THE LORD'S COMING TO HIS OWN AS SEEN IN THE FOUR GOSPELS (3)
THE LORD’S COMING TO HIS OWN AS SEEN IN THE FOUR GOSPELS (3)
Luke 24: 33 - 53; Acts 1: 1 - 5
JT It seems as if we should continue to look at Luke as bearing on our subject, that is, the Lord coming to His own as presented in the four gospels and in the Acts. His coming to them after He arose and before His ascension happened in a corporeal sense; He actually came to them, as Luke says in the Acts, “To whom also he presented himself living, after he had suffered, with many proofs” (Acts 1: 3); so that many infallible proofs marked all the activities of the Lord in the forty days. Luke is singular in that in his gospel he makes no allusion to the forty days, but he does so in the Acts; the other gospels say nothing as to the actual time involved before His ascension after He arose though they all indicate that some time elapsed. Matthew does not mention the ascension at all, so that we have to keep in mind that according to Matthew the Lord is here in some sense with us, as He says, “all the days”. John does not formally state that He ascended; however, he mentions, without specifying time or circumstances, that the Lord said, “I ascend”. Mark and Luke are definitely specific, Luke saying that He was carried up into heaven and Mark that He was taken up.
It is thought that we should see the meaning of Luke’s allusion to time in the first day after He arose and before His ascension because it is as if the Spirit would suggest that there was haste in reaching heaven, that actual dispensational operations could not begin until He reached that position, and that everything should issue from heaven so that there should be no delay in reaching that point. Hence this chapter leaves us with the impression that the Lord was very active on the first day, and that He finished and went [p. 431] up to heaven to carry on the mediatorial work. All this must have some bearing on assembly service in relation to the Lord’s supper, intimating that we should proceed immediately to break bread on the first day of the week, as is stated by Luke in Acts 20: 7, “And the first day of the week, we being assembled to break bread”. That is what we come together for, and what is now before us links with what we had on the past afternoon, the actual breaking of the bread at Emmaus. It was not the Lord’s supper because there is no cup mentioned; it was therefore a household matter so far, only preparatory to the assembly position. So that we leave our houses ready for the great occasion in the assembly when the Supper is to be celebrated, for it belongs to the assembly; the Lord’s supper cannot be apart from the assembly.
CHH What is the thought in Acts where it speaks of breaking bread household-wise?
JT I think that it would be that it was already detached from the idea of the temple. The temple was still owned in Jerusalem as the public centre of divine service, but the Lord’s supper was not to come into that setting; it belongs to the christian position and I believe the things that happened at that time would indicate that. It took the character of a household matter at first; they broke bread from house to house, but it was just the house in contrast to a religious building; I think that is how the matter stands. It was a transitional period, showing the compassions of God as lingering over the Jews. The Lord went up from Bethany, which is the remnant position, and the disciples are immediately linked with the temple in the gospel, but in Acts it is not mentioned.
JWD Regarding reaching heaven quickly in Luke, at the breaking of bread there is power for it because in christianity there is power [p. 432] resident in the system in view of divine operations commencing without delay.
JT You mean that this chapter indicates that the system is already there in that the saints are dwelling together? The two coming from Emmaus were in keeping with the spirit of the new system because they ignored the temple but found the eleven and those with them gathered together. It is a new departure that took place fully at Pentecost as the Spirit came down.
LES Would Leviticus 23 help as to the wave-loaves referred to as brought out of their dwellings?
JT That helps. It was a question of what there was in the house of the offerer and the house at Emmaus was not far from that idea. It was at least regarded by the Lord as suitable to bring in the thought of the breaking of the bread and thus to show Himself to them; one of them evidently owned that house although he did not stay there. In the Acts you have the word, “And every day, being constantly in the temple with one accord, and breaking bread in the house”; it is literally ‘house’ without the article as showing that it was characteristic, that it was not in the temple. They were still carrying on in the temple but breaking bread in the house.
RRT Do you think that the breaking of bread in Acts 2 included the cup?
JT I think so. There was already a formula for the Lord’s supper as recorded by Luke, Mark and Matthew, because in truth the Lord’s supper has a dual character; it is a double testimony from Him to us and we could hardly have the full thought without the cup.
JD The breaking of bread in Acts before the conversion of Paul was in connection with a transitional position of the remnant; it is taken up in a new way as the Pauline side [p. 433] is developed.
JT That is good. Paul intimates that the breaking of bread should be in assembly, “when ye come together in assembly”, 1 Corinthians 11: 18. He is speaking of their not coming together properly but still it was the place for the Lord’s supper. In subsequent history the Lord’s supper was beclouded for a time, indeed until the Reformation; Rome had limitations on the cup; they still do not give both emblems to the laity. Then opposite thoughts were introduced and the laity were allowed to take the cup, but the reformers failed in the truth of it. So that the truth of the Lord’s supper has really been lost to the public assembly in its true sense until the later days of the revival. The reformers did not see the idea of it, Calvin had the right thought, and Zwingli too, but I do not know as to Luther. In any event it was allowed to go on as it was until God moved with Mr. Darby, and so we have the Supper as it is understood today. As you say, it was a transitional period from Acts 2 until Paul took up the matter, then the whole position was strengthened. Paul received it from the Lord by a special word, and though we can recognise an identity with the synoptical gospels where certain limitations are suggested, yet this is a wonderful outgoing of the thought, and so the cup is linked with the memorial.
CHH So that in order to break bread the houses from which we come are to be governed by 1 Corinthians 11 as we come together in assembly.
Rem The assembly seems to be the sole object that God is working to in His thoughts.
JT Clearly; the reference to the truth of the Lord’s supper would bear that out. So the completion of the word of God is left to Paul, involving the Lord’s supper as set out in 1 Corinthians.
JWD While Paul completes the word of God would you not say that the household, as maintaining the passover, is maintained as divine territory in relation to the Lord’s supper? I was thinking that it is of the utmost importance in the household setting to be marked by spirituality preceding the Lord’s supper.
JT Yes. How do you connect the passover with the house?
JWD The passover was primarily a household matter although later linked up with the feasts.
JT Yes, the house is stressed in Exodus 12 as the place where it should be held. As the blood of the passover lamb was on the lintel the house was saved, and Israel’s children were to be told that the houses were delivered in this manner. The question is whether the truth is really reached until the coming of Paul, but another thing comes out in that regard, that the passover in Corinthians is considered in the order of the epistle before the Lord’s supper. The Lord’s supper is really detached from it in a sense because the passover is in chapter 5 and the Lord’s supper in chapter 11. So there is a slight clarification of the position from the old system in relation to the passover in that its relation to the Lord’s supper is purely moral, whereas the actual inauguration of it by the Lord Himself was an outflow of the passover. The Lord came together with the disciples to eat the passover but while eating it the Supper was instituted; 1 Corinthians does not carry forward that thought.
JWD The Lord’s supper is then definitely apart from the passover.
JT The passover has its place but only in a typical sense.
Rem The Lord’s supper belongs to the assembly exclusively.
JT That is the setting as Paul brings it out; he takes it as set up in the synoptic gospels but makes additions as to what he received from the Lord in heaven, one feature being that the cup is part of the memorial. Formerly the loaf was a memorial just [p. 435] by itself, although it is never viewed separately after Luke 24, so we must always connect the two elements when referring to the Lord’s supper.
JD The reference to the passover in chapter 5 is connected with a case of discipline. We need to come to the Lord’s supper as having dealt with moral things in passover conditions.
JT That is good, “Let us celebrate the feast”, the apostle says. There is the abstract idea in chapter 5, “according as ye are unleavened”, and unless we have the abstract idea we can hardly get on, “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” (verses 7, 8). Those are two concrete ideas and you can see how they materialise. Now the bread and the cup in the Lord’s supper are material; we must never fail to make them material, so that we start with the bread and the cup.
JD The way the apostle brings in, “For also our passover, Christ, has been sacrificed” would touch their affections and lead them to deal with the wicked person among them.
JT The very feeling that what was going on amongst them caused Christ suffering would touch their affections.
Ques Is the passover more individual and the Lord’s supper in assembly?
JT The passover in the New Testament is purely antitypical and is carried forward to the point where the bread is called “unleavened bread of sincerity and truth”, 1 Corinthians 5: 8. Those are christian qualities.
Rem In order to partake of the Lord’s supper I must maintain this feast.
JT Sincerity and truth should be maintained with us every day in our walk; if they are not with us how can we rightly take up the emblems of the Lord’[p. 436] s supper?
LES What do you say about the passover being distinct from the Supper in Luke 22?
JT Well, the Lord said there that He would drink no more of the fruit of the vine, meaning that that would be the last passover He would partake of; the scene is clearly the actual passover feast, but that is no longer a matter for the christian although it was allowed to continue in grace and mercy. But it gradually disappeared, the Spirit of God forcing out the idea of it; light forces out judaism.
Rem In Luke 22 it says, “With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer”.
JT Yes, “this” would refer to that last one, because He Himself was to be the passover, but He instituted something which was to be carried forward into christianity, two so-called sacraments of a material nature. That is, material things are brought down to us in such a simple way that no one can build up a system from them, these being the only two sacraments found in the christian system. The Roman Catholics materialise them to such an extent that they claim they are the actual body and blood of the Lord Jesus, a terrible way of presenting the matter, showing that the devil has a hand in it. But the Lord would have us attentive to Scripture and having our minds governed by it.
JWD The Spirit forces out the idea of connecting such thoughts with the bread and cup.
JT The Spirit having His place with us would expunge such ideas. His presence is a cardinal idea amongst us. Not only does Scripture expose these erroneous thoughts but it forces them out. The King James version originally included the apocrypha, for example, and the Roman Catholics canonised it at the Council of Trent, but the Spirit of God emphasised the truth and eventually forced out the error until you hardly get a christian worthy of the name today that recognises the canonising of the apocrypha. So the [p. 437] Spirit of God having His place, if only with a few, will rebuke what is not of God; and how can we but call attention to these things? Why should they be ignored?
Ques If the blood is still in the body, how could you have the thought of both?
JT Showing how false the whole thing is — bringing in the body and blood of Jesus and His deity left out! How terrible it is! But how important it is that we maintain the Supper as given by Paul!
Ques Is there any significance in the fact that in 1 Corinthians 5 Mr. Darby’s translation puts the word ‘bread’ as if it could be left out?
JT Well, the meaning is clear enough, it is what is unleavened, “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” (verse 8). The word ‘bread’ is added to make it intelligible, and I would take it that it is quite right there.
Rem It is not the material thought that is in mind.
JT Quite so; “bread of sincerity and truth” is what is meant; you can see how it applies there.
Ques Is that the loaf on the table at the Lord’s supper?
JT It is a question of what you have in your heart and carry with you all the time.
AB In the mind of the Lord the occasion in Luke 22 would be the last one at which the material side of the passover was kept; the material side is now being carried to the Supper.
JT That is the idea; so all these thoughts grow out of the consideration of this chapter and the use of only the loaf at Emmaus. As the brethren will note, in verse 35 there is a note to ‘bread’ which says, ‘Or “the loaf”; also verse 30’, indicating that it was not cut or sliced bread such as is sometimes used in the Lord’s supper and which the official element insists on. It is bread, as evidenced from all records, but it is the idea of the whole thing, not part of a loaf; “All the members of the body, being many, are one body, so also is the Christ”, 1 Corinthians 12: 12.
Ques If the bread is cut, how can we break bread?
JT In the systems they cut the bread into small pieces, showing how the devil is active in the matter in some way and emphasising the great urgency with us to hold to the fact of the Spirit being here and to all that He has given for assembly service.
Ques In verse 33 it says, “And they found the eleven, and those with them, gathered together”. What is meant by “those with them”?
JT That would bear out what we were saying yesterday as to the composition of the assembly requiring sisters. We cannot limit the idea of the assembly to brothers only; the Spirit of God would bring before us that sisters are essential to the position.
What is to be in mind now is that the two from Emmaus “returned to Jerusalem. And they found the eleven, and those with them, gathered together”. We cannot say how many there were; if we went by Acts 1 we would say one hundred and twenty, which would probably be the number present when the Spirit came, but the idea of the public assembly is maintained here. We have the actual physical position and what the persons were saying.
Rem So the Lord is the Lord in the house preparatory to being seen in the assembly.
JT That the Lord took the journey to Emmaus is the grace side, and that side is to be always in mind; we are to bear with one another. What He did at Emmaus was to overlook the condition of [p. 439] those on the way from Jerusalem and He is saying to us by His action, You may criticise, but still a great deal has come from those two; what I had was not the Lord’s supper but I fitted in with their side at the time; much was overlooked but the matter was successful because they went back to where the eleven were gathered together and where the breaking of bread was. So that I think that whereas in the earlier years of the revival much grace had to be shown to the brethren there is a great deal more light today as to assembly truth and the Lord’s supper; much grace was shown, for example, as to who was recognised as in fellowship. As to actual facts of history many were breaking bread one hundred and ten or one hundred and fifteen years ago in this country and Ireland and Scotland — even before Mr. Darby was used of God to bring to light fellowship in a very remarkable way.
CHH Would it be right for two or three to break bread, if spiritual, apart from any other qualifications, such as having elders?
JT Well, in Montreal things were carried on for a long time by sisters alone and undoubtedly the Lord was with them in it, they simply sat there and if a brother came along they broke bread, I think that there is nothing the Lord will not do for us.
CHH I quite agree with that. One sometimes hears that in a certain locality they have ceased to break bread because there are no elders and hence no assembly material. I would think that spiritual persons would be assembly material.
JT Of course they are. I would not hesitate about it if there was only one brother and several sisters, if they were spiritual, but if they were not it would be only a mere external thing and it would be a question of the wisdom of continuing because the Spirit is necessary.
JWD Is not a spiritual brother [p. 440] an elder?
JT An elder is designated according to Scripture as having certain characteristics. If those features are there, such as care for the saints and the assembly, there would be eldership of course.
RRT Would verse 33 be instructive, “And they found the eleven, and those with them, gathered together”? Would not sisters support things as “those with them”?
JT By all means! I know of a meeting where there were several sisters and one in particular was a godly woman and they actually disciplined the only brother there. God was in that.
RRT We are looking at this from a moral point of view, not as having the Lord physically there but with them in spirit.
JT It stresses the importance of spirituality as heaven recognises it, which implies that a person is to be trusted.
JWD Matthew 18 speaks of two of the assembly; they might be sisters.
JT Quite so.
AB Is there something in the fact that in Luke 22 the house and room are stressed in relation to the Supper but in chapter 24 only the city is mentioned, no house or room but the persons, “they found the eleven, and those with them, gathered together”?
JT I am glad you call attention to that, because it is the idea of “where the disciples were”. We were having yesterday as to the mountain in Galilee, that they were there when the Lord arrived and He recognised the place because they were there; He came to them, and spoke to them. The word ‘church’ is used to support the conception of human organisations whereas it is not scriptural; ‘assembly’ is the word, and it does not refer to a building of stone and mortar but to persons. The word ‘church’ is never used for the saints viewed collectively, the word is ‘assembly’, referring to persons called out.
AB “We being assembled to break bread”, Acts 20: 7.
JT Just so, that was at Troas in the upper room but viewed as ‘we’, in the first person.
Rem Romans 16 speaks as to Prisca and Aquila of “the assembly at their house”.
JT It was not a building of stone and mortar there.
Rem As you were saying as to Montreal, the sisters were holding the position and holding the apostles’ doctrine and if one brother went there conditions were right according to God.
JT The conditions were right so that the brother would be at home there.
Ques Is it a question of the priestly side rather than eldership or gifts?
JT Eldership is always based on the qualifications that the Spirit of God finds in a brother. Paul and Silas chose them elders, but that official side is not continued. It is questionable if offices are chosen in relation to what is there; the basic idea is the assembly. Where the breaking of bread is not continued there are no such persons as elders; for the elder, the person who takes care of the assembly, is there because the assembly is there; he is not there first, the assembly is first.
LES The assembly is referred to in Corinthians but the elders are not referred to until Philippians.
JT There is not a word about them in Corinthians, the point there is the assembly of God in Corinth.
LES It would help perhaps to see the bearing of Deuteronomy 21 as to the nearest city and the relation of the persons in that respect.
JT Yes, it bears on where the saints are and that is basic in view of what we have before us now. These men in the early part of the Acts are those under the Lord’s influence and it is a question of the [p. 442] persons not the building. In the upper room the Lord’s supper was celebrated and they were there in Acts 1 as being in assembly, not setting aside a room in the temple for the purpose because it was not now recognised as the gathering place.
CHH In Acts 20 Troas is mentioned, not the building but the city.
JT Clearly the city or place is in mind, “every place” as mentioned in 1 Corinthians 1: 2. The words ‘city’ and ‘place’ refer to what God would witness to in the midst of this world; the assembly is the candlestick, the light for others.
CHH Then it is quite right to have the breaking of bread in a place that is not necessarily a city?
JT It is a question of where the saints are; the Lord comes where they are. Sometimes we have the question of too many in one place and not enough in another place; well, the Lord recognises the brethren wisely extending their place to make room for what is needed, because it is the importance of the saints that is to be kept in mind and where they are; the Lord says, I will be there.
JD “And they found the eleven, and those with them, gathered together”. Would there be a moral touch in “gathered together”?
JT That thought is carried into Acts 2: 1, “And when the day of Pentecost was now accomplishing, they were all together in one place”. And then in the end of that chapter they were all together, they were in relation to one another which is just what ‘together’ means. Already together in mind they would now be together in body.
JD Listen to what they are saying as assembled: “The Lord is indeed risen and has appeared to Simon”.
JT They were speaking of the resurrection of Christ and that He had appeared to Simon. The two [p. 443] evidences there of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus were that He was exercising grace.
Rem What they are saying as to the Lord here might have some bearing on us in relation to conversing about the latest ministry.
JT The latest news! So there is much profit in assembly words as here, sympathetic words, “The Lord is indeed risen”. What a bit of news that was! — the news that He was exercising grace as risen, not judgment. He Himself had appeared to Simon, His activities were to go after the erring ones and bring them back. We are not told here what He was doing with Simon, yet how much is said amongst us about cases of discipline; much more than about the resurrection! They become table talk, but the real thought is how to get Peter back. The present time is a reign of grace and how are we going to get the erring ones back? The Lord says, I will show you, I went to Emmaus after two; they went out wrong but they came back right.
Rem The death of the Lord had made possible such a reign of grace; grace and resurrection go together here.
JT What we have here is not exactly the basis for the gospel but for recovery amongst the brethren. Persons are going back, and going back without a single grudge; the grudges and animosity are forced out.
RRT The word ‘constrain’ is not here. The Lord answers the conditions and comes into their midst.
JT “And as they were saying these things, he himself stood in their midst”. This is not the word ‘came’ but ‘stood’, whereas John says He came, referring to the journey itself. The Spirit of God is not calling attention to that here so it says He stood there; there were things being said and He was there and now showed Himself. John presents the [p. 444] abstract side but Luke is saying to us, What have you there that I can come to? Are you worthy of my presence? Could I be amongst you happily?
JD His appearance was in connection with what the two said as to “how he was made known to them in the breaking of bread”.
JT Those two were in a better state than the others. The others were talking of his appearing to Simon and would leave the matter there but the Lord comes to them on the grace side and says, “Peace be unto you. But they, being confounded and being frightened, supposed they beheld a spirit”. What kind of a state is that? They were not able to analyse current conditions because they were afraid and confused and talking of His being a spirit. They were not able to look things in the face, did not know the Lord but thought of a spirit, so that it was necessary for Him to show them His hands and His feet.
LES What would the Lord’s standing involve? Is it the idea of an adjusting service being needed, whereas the idea of His coming implies higher spiritual ministry?
JT His standing presently will be in dealing with what is evil, but still as standing here there would also be an indication of something to be dealt with.
Rem We read in Genesis 18 of the Lord standing by Abraham’s tent door; is His standing in relation to His taking His place amongst us?
JT There is something in that. The word, ‘stood’ there means that He took up a position and taking up a stationary position would indicate that there was something in mind. So here, “he himself stood in their midst”, and note that it is not the midst but their midst, that is amid the persons.
JWD Do we not bring the Lord with us as coming to the Lord’s day morning meeting?
JT There is something in that. It would be in the same sense that He was with the two as He [p. 445] opened up the Scriptures to them, and you can imagine that He would be with them in spirit as they returned to Jerusalem. As they gathered together in Acts that was the point in their minds and as we do so today in some sense the Lord is there, but as the same time we must not forget that John says that He came. The idea of coming is what is especially in mind in John, not only standing in their midst.
Rem Would the word ‘stood’ indicate a spiritual location?
JT Well, yes, in the way of grace, carrying forward the priestly thought. The Lord would be standing there in grace, ready to do any service.
JD “And behold, I am with you all the days, until the completion of the age”, (Matthew 28: 20); would you carry that thought here?
JT Well, Matthew has in mind His continuity with the persons.
CHH John uses the word ‘manifest’, possibly the Lord may be with us and be awaiting an opportunity to manifest Himself.
JT Yes, and that depends upon conditions; it would be similar to what has been suggested in the two and how they came back. The Lord covered that seven-mile distance too; He was divine and risen from the dead and going heavenward; there were no limitations on Him at all; He did not have to go back from Emmaus as an ordinary person would, but still there is the idea of distance and He covers that distance. The woman in Luke 7 anointed His feet as if she had some appreciation of the fact that they carried Him, but here the suggestion is that He is in their midst and shows Himself. These two are properly amongst them and the others are not just right, but if there are two at all alive in the meeting the Lord says, I can go on in part.
AB It says, “He himself stood in their midst” — but John says, “Jesus comes, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst”. John is contemplating part with Him.
JT It is the midst in John 20. He sent His message ahead, so to speak, and I suppose the ground is covered as the message is communicated, and He is there. So 1 Corinthians 1: 1 - 9 contemplates the abstract position, involving what was effected in them from the divine side, but immediately in verse 10 we have the question of their state.
JWD Are we entitled to take up 1 Corinthians morally as connecting with what we get here in Luke?
JT Paul immediately proceeds to deal with their state and chapter 5: 11 states the abstract idea of the evil. John deals on the line of the abstract, speaking of “the midst”, a fixed position, whereas here it is “their midst”, referring to the persons there. These are important facts; the abstract idea is the pattern to deal with the concrete idea.
JD There are several abstract thoughts in regard of the assembly at Corinth such as “ye are the temple of God”.
JT So we have to take John and Luke together to get the full position. Here in Luke it is a concrete state of things because Luke is really dealing with the persons that are there including these two and Peter and the others. We know that Peter was not right; we have to go to John to find him thoroughly restored, and if we go to Mark he would tell us that they were all in a very bad state; and yet the Lord says, There is some way in which I can be there and deal with the matter.
LES Did the two give the Lord moral ground for the adjustment in relation to the whole?
JT The Lord had in mind the whole company and these two would undoubtedly be useful [p. 447] to Him.
LES Did the house of Chloe give moral ground to the apostle in Corinth?
JT As we consider the thought of moral ground we look around in the auditorium where we are now and our feelings would be, Is the Spirit of God really exposing the contents of my heart?
Rem The distance from Jerusalem to Emmaus is the same as from Emmaus to Jerusalem.
JT That would be so, but the outgoing journey is so hard!
RRT Is the concrete thought seen in the Lord’s words, “Handle me and see”?
JT That is just it. The Lord is dealing with the physical side of the matter and He asks them, “Have ye anything here to eat?”. And they had something, showing that there was some substance there, something that the Lord could appeal to.
Rem The two that came back were in the good of recovery in some measure; it is a great thing to find ourselves amongst His own.
JT And the Lord is looking with complacency on them.
JWD At the Lord’s supper you would take spiritual account of what He can approve.
JT So you think of the brethren, I know a dear brother who loves to sit down before the morning meeting and see the brethren come in. I think it is right because it is a question of the persons, not of the Lord yet but of the persons; He comes to the persons, and He says to them, “Have ye anything here to eat?”. They had broiled fish and honeycomb which they gave Him, indicating that there was something the Lord could approve of; these are practical matters.
Rem Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15: 5 “that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve”. Luke speaks of two and eleven but Paul of [p. 448] twelve.
JT Paul has a much wider thought, as you would expect, and the prophetic word starts the account in the previous chapter. Then he separates the account of these appearings by the word ‘then’; he first says that He appeared to Cephas; that agrees with what we have here (the Aramaic word means the same as Peter), suggesting the real man, the church man, having some value; he is valued particularly as an assembly man. The second appearing is to the twelve, meaning that He is recognising the administrative side, and then thirdly, “he appeared to above five hundred brethren at once”, that is the order of the proceeding. That third appearing was a big matter! The Lord came to that number of brethren, not to only two or three: “Then he appeared to James”. Who was he? He was a care meeting man, a man who dealt with things; “then to all the apostles”, it does not say twelve but all of them, meaning that the idea of apostleship is stressed, persons representative of the Lord; this account takes care of every one of them, and finally He appears to Paul himself, “Last of all, as to an abortion, he appeared to me also”. He refers to himself as one born out of due time as if to show the grace that brought him in — an afterthought! The whole setting is of great value to heaven, bringing out what heaven views as the composition of the assembly.
JD Was Peter an assembly man in John 1? It says of Andrew, “He first finds his own brother Simon, and says to him, We have found the Messias (which being interpreted is Christ). And he led him to Jesus. Jesus looking at him said, Thou art Simon, the son of Jonas; thou shalt be called Cephas (which interpreted is stone)”.
JWD As the Lord looked at Peter He would have the assembly in mind.
JT Peter is hampered with human thoughts which would have to be adjusted in grace but [p. 449] abstractly he is already Cephas. The Lord calls him Peter in Matthew which would be the Greek word, whilst the Aramaic is used in John, but they both mean the same; looking on Peter in that way He immediately sees something that can be trusted.
Ques The Lord leads them out to Bethany; He measures the distance. We have been speaking of moral conditions and the Lord bringing Himself in. Is the distance measured in our spirits?
JT Leading them to Bethany is a measured matter. Bethany suggesting a setting on the earth; we are led by the Lord, and He ever leads us on.