies more than unity, although unity must be there first; but it is an organism, “We ... are one body in Christ” (Romans 12: 5), suggests unity, but it is unity “in Christ”, not like freemasonry. The organism is in 1 Corinthians 12, where we are viewed as vitally linked with each other by the Spirit.

CAM If I understand your thought, the words “for you” in 1 Corinthians 11: 24, really applied to the assembly.

JT Yes. In Luke it reads “given for you”, but in 1 Corinthians, “for you;” in this latter the Lord’s body, particularly, is more in evidence. In this, I believe, the Lord had the assembly in mind. The truth of the mystery including the body ^[p. 348] of Christ, the assembly, was given to Paul before the reception of the truth of the Supper. The former was involved in what the Lord said to him outside Damascus.

Ques Would not the one loaf include all believers in the city where the assembly was situated?

JT Yes; but “we, being many, are one loaf”, goes wider. “We” is the assembly in a general sense, for the apostle was not at Corinth. In 1 Corinthians you have the local thought, but you have also the universal thought. There is only one body, and it takes in all the saints. The local thought is — “ye are body of Christ” — not the body. The Corinthians saints were “body of Christ” in Corinth. This expands to the universal thought in “we, being many, are one loaf, one body; for we all partake of that one loaf!” (1 Corinthians 10: 17).

RWS I would like help as to the local thought of the organism merging into the universal. As we sit down, we have the local idea, but when do our thoughts rightly extend to the body in a universal character?

JT We begin with what we are locally. It is a question of what is in any given place, and the Lord comes to that, and appropriates what is there; as Luke 24: 36, “he himself stood in their midst”. As He is among us, He has all His own in mind, according to what He says, “other sheep I have”. The nearer you get to Him, the more you find that He includes all His people at any given time. The local thing is provisional only, but the universal thing is abiding; so we merge into the universal thought, as we partake of the Lord’s supper together. The Lord being among us, our hearts become expanded. We think of all the Lord’s people. Why should we not? — He does. John contemplates this. He quotes the Lord saying, And I have other sheep which are not of this ^[p. 349] fold: [that is, not of the Jewish fold] those also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one flock, [He drops the word ‘fold’ and uses the word ‘flock’] one shepherd (John 10: 16). John helps us as to the universal aspect of the service of God in the assembly, confirming what Paul teaches.

JS Is it not exceedingly sad that so few who profess Christianity have fellowship in the Lord’s death?

JT It is indeed. Some of us were like that and the Lord delivered us. It is important to have it in our minds that there are other sheep; and, as John says again, that there are children of God scattered abroad to be gathered together into one. But the Lord goes on with those who are loyal to Him, however few.

APT The Colossians had love for all the saints.

JT Quite so. I think we should now go on to Colossians, with the main thought in mind that it is still a question of death.

JS Would the great bulk of those in the outward profession be in Colossians 2: 8, “See that there be no one who shall lead you away as a prey through philosophy and vain deceit”?

JT Just so; that is how Christendom has been formed. Christians have been led away through philosophy and vain deceit and ceremonialism.

What is before us now is the great truth of the circumcision of Christ. “In whom also ye have been circumcised with circumcision not done by hand, in the putting off of the body of the flesh, in the circumcision of the Christ” (Colossians 2: 11). The circumcision of Christ means His death in a certain connection; that is, the definite putting off of the body of the flesh; the totality of it is dealt with in the circumcision of Christ. That implies a process; sharp knives being used, as we are told in Joshua 5.

JS ^[p. 350] The religious side would be involved in the circumcision.

JT Yes; the word ‘circumcision’ would mean that. So that Paul says elsewhere, “we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God, and boast in Christ Jesus, and do not trust in flesh” (Philippians 3: 3). The flesh is dealt with finally and totally in the death of the Lord Jesus. It is one great view of the death of Christ. Thus in our subject it is death all the way through.

JTJr In Joshua 5 there is allusion to circumcision a second time, that the reproach of Egypt should be rolled away.

JT It is remarkable that it comes in after they cross the Jordan. They failed in it in the wilderness; they did not use it, but now it is used in view of heavenly territory, for in Joshua we are entering the land. The epistle to the Colossians is what you might call tentative; that is, you are entering, or trying to enter. You are aiming at it, but under great difficulties. Hence, the application of this matter of circumcision; and after that, according to Joshua we have again the passover. We have it three times: firstly, in Egypt; secondly, at the beginning of the wilderness; and thirdly, in the land. So it runs right through, the idea of the appropriation of Christ in that type. This matter of circumcision in the type is a severe process. The idea of the inheritance is dawning upon us, the greatness of what we are brought into, our inheritance, and the flesh may crop up in the service of God, as in other connections. The very part I take at the Lord’s supper may involve fleshly activity. This chapter in Colossians contemplates philosophy, vain deceit and ritualism; all these are outside of the Spirit of God; and the Spirit of God is essential to circumcision.

CAM It is remarkable that in Colossians,

^[p. 351] circumcision comes first, and then baptism, and then quickening after that. It seems to confirm what you say as to our being rid of this thing that is extraneous to us — the body of the flesh.

JT Yes. It is ready to crop up, as Colossians shows, in unexpected ways — refinement, education, and the like — “philosophy and vain deceit” and ceremonialism. Circumcision is the first thing, and then baptism. Why should baptism be brought in? It was at the beginning of the wilderness, but it is brought in here, too. It is to bring out that the Red Sea and the Jordan coalesce; and that we are also risen, “ye are risen with him” — how risen? — “through the faith of the working of God” (Colossians 2: 12); that is, the power of God has taken us out of the wilderness into the land. The next thing is the old corn of the land. This is a new feature. The old corn means what Christ is as indigenous to heaven. It is a heavenly Christ.