CHRISTIANITY AS SUPERSEDING JUDAISM
[p. 202] CHRISTIANITY AS SUPERSEDING JUDAISM
Acts 7: 54 - 60; Acts 11: 19 - 26; Acts 13: 1 - 13
JT The ministry of Paul and Barnabas is in mind in these scriptures, showing how Judaism is about to disappear, especially because it had refused the testimony of Stephen to Christ; and then, in general, it was because apostasy from the truth of Christianity already testified to by the twelve had begun; and then politically it was because murder appeared against the ministry, for Herod had slain James with the sword, and had already put Peter in prison, and would have slain him, too. Then in the evident purpose of God it was designed that Christianity should get its own name and character as devoid of Jewish terms, as in “the covenant” and such expressions. Hence “the disciples were first called Christians” here, and then there is the selection of Paul, in view of the divine counsels for him, particularly that he should complete the word of God. Thus we see the manifest rise of his personality, called by the Lord Himself “an elect vessel” unto Him; Acts 9: 15. The time, too, had come for a revival, as well as an assertion of its distinctiveness as from heaven. Paul presents the heavenly side of the truth, and Barnabas was evidently called to be with him; and as commissioned by the Spirit they were seen in Antioch. They began ministering there, and it lasted for a year, the assembly being designated as the place of it; a large crowd became merged through their ministry, and became the assembly in Antioch. So that the Gentiles are in mind, and it is hoped we may see that it was all necessary and effective. We have thus come in; Judaism has gone, unless for a few outward things. At the same time the purpose of God stands, according to Romans, as Paul says, “and so all Israel shall be saved”, Romans 11: 26. We have here, in these scriptures, the death of Herod, as representing the corrupt state of that section of the world; and then we have Bar-jesus in chapter 13, pointing to the religious side, and described in the most positive terms as being wicked and of the devil. So that what is stated of Christianity synchronises with this, as it is said (1 Thessalonians 2: 16), “but wrath has come upon them to the uttermost”, the service of God, however, is to go on in the assembly.
PL The enemy’s yoke was to be destroyed from Israel because of the anointing, in the prophet Isaiah.
JT Where is the passage?
PL In Isaiah 10: 27; it is somewhat akin to Herod?
JT Let us read it, “And it shall come to pass in that day, that his burden shall be taken away from off thy shoulder, and his yoke from off thy neck; and the yoke shall be destroyed because of the anointing ...”; a helpful reference. The epistle of Galatians helps, too, by the apostle denouncing their turning aside, “how do ye turn again to the weak and beggarly principles to which ye desire to be again anew in bondage?” (Galatians 4: 9), as having been delivered because of the Spirit and having received Him; the testimony being that “The just shall live on the principle of faith” (Galatians 3: 11), otherwise it is judgment.
Rem He uses strong language!
JT It is the same as in Genesis 15, where we have the word of God as it is now, and the Holy Spirit in our hearts. The word of God came to Abram, and the first thing is, “Fear not”, which is a word for us all, because there is much to fear if we are relying on ourselves, but not if we are relying on God.
Ques Why does Stephen speak of Jehovah as “the God of glory”, Acts 7: [p. 204] 2?
JT He began with that himself, for they “saw his face as the face of an angel”; that is why I began with Stephen, the great martyr, and that his words should be before us, “And hearing these things they were cut to the heart, and gnashed their teeth against him. But being full of the Holy Spirit, having fixed his eyes on heaven, he saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God, and said, Lo, I behold the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God. And they cried out with a loud voice, and held their ears, and rushed upon him with one accord; and having cast him out of the city, they stoned him. And the witnesses laid aside their clothes at the feet of a young man called Saul. And they stoned Stephen, praying, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. And kneeling down, he cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And having said this, he fell asleep”. The time had come that this sin should not be laid to their charge. The solemn truth of the death of Stephen is taken up, and Paul and Barnabas came forward.
PL Does the mission of the servant of Abraham following the death of Sarah come in here?
JT The death of Sarah certainly applies and Isaac, I think, as a man of leisure, not of toil. The death of Sarah would point to the moral death of Israel alluded to in Ezekiel 37, where the dry bones are seen coming up clothed in the power of prophecy; they are “an exceeding great army ... these bones are the whole house of Israel”, Ezekiel 37: 10, 11. They are held in abeyance now, Sarah’s death held till then, and it comes out in Paul’s ministry; Barnabas had a part in it, too. The truth of the Lord’s supper comes in for us at this juncture as witness the apostles in Acts 2, who had the breaking of bread, and the converts persevering “in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles, in breaking of bread and prayers” (Acts 2: 42); and also there is the breaking bread in the house (verse 46), not in the temple, for it was never connected with that, never therefore with Judaism. We may have used the terms, but as Paul presents it the breaking of bread was never calculated to remain in the house, but to be in connection with the assembly; it was not for the ordinary house of the believer, he had only to eat and to drink in it; it is not for celebrating the Lord’s supper; that is celebrated in the assembly, and all the terms attached to it are there, as delivered to Paul.
Rem We should get free from Jewish terms such as the covenant.
JT Yes; we do not get them in Colossians or Ephesians; the terms proper to it do not include the covenant. The term ‘covenant’ is found in connection with the Lord’s supper, but it is the Spirit we want, not the letter.
Rem One desires to see the saints enjoying this liberty.
JT I do, indeed.
Rem It is “the new covenant in my blood”, 1 Corinthians 11: 25.
JT He uses that beautiful expression in 1 Corinthians, in the law of the house, and in 2 Corinthians we regard it, too, as the word of the law-giver, making way for the reception of the Spirit in the wilderness, “Rise up, well! sing unto it”, Numbers 21: 17.
PL Is that the law of the house?
JT I thought of that; so that those that saw Him go up, went to the upper room in Acts 1, not to the temple (that was from Bethany in Luke 24 and they were “in the temple praising and blessing God”), but the “upper chamber” housed the assembly; the names are given, and the Lord’s mother and His brethren are all there.
Ques In Romans 16 Paul says, “Salute Prisca and Aquila ... and the assembly at their house“
([p. 206] verses 3 - 5). Would a house be a suitable meeting-room today?
JT From 1 Corinthians 11: 22 it is clear that houses are for “eating and drinking”, but if one has to be used for a meeting-room, that is quite suitable.
Ques Has the taking of the Lord’s supper a heavenly character?
JT Yes; it is associated with the assembly, and she has a heavenly character. So we have this section before us in which Paul is so prominent; it is because of what he is morally; hence we have later “Paul and his company”.
Ques What features would we see in Barnabas?
JT I think he was knighted by the apostles peculiarly, especially in chapter 4: 36 and he had the place of an apostle; but this means on moral grounds, like the heavenly city, where all is on moral lines in the power of the Spirit.
Ques Why is Paul so authoritative in the laying out of the Lord’s supper, and to such a company as at Corinth?
JT He was alone equal to it, and no one was so recognised as such, as Paul. He never fails. That is the only way I think of it. The Lord had this man, the man He needed; He had, in a way, waited for him. In the first treatise of Luke the Lord goes up immediately, as if hastening to take on the administrative service, but the second treatise gives a delay of forty days; and why was it Paul was used? Well, because he was “an elect vessel to me”, the Lord says; no one else is so designated. And so you see more about directions and commandments with him than with any one, as in 1 Corinthians 11: 16, “We have no such custom, nor the assemblies of God”; that shows how authoritative he is.
Ques Have we to be governed by Paul’s presentation of the Supper?
JT Yes; his is the last word we have, and thus [p. 207] carries authority. It eliminates much that is given in the gospels, and adds the idea of the memorial to the cup, which is not found in the gospel account.
HFN Why does Paul introduce the double idea of the memorial, “in remembrance of me” twice?
JT It has often been said that it is a question of the mind more than the heart, “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. It is the thought of “calling of me to mind”; the Darby Translation has the more accurate thought; the mind is to be more active than the heart. There is an action in the “calling of me to mind”; some active thing in the mind; He is called into the mind.
Rem So Paul says, “I speak as to intelligent persons”, 1 Corinthians 10: 15.
JT Just so; it is not that I can remember things, but it is that the Lord Himself is called into the mind, and He comes in; He seizes the opportunity to come.
Ques Does He come in response to love?
JT It would be so, but we must remember the mind; so Paul says, “But we have the mind of Christ” (1 Corinthians 2: 16); it is not simply an event called to mind, but the thinking faculty of Christ.
Rem Our thoughts are to be on the Person.
JT Just that. The mind is conducted to the Person.
PHH Bar-jesus, and such, would deflect us.
JT You mean the devil was in it.
PHH He is called “a Jew”; would that imply the danger of going back to Jewish thoughts?
JT So Paul uses terrible words, “O full of all deceit and all craft: son of the devil, enemy of all righteousness”.
Rem In view of this the action of John Mark (verse 13) was more serious.
JT Yes, and he look a long time to get clear of it.
Ques I would like to ask about the reference to the new covenant in 1 Corinthians 11: 25, and then what Paul says in 2 Corinthians 3: 6, “God; who has also made us competent, as ministers of the new covenant; not of letter, but of spirit”.
JT I have already said there is no covenant made with the assembly; the words are there, but it is in the spirit of it; even in the millennium it will be liberating. We have title to take on anything from the millennium; but is there any need? Certainly not, if you go to Colossians and Ephesians you have enough without them. Let us not say we have the covenant; so it says here, “For the letter kills, but the Spirit quickens”; therefore the cup should afford much in the way of liberation.
Ques So would the cup have in mind the earthly side of Christianity?
JT Yes, I would say that; especially where there are children.
Rem So verse 17 is, “Now the Lord is the Spirit, but where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty”.
JT Yes.
Ques Has the remembrance of the Lord in the cup in mind His relations with the assembly?
JT Yes, and especially for the young people to be helped by the term ‘new covenant’, but we have the spirit of it, we speak of it. The Lord is the Spirit of it in His supper. It was never made with the assembly, but with Israel and Judah. We need to accept it in its own value.
[p. 209] Ques Do we happily accept our links with Christ in taking the emblems?
JT Yes, but it is in drinking the cup, and in the giving thanks; it is this that is meant to liberate us. When He did it, how liberating it was! It had its own value.
PL Luke only gives the remembrance in the loaf.
JT He only of the gospel writers brings in the idea. Matthew and Mark both have a Jewish bearing, and the idea is liberation; it says, “and having sung a hymn” (Matthew 26: 30 and Mark 14: 26); it does not say specifically that He did it. So that the Supper is our charter, I was going to say. In John 20 the Lord says, “Mary”; she says, “Rabboni” that word liberated her, she is subject to teaching, and that is what is needed amongst us, teaching as to the Lord’s supper.
Ques It says in 1 Corinthians 11: 25, “This cup is the new covenant”. Does the cup therefore enter into the enjoyment of the covenant?
JT Yes; and it is “as often as ye shall drink it”; it is not the eating. But we are dependent on the act of drinking; it means satisfaction, especially as to what is spiritual. Then Matthew 26: 27 says, “Drink ye all of it”, so that it is for each one; whereas 1 Corinthians 11: 25 is, “as often as ye shall drink it”, it is as a memorial, ‘a calling of Me to mind’, a happy condition. There is the dual character of the Supper, and the cup is the second part of it. The drinking is in mind as adding to what is done, and calls forth satisfaction. So that it is the Lord personally that is before us.
Ques Do the hymns therefore following the Supper recognise the Lord as amongst us?
JT Yes; they need to be very carefully selected not to mar what is already done.
PHH Is “as often as ye shall drink it” in view of separating the cup from the covenant [p. 210] in the Old Testament by the frequency of the drinking in Christianity?
JT Just so, and another thing is said of the cup, that it is “after having supped”, it is very carefully separated from the passover, it means the passover meal was over; so that this is the second part of the Supper, and the stress is on the frequency of it, and there is joy every time.
Ques Why are the words “This is my body, which is for you” used, whereas in the cup “for you” is not there?
JT I think the “for you” is to be kept in view as a formula for the whole Supper, and the breaking of the bread is the main thought, a most influential thought. The Lord would keep us happy and sustain us in the second feature of the Supper; it points to the supply of the Spirit, as needed in the continuance of the service.
HFN Would there be more liberty in speaking of the loaf than of the cup?
JT I do not find any difficulty.
HFN It seems all the brethren are not like that. Can you not help us?
JT The Holy Spirit is there as we sit down, “being assembled”, it says, as if that is intended to have weight and to add character to the occasion, and the Holy Spirit has to be in mind, too.
Rem In Genesis 24: 65 the servant says, “That is my master!”
JT And another thing in that type is that Isaac sees the camels coming, as if we could say to one another, ‘that is the power that is carrying us’; we are apt to forget that, and the Holy Spirit comes to our aid, and helps as to our weakness. The Lord is thinking of what is carrying us in the memorials, and especially as we proceed after the Lord’s supper.
Ques Do we see this in Song of Songs 2: 4, 5, where [p. 211] we are brought to the house of wine, and sustained with raisin-cakes and refreshed with apples?
JT Well, yes; raisin-cakes speak of stimulation.
Ques Why does Rebecca spring off the camel?
JT Because she is thinking of Isaac, and he is thinking of what is carrying her.
Rem We only think of one Person!
JT Quite so.
Rem The Spirit of God recedes so that Christ may take on the service of the sanctuary.
JT That is exactly what I have thought. So the Lord is thinking of how we are sustained.
Rem C.A.C. once said that a brother may exhaust himself in the thanksgiving for the loaf, so there is nothing left when he comes to the cup.
JT Yes; we have said that, too.
Ques Does what we are all the week affect us in coming to the Supper?
JT Exactly.
Rem Rebecca had already served the camels with water; Genesis 24: 19.
JT Think of how much water was needed for them, and she rode on them, too.
Rem The Holy Spirit Himself is speaking in Acts 13: 2.
JT We should say the Holy Spirit is prominent both in this chapter, and in chapter 10. In Acts 13: 2 it reads, “the Holy Spirit said, Separate me now Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them”. We know what missionary work there has been, which He has never supported. The results in Asia have never justified it. But Paul’s ministry comes into view to give us the best.
Ques How does the Spirit speak today?
JT Some person is taken up as a medium. It is when He is recognised, and that is what the type means as to the camels. Isaac was looking for them, what was carrying his spouse, and in Revelation 21 [p. 212] we can see how much power is needed, for the city is seen “coming down out of the heaven from God, having the glory of God” (verse 10).
Rem The presence of the prophets and teachers at Antioch in Acts 13: 1 enables the Spirit to speak.
JT Just so; the prophetic speaking runs through, “but rather that ye may prophesy”, 1 Corinthians 14: 1.