PETER'S FIRST EPISTLE AS BEARING ON THE PRESENT MOMENT (2)
PETER’S FIRST EPISTLE AS BEARING ON THE PRESENT MOMENT (2)
JT It is thought that we covered chapter 1 fairly well, only that the reference to being born again should be looked at a little further. There are two such references in the chapter, the first in verse 3, where it says, “who, according to his great mercy” — referring to the Father — “has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from among the dead” 1 Peter 1:3. And then in verse 22 we read, “Having purified your souls by obedience to the truth to unfeigned brotherly love, love one another out of a pure heart fervently; being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the living and abiding word of God” 1 Peter 1:22,23. These passages may be compared with chapter 3 of John’s gospel where we have the signal allusion, “Except anyone be born anew he cannot see the kingdom of God” John 3:3. It would seem that the brethren would do well to look at these passages and make some comparisons; they would be for our profit. That is to say, John 3 is basic as to the work of God in our souls; there it is not ‘born again’ but “born anew”, whereas here in verse 3 it is “begotten us again”; it is a plural thought, whereas John 3 is singular. Peter says the Father has “begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from among the dead” 1 Peter 1:3. Then in verse 22 it is, “Having purified your souls by obedience to the truth to unfeigned brotherly love, love one another out of a pure heart fervently; being born again … by the living and abiding word of God” 1 Peter 1:22,23. In John 3 new birth is by the Spirit; it is a sovereign act of God, but basic, basic to the work of God generally in each of us; whereas here it is a question of the [p. 20] word; it is not viewed as by a divine Person, but by the living and abiding word of God. That is to say the believer is thus viewed as begotten or born by the action of the word of God; and it is to full christianity, so that all the features of the truth are seen here as attaching to a person born again. Our souls are purified, it is said, by obedience to the truth to unfeigned brotherly love, and then we are exhorted that we should love one another out of a pure heart fervently. The scripture says, “Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the living and abiding word of God” 1 Peter 1:23. The word of God refers to what is in His mind, and the believer is viewed as begotten by it; not simply by the sovereign action of a divine Person as in John 3, but by it, by the word.
Ques Do I understand you to mean that John 3 is initial and constitutional, whereas “born again” in verse 23 would involve a change of outlook and circumstances, and fresh light governing the position?
JT Yes, and that the word, that is, the mind of God, enters into it.
Rem It is ‘to’ something in both cases in this chapter; “to a living hope”, and “to unfeigned brotherly love”.
JT The ‘to’ in verse 3 as alluded to this morning refers back by contrast to the Old Testament, to what God had effected for Israel then; but now it is to a living hope and it is through the resurrection of Christ — not simply through the word, not simply through a sovereign act of God or of the Spirit, but by the action of the resurrection on the mind.
Ques Would it be right to say that from John’s viewpoint, that of the sovereign action of the Spirit, there might be some delay before the person is conscious of what has been effected; but from Peter’s viewpoint, especially in verse 23, there would [p. 21] be an immediate consciousness with the person of a communication from God?
JT Quite so, and he is in the family really, because the effect of it is unfeigned brotherly love. One might be really born anew according to John and yet not have all these characteristics. And they are very much needed because we are apt to imbibe — and aside from the action of the word we have imbibed — wrong thoughts about our brethren so that we say wrong things about them.
AR It says, “Having purified your souls by obedience to the truth” 1 Peter 1:22; that comes in before brotherly love.
JT Well, the truth is another point; it is not simply the word, but the truth. The truth is the measure of things; everything must be measured by truth. But the word refers to the mind of God, very near akin, of course, to the truth, but we are told, “Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ” John 1:17. If we are to be in brotherly relations, if we are to be in family relations, this passage must be a guide to us, for we are not real christians if we are not marked by christian feelings and affections.
ANW So that “Thou … canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth” would not quite apply here as it does in John 3:8, would you say? There it is not observable, but here the matter becomes observable.
JT What is alluded to in John 3 is really a sovereign action, just as the wind acts sovereignly. You cannot follow it, as it were. “Thou … canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit” John 3:8. Whereas the mind of God, that is, the word of God, imparts or conveys the idea of intelligence as to everything. The man in the gospels saw all things clearly.
SMcC So these adjectives that are used here are important, are they not? Unfeigned brotherly love,
[p. 22] and a pure heart, so that what we say is in correspondence with what is underneath. I was thinking of the importance of it in our brotherly relations.
JT It is most important that our brotherly relations should be regulated by the truth, by the word or by the truth. Otherwise we cannot assume to be in fellowship or practically in the truth for any service to God.
Rem This would involve evident results in those who are affected, without which the reality may be queried. I thought that Peter, from the way in which he is putting the thing forward, was speaking to those who evidenced that they had been affected. So with us, if there is nothing to show by way of result it raises a query as to the reality of the transaction.
JRH Is this like John’s epistle where it says, “every one that loves has been begotten of God”? 1 John 4:7.
JT Just so, that is the full thought of christianity, whereas “born anew” is not the full thought. It requires redemption and all that enters into redemption for the man to be fully in the truth. Therefore the “born anew” in John’s gospel is an initial thought, and not the full thought.
WWM In 1 Thessalonians 4:9 it says, “Now concerning brotherly love ye have no need that we should write to you, for ye yourselves are taught of God to love one another”. Would that be the essence of “the word”?
JT Very good, “taught of God” is the word. That is a question of understanding, and that by teaching.
WWM Would that come from the recognition of the mental milk of the word? Mr. Darby’s footnote says it is derived from logos.
JT Just so, it is more particularly the mind.
Ques Does this involve a testimony rendered? “This is the word which in the glad tidings is preached to you” 1 Peter 1:[p. 23] 25.
JT Very good, so that the word is identified with the glad tidings, and therefore we are to preclude all novelties in our preachings. We are to keep to the truth, keep to the word.
EAL There is a very interesting footnote to verse 1 in the second epistle of John; ‘It is the character of the love; love in truth’,The’is not in the Greek, and I do not think it is meant to be. It is not’truly love’, though, as the apostle teaches us here, there can be no truly loving but in the truth’.
JT That is important, ‘no truly loving but in the truth’. So that we may pretend to love, but if the truth is not regulating us it is not love in the truth.
Ques Would the confession of a soul when he accepts the Lord as his Saviour be on this line that he is really evidencing that he has been born again according to verse 23?
JT Surely, if he confesses it. But the question is how the confession is brought about. We may draw out confessions from people, young people especially, and they do not understand what they are confessing; whereas the point is to make it clear what they are confessing, what it means, that the truth is the truth.
Ques That involves the system that God is owning down here in the assembly, does it not?
JT Well, whether Peter goes into that fully is a question. We alluded already to the fact that he scarcely ever refers to the assembly formally. I do not know that he ever does.
Ques Do I gather that while he does not formally mention the term he really gives us the constituent parts of it in the way he presents the truth?
JT We shall see that in this very chapter. I thought now we might turn to the body of the chapter,
because the body of it is, “Laying aside therefore all malice and all guile and hypocrisies and envyings and all evil speakings, as new-born babes desire earnestly the pure mental milk of the word, that by it ye may grow up to salvation” 1 Peter 2:1,2; that is to say, salvation is not simply a confession but we grow up to it, a very important matter; we are persons growing up to the thing; “if indeed ye have tasted that the Lord is good. To whom coming, a living stone”. Now we have come to the idea of the assembly in the stones that form it.
SMcC This “therefore” in the first verse would have a backward reference to the new birth as Peter presents it. And would not the laying aside of these five things be important in view of the working out of the features of the system as Peter has it in mind?
JT I think so, only the Spirit of God is implied in all that Peter refers to here; not simply the sovereign action of the Spirit, but the Spirit of God and the truth involved in redemption are in mind here. A newborn babe, even if he is a babe, has all the faculties and characteristics of a human being.
Rem All the potentialities are there.
JT The potentialities, a good word; so that a newborn babe has all that is needed, only it is a question of growth and the growth involves, of course, the truth as presented to him so that he is governed by it.
JRH Would this involve that it is very important to get clear of all that would hamper our minds in our relations with each other, in order to hold our minds in relation to the truth?
JT So that our relations must be governed by the truth; we must bring the truth into all that enters into our business affairs and household affairs and let it have its full place with us. That is of prime importance.
[p. 25] Ques Paul in writing to the Hebrews speaks of full grown men having their senses exercised to discern between good and evil. That would cover every department of life, would it not?
JT The five senses, just so. That, of course, would bear on what you say as to the potentialities of a babe.
RWS Is it not important under what kind of gospel preaching we become saved? It says, “that by it ye may grow up to salvation” 1 Peter 2:2. There is not much gain in introducing popular evangelism or emotional stimulus into our gospel preachings, is there?
JT We must avoid all the popular evangelisation that is current. If we are to be used of God, we must be governed by the truth.
Ques Does not the truth give the preacher enormous scope without resorting to anything else?
JT It does. It is what was preached by Peter and Paul. Peter was the first preacher of christianity and we are therefore entitled to regard his preaching as a model for us in preaching the gospel.
CT Would the preaching of the truth bring the soul to a place like the inn in Luke 10?
JT I would say that.
Rem Often something specific is used by the Lord. The centurion says, “only speak a word, and my servant shall be healed”. Matthew 8:8.
JT Quite so. In Paul’s epistle to Timothy it is said, “proclaim the word”. The brethren have largely changed the inscription that announces the preaching; it is so in England and in general here and in most other places. Instead of announcing the gospel to be preached it is the preaching of the word.
Rem I think we have been coming to it. The word is penetrating, as you said in Sydney, and it covers every phase of what God is communicating.
ANW “This is the word which in the glad tidings is preached to you”, 1 Peter 1:25. Should the word be embodied in the glad tidings?
JT That is what we were saying. “This is the word” is the identification of what they were committed to. It is the word of God; the mind of God is brought into the soul of the believer in His word.
JWD In the account of Cornelius’ conversion there are two Greek words used, one for ‘words’, and another for ‘word’: “While Peter was yet speaking these words the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were hearing the word” Acts 10:44. What would be the difference in the two ideas?
JT I think what is in mind in Acts 10 is that the Spirit of God acted of Himself without waiting for any confession by those who were listening to Peter, because the Spirit of God was there Himself and intended to act by Himself to bring the gentiles into the assembly. It was a direct action of the Spirit, not for new birth but to bring them into the assembly.
ANW It says in 1 Thessalonians 2:13, “And for this cause we also give thanks to God unceasingly that, having received the word of the report of God by us, ye accepted, not men’s word, but, even as it is truly, God’s word, which also works in you who believe”.
JT That is an excellent passage to quote in what we are saying. In that chapter it is a question of those who believed in Judaea being set out as models for the Thessalonians. The Thessalonians were gentiles, but the assemblies in Judaea were formed of Jewish christians, and the Spirit of God refers to them as models, indicating that there was a universal viewpoint among the Thessalonians in accepting the position in Judaea. They were wholly free from national feelings and ready to join in with their brethren in the truth of christianity. They were [p. 27] a long way off too, the distance was great between Thessalonica and the assemblies in Judaea. It is very important for brethren to be wholly free from national feelings where the truth is involved, whether it be in Judaea or Australia or wherever it be. It is no question of the locality or the country but of what the Spirit of God is doing and where He is doing it. That is to say, He is forming the assembly and all that goes with the assembly.
Ques So that Paul says, “thus I ordain in all the assemblies”. That would cover his wide travels, would it not?
JT Quite so.
Ques Is it not important that the brethren should have their notice boards as to the preaching uniform in this matter?
JT Well, F.E.R. said to me once that a man who is going to preach the gospel should write his name to the announcement; but I am not so sure about that.
Ques Do you think that if every preacher did what Jonah was told to do, “preach … the preaching that I shall bid thee” Jonah 3:2, every preaching would have the character of the word of God?
JT Quite so, but Jonah went a roundabout way to get to it.
AR Jonah had to go down to Sheol to carry out the injunction given to him.
Ques Was this not said to him after he was recommissioned? is not that important, that through his experience he was able to do what he was bidden? He really avoided what he was sent to do before.
JT I think we have to go to his book to get the full word from him as to his exercises, and we thank God for his book. Many, modernly, have ridiculed the book of Jonah but it is a very important part [p. 28] of Scripture.
ECT Is it not desirable to carry the preaching outside, as Jonah did?
JT Just so, to preach on the streets. That matter came up in Australia because in that country they had begun to say the time for open air preaching was past, but I do not think it is past. It began with Peter but it should not end with him. We might as well follow it out as we speak about Peter.
Ques Do you think that as Peter’s first preaching had the effect of drawing persons into a sphere of salvation so his ministry here would do the same?
JT Just so; besides, the converts were respectful to the apostles. We are told “they persevered in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles, in breaking of bread and prayers” Acts 2:42. Then we are told they broke bread in the house; it was not a formal church or the like, or even the temple; it was in the house. The breaking of bread is mentioned first and then it says that they broke bread in the house, as if the family thought is retained in connection with the breaking of bread.
Now we want to see in this chapter the thought of the assembly. So it says, “To whom coming, a living stone” — that is Christ — “cast away indeed as worthless by men, but with God chosen, precious, yourselves also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ” 1 Peter 2:4,5. So that we have a formal allusion here in the second chapter to the actual service of God. This service of God is in relation first of all to Christ as the rejected Saviour, and then to the saints as living stones.
AR Does this verse refer to Solomonic service and work, “being built up a spiritual house”? Apparently the stones are built together for the house. That is what Solomon did, is it not?
JT Well, of course the building is by God. The house is the family thought, and then the holy priesthood [p. 29] is the persons who serve in it, and the offering of spiritual sacrifices is what they give. It is a question of giving. First the sphere of the house, and then the priesthood — those who do the service — and then what we give — spiritual sacrifices. There are these three things, the sphere, the persons who serve, and then the sacrifices — that is, what is given, given to God.
JRH This matter of “yourselves also” — does that bring forward the real work of God in the souls of the saints?
JT Just so. One has had the privilege of speaking on that word “yourselves” as bringing out what we are. It is a reflex action, what comes back to ourselves. And so here it is what we are ourselves and governed by the truth as regards the sphere of service, and then the persons who serve, and then what we give God is the object in all of these cases, because it is God’s service we are dealing with,
Ques Would the man in Acts 3 be a kind of example of what Peter has in mind, a man lifted out of his impotency and not only able to stand with the brethren in testimony but able to enter in with them, walking and leaping and praising God? Is he not brought forward by Peter to the sanhedrim as an example of salvation? He says, “salvation is in none other” Acts 4:12.
JT Very good. There we touch not simply on Peter, but on the combination of Peter and John. Acts 3 is the Peter and John chapter. That is, you have two great servants serving together without any feeling, which is very important; if we are to serve at all we are to serve together.
JWD As to the third item you mentioned — what we give — what force would the word ‘spiritual’ have in relation to that?
JT It is a question of whether we are spiritual; it is not a question of money. It is a matter of [p. 30] spiritual sacrifices, and we have therefore to learn to use the Old Testament types in an anti-typical sense, to see what the antitypes mean; that is to say, what the word ‘spiritual’ means as applied to them.
Rem It is encouraging as well as exercising to see that in the Old Testament in regard to such matters you have the thought of tithing and first-fruits so often introduced, which shows that calculation enters into the matter.
JT Well, it is a question of what you can offer to God. The Lord’s supper is intended to resolve itself into the actual service of God. We proceed from glory to glory, so that we are now entering on a great and glorious system of things; and we must see how the word ‘spiritual’ applies in what we have to offer to God on the first day of the week. Of course, sisters cannot speak, but they can do it in effect if they are spiritual, that is, in aiding what is going on. What there is at any given time is not the four walls of the place; it is the persons who are there, because that is where the sphere is. The sphere of service is in the persons.
Ques Does not the truth of the body in that sense underlie the thought of the assembly?
JT Exactly. Therefore the Lord’s supper involves the idea of the body. “We, being many, are one loaf, one body; for we all partake of that one loaf” 1 Corinthians 10:17. That is the idea of the persons who form the sphere of the service.
Ques When the apostle Paul in Corinthians speaks about presenting the chaste virgin to Christ, would that be a spiritual sacrifice?
JT It would indeed, but that is a highly apostolic thought. Who could do it but Paul? I do not believe anyone could do it but Paul, or the Lord Jesus, to present a company of people as at Corinth as a chaste virgin to Christ. And that brings up the [p. 31] whole question of male and female as regards the service of God, that is, brothers and sisters, and as to when we advance into the full feminine thought, Christ being the masculine. I am touching on things which will be raising questions later and I hope they will raise questions, for the idea of male and female must come into consideration in this matter, because that is the mind of God. The feminine word is used as to the assembly, but then with the same persons there is also the idea of brethren of Christ and sons of God. So we have to understand what all these terms mean.
JRH How would you compare this with what we have in the end of Hebrews, “By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise continually to God, that is, the fruit of the lips confessing his name”? Hebrews 13:15.
JT That is just what I think is meant. It is characteristic of Hebrews as fitting into Peter’s epistle.
CT What is the force of “by Jesus Christ”, in the thought of service?
JT It is the mediatorial thought; all reverts to that everything is through Christ. Everything must come through Christ.
Ques Is there not a stress on the thought of holiness? In this part the priesthood is said to be “a holy priesthood”, while later, in the testimonial setting, it is spoken of as “a kingly priesthood”. Is the stress on holiness because the house is in view?
JT I should think so. ‘Kingly’ is more dignity, of course; holiness is involved in the service of God. “Be ye holy, for I am holy” 1 Peter 1:16 is a great thought.
Ques I wondered whether it raised the question of state as well as all that we have been considering?
JT Exactly, because you have the fruit of holiness. If we want to go to the basic things in the gospel we have to learn Romans 6:22: “Ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end eternal life”.
[p. 32] Rem So that the word of God would enlighten us as to our standing in divine things, but if we are going to participate actively we must be concerned about state as well as standing.
JLP Would Peter have in mind that those who form part of the assembly are to take character from God in His holiness? He speaks of holy men and holy women.
JT Quite so. “Be ye holy, for I am holy” 1 Peter 1:16. We have to begin with God. Perhaps it is a lesson we all have to learn, this thought of holiness: “holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling” Hebrews 3:1.
SMcC In regard to this matter of male and female that you referred to: as beginning on the Lord’s day morning with what we are as brothers and sisters in this city, masculine and feminine persons in that light, does this thought of a spiritual house rather go into what is beyond that side of the position?
JT The word ‘house’ would be linked up with God, of course; the idea of the house is clearly connected with God.
Ques Would you not say it is a family thought?
JT Just so. It stands in relation to God, although the word ‘house’ may be connected with Christ in Hebrews; but in general it is a question of God, what belongs to Him and His family. The Lord Jesus is spoken of as having children; He speaks to the disciples as children, which is a matter to be considered too; but properly the house refers to God. The universe indeed is God’s house; the whole universe may be regarded in that light.
Ques The assembly viewed in the testimonial position is composed of men and women as in Corinth; but as soon as you touch the assembly as linked with Christ in its holy, spiritual setting, it takes a feminine character throughout, does [p. 33] it not?
JT Well, I would say that. The pronouns translated by ‘it’ in Ephesians 5: 25 and 26 are feminine, so that the feminine is seen fully in the assembly. It must be understood that the feminine has to be there. “I speak as to Christ, and as to the assembly”, Paul says Ephesians 5:32. What does he mean? He means the masculine and the feminine.
Rem That is between Christ and the assembly; but when you come to the personnel that compose the assembly you have mentioned the thought of brethren and sons.
JT That has to be understood, and therefore we are addressed as intelligent persons; that is the word used. And so we know what to do and say when we come to the feminine side in the service of God.
Rem I do not think anything could be more interesting.
JT That is right. I do not know that there is anything more so and it will be so eternally.
JTJr Would 1 Peter 1:2, to which we alluded this morning, underlie what you are saying as to the feminine side? The stress is on “the obedience”. I thought that reference might be connected with the Supper, that is, the obedience of Jesus Christ and then the blood of Jesus Christ; that is, the bread and the cup. Obedience is before us in that scripture objectively, I understand, in Christ, and it is there in the Supper in both emblems.
JT It is “unto the obedience”, quite so.
JTJr And that must be before us objectively in order that we might come into it subjectively.
JT Quite so, the idea is that. It says, “Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father by sanctification of the Spirit, unto the obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ” 1 Peter 1:2. That is, it is unto that end. Do you have in your mind [p. 34] that that should be a matter kept before us, that we are sanctified to that, to His obedience?
JTJr Yes, and that the thoughts in that verse really link on with Peter’s thought as to the Supper. He does not mention it but the thoughts are there as to the Supper in that verse, are they not?
JT Quite so, I would say that. So that the Lord’s supper carries with it the idea of obedience and we are sanctified unto that. It is a very important matter as to the young people coming into fellowship.
ECT Is there a link between this idea of obedience, and that of subjection such as we get in Ephesians 5:24 as to the assembly, “even as the assembly is subjected to the Christ”? Is that a proper feminine feature?
JT I think it is; and therefore in 1 Corinthians we have headship before we have the Supper introduced, the headship of Christ to the man, then that the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God. We have the thought of subjection in the assembly before we have the Lord’s supper.
AM So also in Ephesians 5:23,24, “as also the Christ is head of the assembly. He is Saviour of the body. But even as the assembly is subjected to the Christ”. Is not the feature of lovability in the assembly linked up with that? The apostle seems to work out the idea of affection from that; first of all in husbands loving their wives, and then “as the Christ also loved the assembly”.
JT Therefore I would say that on the Lord’s day, the first day of the week, we do not come to meet the Lord exactly, we come to meet the brethren. Then the next question is whether they are lovable. If the Lord is to have His part we must be concerned that we are all lovable, brothers and sisters. Therefore the first great thought is that we meet one another; we come together to meet one another and to have the Lord’s supper. But then if it is to be [p. 35] His supper there must be subjection, and then lovability will develop according to that.
P Speaking of lovability, Psalm 45:11 says, “And the king will desire thy beauty; for he is thy Lord, and worship thou him”. It is an assembly thought.
JT Very good; so that it is a question whether we are lovable when we come together. If the Lord is to come — because we expect Him to come — what does He come to? He comes to what is attractive. We are to be attractive and therefore the thought of love must come in. It is a time of love; the Lord’s supper is a time of love. There must be attractiveness for love; the full thought of love will work out with attractiveness.
AR So in Ephesians 5 you get subjection before you get love.
JT That is good.
Rem It speaks in Isaiah of the bride adorning herself with her jewels. That would be a concern to appear as lovable, would it not? The bridegroom decks himself with a priestly turban; he is brought forward as the example of a man who is clothed with salvation; but the bride adorns herself with her jewels.
JT “Priestly turban” is a good expression and it works out in the mind in the full thought of the priesthood in Exodus. We are constituted priests unto Jehovah, but the main thought is the priesthood of Christ.
Ques If the Lord’s supper involves family conditions, which I think you remarked, what is the character of the service of the one who gives thanks for the emblems? Does it partake somewhat of the house-father’s service?
JT I would think so, only I think it ought to arise where love exists. It is a love circle and the Lord comes to that. Psalm 19 contemplates His coming; it is a love circle He comes to. There you [p. 36] get all the thoughts the Lord has in His heart; and so what is in mind when we come together is a love circle, we love one another. It comes out immediately we sit down together. We love one another and we are attractive to one another and the Lord is saying when He comes, ‘I will come to that’. He is honouring that. It is a love time. But then, who is to serve? Well, I would say it is a question of the thing having to be done and of who can do it. Let it be seen that the person who does it is qualified to do it; it is a time of service; of course, somebody has to do it, but the person will soon show whether he is qualified to do it.
AB Would that have a bearing on what you were saying, that it is not so much the abstract position but the reality that love exists among us?
JT Love among yourselves, just so. “By this shall all know that ye are disciples of mine, if ye have love” not ‘in yourselves’ but “amongst yourselves”. That is the word in John 13:35.
ANW What does the idea of the house-father convey?
JT I do not think it refers to the assembly properly. It is a quotation from Mr. Darby, a comment on the position at Emmaus.
Ques Do you think that one really serving in love on such an occasion would carry every element of love among the saints with him?
JT I think so, it is the love time and it is a question of heaven. Heaven is looking on and the Lord is coming. He has a right to move as He pleases. That is a cardinal thought about Christ, that He can move as He pleases. We are not to wake Him up until He please, and so when He comes He pleases to come. We want to be sure there is something for Him to come for, that there is that in us which He [p. 37] loves.
CT Would the thought in Luke in regard to the passover, “Go and prepare”, be in line with that?
JT The Lord was thinking of what would be suitable and then He gives guidance as to a certain person. Who that person is we do not know, but he is bearing a pitcher of water and they follow him into the house where he goes. They say to the good-man of the house, “Where is the guest-chamber where I may eat the passover with my disciples?”. And the Lord says, “He will shew you a large upper room furnished” Luke 22:11,12. Everything is ready, that is the idea.
Ques Would Luke’s account encourage us to look for a specific touch at the Supper? There seems to be a narrowly converging circle of time: “the feast of unleavened bread … drew nigh”, and “the day … came”, and “when the hour was come”. Would it encourage us to look for the particular touch that the Lord only can give?
JT Just so. And then another thing is the place: “He placed himself at table”. Sometimes we think of where such and such a one should sit, and it is quite right too. There is a seat for every brother; it is a question of right; the dignity of the brethren requires it, so that each is in his place. It says of the Lord, “He placed himself at table, and the twelve apostles with him” Luke 22:14, not ‘disciples’. The authority of the Lord is involved in that. The twelve apostles are with Him.
SMcC Paul says to the Corinthians, “Now I shall most gladly spend and be utterly spent for your souls, if even in abundantly loving you I should be less loved” 2 Corinthians 12:15. If you sat down with him in Corinth, you certainly would have the impression that he was fitted to break the bread, to give thanks.
JT Quite so.
Rem He says, “For I received from the Lord,
[p. 38] that which I also delivered to you”. 1 Corinthians 11:23. He would qualify in serving in that way, would he not?
JT He would indeed. And he did not want to come until certain things were done, that is another thing. The Lord will not come either until certain things are done.
AAT Who was the master of the house into which the man with the pitcher of water entered in Luke?
JT He is the man who is in charge; he is the man who is in the house. I think it would work out very largely into what we have been saying as to the Spirit of God.
Rem I have enjoyed the thought that the Lord speaks of the Holy Spirit in such a beautiful way as in charge of the guest-chamber, and He was to be spoken to in order to find it.
JT Your implied thought then is that the Spirit of God is the Master? Quite so. It is very good to have it in our minds the authority that is vested in the Spirit of God.