THE FULNESS (5)
[p. 217] THE FULNESS (5)
Exodus 4: 22, 23; Exodus 28:1-4; Exodus 28:40 - 43; Malachi 3: 16 - 18
JT What is in mind is to show that these Old Testament scriptures, connected with the New Testament, bring out that sonship is the primary thought of God in view of His being served, and that is the abiding thought. So we have it at the outset in the ministerial book of Exodus, and then we have it in the last book of the Old Testament, for Jehovah says that all those that serve Him “shall be unto me a peculiar treasure ... and I will spare them as a man spareth his own son that serveth him”.
But in view of conditions in which the service of God is carried on provisionally, that is the conditions in which we are now, priesthood comes in, priesthood representing what is needed to meet these conditions, and to protect what is of God, so as to maintain the service in holiness. As these conditions come to an end, as they will in our perfected state in heavenly glory, there will be no need for the priesthood, for it is a provisional thing. What will abide as before God is sonship, the saints in that relation. So that at the end of the Old Testament period God Himself speaks of His son that serves Him, using the figure of a man sparing his son that serveth him, his own son indeed.
What suggest themselves in this connection are the prophetic statements of Scripture relative to the saints in relation to God’s service, especially in assembly, such as “Ye are Christ’s body, and members in particular” (1 Corinthians 12: 27) and then “a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ”, 1 Peter 2: 5. Then again, “Ye are all God’s sons by faith in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3: 26), and “Because ye are sons, God has sent out the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father”, Galatians 4: 6. These scriptures in [p. 218] the New Testament correspond with what we have in the Old, reminding the saints of what they are, what we are as the body of Christ, as at the Lord’s supper, “We, being many, are one loaf”, partakers of that one bread. Then we are a holy priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices unto God. We are, as Galatians states, sons of God, and have the spirit of adoption whereby we cry, Abba, Father. These scriptures I hope will serve as a basis for our reading.
JD With reference to the thought of priesthood not going into the eternal state, I think you remarked last year on the absence of reference to the ephod in regard to David in the end of 1 Chronicles; that it is not said that he was robed in an ephod as he was in his younger days, in chapter 15. The ephod is absent. Is that the difference between priesthood and sonship?
JT I think that is right. What helps too, is that the glory coming into the temple prevented the priests serving, the priest could not serve or minister, not that the persons are not retained, but the office is not needed. The persons remain and are represented in the materials of the temple such as the different woods and metals. These typify the saints according to their abiding relation.
GJB Are there not priests forever according to the order of Melchisedec?
JT That alludes to Christ. We are not priests according to the order of Melchisedec. We are priests according to the function in which we serve as typified in Aaronic functions. The Melchisedec priesthood belongs wholly to Christ as far as Scripture records.
JD I think you would help us if you would say a few words on Romans 6 and 7 as to how that man arrived at the conclusion that he would serve with his mind God’s [p. 219] law.
JT I am glad you bring in Romans, because it is the initial epistle in which every young christian should be instructed, and among many other things it touches priesthood, the elements of it. The initial element of it is seen in the reference to the Lord Jesus marked out Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by resurrection of the dead. That element develops into priesthood in the body of the epistle, and it begins in the believer reckoning himself dead to sin, but alive unto God in Christ Jesus, and using his members as instruments of righteousness unto God, and in proceeding thus, he has his fruit unto holiness. That is, the believer arrives at that and the end is everlasting life.
But we are speaking now of priesthood and the link is with holiness. Then in chapter 7 we are told that we are to serve in newness of spirit, not in oldness of the letter. That is, in serving God it is a new thing, and it is new in the spirit of it. What is current today in christendom is not that at all, but a reversion to an Old Testament state of things involving something of paganism. What is called the service of God publicly is a hopeless mixture. The saints should understand that what is seen throughout christendom today is a hopeless mixture and certainly not new. It is as old as humanity. It is the religion that in principle appeals to man in the flesh, not that there are not christians in it, but the Lord seeks to extricate the real from it. “I stand at the door and am knocking”, Revelation 3: 20. So Romans says we are to serve in newness of spirit, not in the oldness of the letter, not in regard to the old form of service that was established at Jerusalem and extended back to the wilderness of Sinai.
In Romans 7: 25 the apostle also says, “I myself with the mind serve God’s law”. He reaches that through an experimental process. The flesh will serve the law of sin, it can do nothing else, but he [p. 220] had reached the point where he served God’s law with his mind. I believe he had found his feet as a priest, so that God is before him. Then in chapter 8 the Spirit comes in: the Spirit is life in view of righteousness, but the body is dead on account of sin. That is, one comes to that point, that the body is no longer available to sin, and the Holy Spirit in it is life. In chapter 12 the believer presents his body a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is his intelligent service. That is priesthood, I think, briefly, as told us in Romans. The term priesthood is used in relation to the Jewish christians, but its meaning is clear enough.
When we come to these scriptures we see that priesthood is not a primary thought, but sonship is. The message to Pharaoh is not, ‘Let my priest go’, but “Let my son go, that he may serve me”, as in the wilderness. We have in these scriptures in Exodus some four or five times over, “that he may serve me as priest”, and “that they may serve me as priests”. Now we have to understand that along with chapter 4, where God says that it is “my son” that is to serve. Why does He say at Sinai, “That he may serve me as priest”, and “that they may serve me as priests”, but not a word about sons? That is what we have to see.
HG-h Are you implying in suggesting the thought of priesthood being a provisional thing, it is in view of present conditions?
JT That is right in view of what we are in the flesh still. The flesh lusts against the Spirit. There is always that danger, and because of that, and because of external conditions around us, priesthood is necessary.
JD Would there be any reference to that thought in Hebrews 7: 28, “For the law constitutes men high priests, having infirmity; but the word of [p. 221] the swearing of the oath which is after the law, a Son perfected for ever”?
JT Quite so. Sonship is underlying it. Priesthood is necessary because of conditions, but sonship will remain when the official side is not needed.
WGH What do you mean, because of conditions?
JT As sitting in the assembly with others, you are conscious of having the flesh in you. The flesh is always ready to serve sin. It is in view of that and external conditions as well, that we need the priesthood. The dress that is described in Exodus 28 is to instruct us what it is, and what are the qualities of christians that enable them to stand out against those conditions and maintain the holiness of God in spite of them.
JAW What is conveyed to us by the expression the law of sin?
JT It is to be learned from Romans 7. Another law, he says, is warring in my members, that is the law of sin. The word ‘law’ is a remarkable word in Romans. It is worth while studying the setting of the different references to law. He says, “I speak to those knowing law”. Roman christians are evidently viewed as knowing law. It means, I think, that sin will operate as it has opportunity. The word ‘law’ in that sense implies a principle, like the law of gravity or other laws of creation, they operate consistently. The law of sin will operate consistently with itself. The flesh is always amenable to it, hence we must disallow the flesh.
WB It is a most extraordinary thing that we find ourselves in such a condition. I am very thankful that the idea of priesthood is being taken up, because we need to understand the principle of it.
JT Exactly. You take the thief on the cross; he was saved through faith in Christ, and the Lord says, “Today shalt thou be with me in paradise”.
[p. 222] Now that man in paradise did not need priesthood, in the sense in which we speak of it. If it were possible for him to come down from the cross alive, and be here as a christian in Jerusalem, he would still have the flesh in him, and coming into the assembly in Jerusalem he would need priesthood, he would need to battle against this thing that led him to the cross as a malefactor. He would need priesthood to keep him, which involves the Spirit.
MDF Would you suggest that sonship must be known before we become priests?
JT I think that is how the matter stands in Scripture, that the primary thought of God for His people is that they are to be before Him forever as sons. All primary thoughts are permanent thoughts. All provisional thoughts are for us for a time; then they lapse. Priesthood is amongst them.
RRT So that the highest form of service Godward is the service of a son.
JT Yes, it will go on, I believe, that when, in the temple, the priests could not serve, it means God is saying, I want you on other ground. Priesthood was there, and it served a good purpose, there was a perfect note in the song. Then the glory filled the house and the priests could no more serve, but that does not mean the persons are rejected or shut out. They are there typically in the woods and metals, and other things in the building itself. That is to say, instead of priests, God says, ‘You are before Me now free of all that would hinder you, and I want to have a little time with you as sons. That is My eternal thought for you’.
LES The two thoughts would be suggested in. Malachi 3: 18 where it is said, “And ye shall return and discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not”. That would be [p. 223] priesthood.
JT Yes. After Jehovah speaks of them figuratively as sons, then He reverts to priesthood. The great point in Malachi is what marked priesthood, that is holiness.
HG-h That is encouraging to us, that in prevailing conditions God can be served.
JT Yes. He can be served in spite of the terrible conditions about.
JD How far does the thought of service go connected with priesthood? Peter says, “a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God”. That does not seem to be connected with discriminating between good and evil.
JT Discriminating is only one side of the priesthood, and that is why I read in Exodus 28, because much is made of the high caps which the sons of Aaron were to wear. The high caps denote the intelligence, the renewed mind that Romans teaches, that we do not use our natural minds in the things of God, that we use the renewed mind, that is a holy mind.
WB When you say that the temple is taken possession of by God and the priests are unable to serve, is your thought that the temple itself represents the people of God?
JT It does. The apostle in 1 Corinthians 3: 16 says, “Do ye not know that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?”. And in Ephesians 2: 21, “All the building fitted together increases to a holy temple in the Lord”. That is, the saints form it and God would have us, as it were, to Himself, even if only for a moment in the assembly. He would love to have us on the ground of sonship, while all the time in a public way in addressing Him we speak as priests in holy language.
HG-h Is that why dress is made so much [p. 224] of?
JT I think so. The dress has different parts, alluding to spiritual qualities in the saints, so you begin with the ephod, and all that attaches to it; then the breastplate, then the cloak, then the turban, which is especially to be noted because it alludes to intelligence. The sons of Aaron have high caps, it is moral elevation in our thoughts.
LES To go back, why does it mention two or three times the term ‘brother’, connected with Aaron?
JT It is to show how the priesthood is allied with authority in Christ. Moses is a type of Christ in authority. Aaron represents the element of the brother. Priesthood attaches to the brother. What do you say?
LES I think that is very good. I wanted to get the thought as to the brother underlying what you are speaking of in regard to priesthood now.
JT You find in the epistles, Paul associates the brother with him when speaking authoritatively.
JLF It is always Aaron who is called the brother.
JT He is introduced to us as a brother. The first mention of Aaron in Exodus 4: 14 is “Is not Aaron the Levite thy brother? I know that he can speak well”. It would mean that he would speak with grace and intelligence. Moses always had the place of priest in the sense that he always had access to the holiest. He was never forbidden anything. In Numbers 7: 89 he went in to speak to Jehovah. That was priestly access, and Jehovah spoke to him. I think it means the Lord as viewed in His own Person. Everything attaches to Him; He is pre-eminent in all things.
Moses says he cannot speak, but God knew be could speak and ultimately he did speak wonderfully. But Aaron is first introduced in “Is not Aaron the Levite thy brother? I know that he can speak well.
[p. 225] And also behold, he goeth out to meet thee; and when he seeth thee he will be glad in his heart”. That is the idea of a priest, a sympathetic and loving person who is accustomed to speak to God. God alludes to him as knowing he can speak well.
RRT So it goes much beyond his speaking to Pharaoh. It goes on to the service in the priesthood.
JT You get it illustrated in Exodus 16, where Israel murmured. They spoke about fleshpots that they had there. Like young christians, they get tired of the position and would like to go back to the world and have a bit of it. It is constant amongst us. It says that Aaron spoke to them, not Moses. Authority will not do now. When young people, after having tasted the good word of God and the enjoyment of the assembly with us, begin to say, ‘I want to go back and have a bit of the world’, there is no use in using mere authority. They need more than that; they need something to hold them in their affections. So it says, Aaron spoke to them, and as he spoke they looked towards the wilderness — a remarkable thing. As much as to say, That gracious speaking from the brethren encourages me to turn my back on Egypt, and look towards the wilderness; hard to travel as it seems to be, I think after all that is the way I will take. Many a young christian has said that, has considered in his own mind before God that after all there is no one like the brethren, no sympathy like what you have amongst them. As they looked towards the wilderness the glory of the Lord appeared. God says, You think the wilderness is bad, but think of My glory. I think that illustrates as much as anything what priesthood is in its practical bearing, and Aaron was that kind of speaker. Jehovah says, “I know he can speak well”.
JF So you think in that connection that priesthood serves to minister to the thought of sonship and develop [p. 226] it?
JT It is a guide and involves great instruction and great knowledge of God. Of course, every christian is a priest but the thing seen characteristically is in Aaron and his sons. That is to say, characteristically you must have spiritual persons. So what you find in our movements and in our history in assemblies locally throughout the world is that there are certain ones who care, who are deeply concerned about everything. Everyone in the meeting should be deeply concerned, but as a matter of fact everyone is not, but you see in those who are the idea of priesthood, that they watch things. They know the world and the flesh in the saints and are constantly watching so the flesh has no place amongst us. They are spiritual men.
WGH They would be marked by great dignity, as serving in the light of sonship.
JT They are sons; the idea of sonship underlies it as in Hebrews 7: 28, “A Son perfected for ever”.
WGH You can only serve in that light, whether young or old. There is no service apart from that.
JT But the element of holiness reached through the teaching of Romans is to be kept in mind, that it is experience that brings us to it as to the thing characteristically.
CSP Is the service of sonship the service of love?
JT Exactly. It is a person in that relation, and you desire liberty of soul in speaking to God and to the saints, too; but there is something about one that is called spiritual, he knows what to do in an emergency and how to do it. It is intelligence. The priest’s high caps denote intelligence.
HG-h Why does it enumerate Aaron’s garments?
JT That alludes to the work of the Spirit going on all the time amongst us; alludes to the skill with which the Spirit carries on the work of God in [p. 227] a formative way in us, through persons, of course. It is an element, I think. The wise-hearted refers to that element amongst us.
JD In Exodus 25 it speaks of willing hearted. Would that result in becoming wise-hearted?
JT Exodus 25 is based on chapter 24. It is love presented in its volume, the fulness of it, and the elevation to which the saints are taken. Breakdown came in in chapter 32, but things are taken up again in chapter 35, after the second giving of the law in chapter 34, where you have Moses’ face shining; that is, where you get wealth of material and persons who bring it. Exodus views us and initiates us into all this in detail. This is what is needed and to see how one man and his family are taken apart to serve Jehovah, “that he may serve me as priest”. It is mentioned four or five times, a remarkable thing, not as son, but as priest, because of the exigencies of the wilderness, the conditions which have to be contended with. It is not simply that I am a priest, but the intelligence that is needed, the experience needed. I think that is what we have to lay hold of. So you see the thing characteristically in the service carried on in the wilderness.
JD So that the teaching of Romans 7 has practically to be gone through by every one of us to discriminate between good and evil in ourselves.
JT Then you learn to discriminate in the world outside. The position in Exodus is an anointed position, there is nothing about anointing in the temple. That is to be noted. It is the public position that calls for anointing. That is what men see in our houses, as we walk down the street, on our way to the meeting room, seeing us sit down together in the meeting room, hearing the announcements given out, the things that are going to happen that relate to the Lord’s interests, the symbols of the Lord’s body and blood on the table, and what is done [p. 228] initially. The anointing covers all that. That is Exodus. It is a question of the anointing right through, both in regard of the material of the tabernacle and the whole priesthood itself. The whole scene is under the anointing, meaning that God wants men to see something different, that this is a dignified matter. It is not paganism, it is not Judaism. It is a new thing altogether that God has introduced, and the anointing makes us dignified in everything we do. It involves not only holiness but intelligence, particularly intelligence. “I speak as unto intelligent persons: do ye judge what I say”. That is, as priests we listen to what the apostle says, and we say, It is right.
Then as you proceed, the thought of priesthood becomes more pronounced, that a brother knows, in virtue of his priesthood, that sonship underlies all this, that in virtue of intelligence as priest, and holiness and sensitiveness, a certain act is not right. That is, the flesh will act in the meeting, a hymn out of place or something is done that is spiritually incongruous, and he says, ‘That is not right’. The fact that he maintains right thoughts saves the position to that extent. He is a priest, he knows what is fitting so that the tabernacle greatly helps us, because a man would bring his offering and he would have to go to the priest. He does not go inside, but the priest offers. The nearer we are to God the more this element comes to light. We know what to do and how to do it, and we maintain the element of holiness all the time. Paul says regarding giving out a hymn, “I will sing with the spirit, but I will sing also with the understanding”, 1 Corinthians 14: 15. That means priesthood. “I will pray with the spirit”, that is his own spirit, but “also with the understanding”, meaning that “I myself with the mind serve God’s law”. He knows what to do. The mind regulates the thing.
JD [p. 229] Do you mean that from the time the saints come together, the light that governs the position is priesthood?
JT You have that great thing before you; you are thinking of the assembly. Our hearts are aglow on the first day of the week. The great activity of Christ as He arose is key to the position. As the sun goes around from east to west, it is a long day, but God is active throughout and wishes the saints to have it before them, the great day of the assembly.
HG-h Priesthood would underlie our service in sonship.
JT Priesthood really goes right through the meeting, as to what is outside. Priesthood must always be present, but in regard to feelings and attitude of soul Godward, you are in the sense of sonship and a point reached when that takes place where God says, ‘You are perfectly free before me’. The enjoyment of love sets us free and gives us liberty in priesthood in our relations with each other. God would have us to be conscious of being sons, but the priesthood is there. We cannot evade the elements around us that are unholy, but the more spiritual we are the more we can abstract ourselves and be in the sense of liberty in the relation of sons with God. That is the way the thing stands. Priesthood comes to light in the way we speak, the intelligence we have in speaking, but it is the love of God that greatly affects our hearts; as it says, “Perfect love casts out fear”.
JD When the Lord comes in, does He come in as Priest or as Son?
JT He comes in Himself. He says, “It is I myself”. Now, if you come to my house, I think of you; you have a personality. Christ is a Person. Some say He comes in as Head, others say He comes in as Son, others say He comes in as Saviour, but the truth is that He comes in Himself. “It is I myself”.
[p. 230] Let everyone take his own meaning from that. The next thing is, what is needed. If there are no conditions in the meeting, He cannot come in as Head. He must have the body to act characteristically as Head. If there are low conditions, He has to make the most of those conditions. He will not ignore conditions that are wrong. It is a question of priestly grace to get the brethren into thinking rightly of each other.
WB That is quite a new thought on priesthood. I had always connected priesthood with energy, but I see that priestly intelligence works both ways, to stop as well as to go on.
JT The high caps of the priests speak of supreme intelligence. Headship, of course, might be there, but it is a question of what is needed. If we go forward normally and we regard each other in love, as members of one another, the Lord has something He can use as Head. If the body is not there, we cannot have the Head.
RRT Would the service of a son link on intimately with the service to God as Father?
JT I think it does. There would be order in the assembly. The order would be the love of the brethren one towards another; that should be mentioned first; it is in that light we sit down together. Then it is the love of Christ, and then the love of God as Father, the Father’s love. Then God as the great finality. The great ultimate of all service is God Himself, “My Father and your Father, my God and your God”. God comes last. Bearing these thoughts in mind will assist us in our minds as sitting down together. We sit down as those who love one another; that develops into the body, an organism. So then the love of Christ is in the Lord’s supper. The love of God as Father is in relation to the family. Christ as Son, and we as sons, which develops into the great realm as to God, “Of him, and [p. 231] through him, and for him are all things”, Romans 11: 36. Sonship underlies the position, but it does not come forward until we are in sensible relations with God as sons; the spirit of adoption is the expression of that relation. That is the order at the beginning of the meeting, and if the Spirit is free at the beginning, subsequently the Spirit takes the form of Spirit of adoption, and He cries, “Abba, Father”. That helps, if you bear that note, that guides you as to where you are.
GC Would you say wilderness conditions call for priesthood?
JT That is what I am seeking to show, that the conditions in ourselves and all around us require it, and ignorance in us requires it.
LES The great underlying feature in Exodus would be priesthood, I suppose, and in Chronicles would be more sonship.
JT I would say that. The glory comes in in Exodus as every item in the tabernacle is functioning in its place; that is, every item is anointed; the idea of sonship is not there. It is more the will of God in Exodus; it is the glory in that relation really. That is what enters into Exodus, but in 2 Chronicles 5 the priests are in evidence and serving well, serving with one note. At that point the glory enters, showing that we are on higher ground, and it is called formally the house of God in that passage. The glory filled the house of God.
FCB At that point in our meeting when we sometimes reach God in the highest sense in a spirit of worship, the idea of priesthood does not cease, though we reach the realm of sonship. What you have said would rather indicate that the idea of priesthood would also connect with worshipping God.
JT Priesthood is necessary, as I was saying, whilst down here, whatever the service is, as to the [p. 232] form of words you use; the state of your mind. You need to exclude every root of evil, as it is said, ‘No passing root of evil’. In the eternal state of things there is nothing like that, not the faintest suggestion of evil will be there. In order to reach anything like that now you need priesthood, but there is such a thing as spiritual power enabling you to abstract yourself, even if for a moment. God is pleased with that, God is entitled to view us and think of us abstractly, that is abstracting us from all that we are that is extraneous for the moment. He is entitled to do it, and we are entitled to also take account of ourselves abstractly, but it can only be in spiritual power, so that I am wholly identified in my soul with the work of God and in my relation to God. It may be but for a moment, but that is a great deal to God. That is the idea of the glory filling the house. Let us let God have that. He is entitled to it, that is what we are according to His eternal purpose. It is only in the power of the Spirit, but then it can be so. So in earlier days of christianity, we hear of ecstasy, that is what is meant.
RRT Before the glory filled the house, it says in 2 Chronicles 6: 41, “Let thy priests ... be clothed with salvation”. That would set aside all hindrances.
JT It would. Solomon is building the temple, all emanated from him, the man of war being formally and intelligently excluded from having part in that. What is before us is sonship. It is the dignity of persons in their relation with God, and the Spirit of adoption in them crying “Abba, Father”. It is, I believe, the relation in which we are.
LES Is that the difference between cedar wood and shittim wood?
JT There is only one wood in the tabernacle, that is shittim wood, but the woods in the temple suggest the dignity of the persons.
JAT [p. 233] That would be a good completion for the meeting and a good start for the week.
JT Surely, God is entitled to take account of us in relation to His thoughts, and the Spirit is here that we might take that attitude, abstracting ourselves and thinking of ourselves according to God’s thoughts of us. How much is said as to what christians are, “Do ye not know that ye are temple of God”, 1 Corinthians 3: 16. “A holy priesthood”, 1 Peter 2: 5. “Ye are all God’s sons”. Galatians 3: 26. Whatever the relation may be, it is what the saints are. Let us be that in our minds. The Holy Spirit will help us to be that even if only for a short time.
JD John says in Revelation, that we are made priests. We are that. If things are normal, when the brother gives thanks for the loaf and cup, thus calling the Lord to mind, does the Lord come in then?
JT Yes, in the breaking of bread. The word used there is a word calling the Lord to mind. As far as I know it occurs only four times in the New Testament. It is an active thought, it is your mind. Brethren should bear in mind that all that happens in the assembly happens in the saints, not outside of them; it is our minds and affections that are acted upon. I have a mind and you have a mind; I have Christ before me, and He has devised this means of calling Him to mind. My mind is active. The word is used only four times, and three of them refer to the breaking of bread, in Luke and 1 Corinthians. It is not an ordinary thought of remembrance; it is a word implying that your mind is active. Your mind is on that thing exclusively for the moment, and the Lord is always ready for opportunities and seizes opportunities, and it is the state of our minds that gives Him the opportunities. The breaking of bread is Himself; that is what He did. It is in that that He comes in. The cup also enhances it, for the idea [p. 234] of remembrance is in the cup too, so you have not the complete thought of the Lord’s presence until you have the cup. So much depends on our minds and affections, ‘Calling Me to mind’, the Lord says.
WGH Why is it we have more liberty in handling the loaf than the cup? Is the cup on a higher platform or does it need greater spiritual apprehension?
JT I think it is a question of being maintained in liberty, able to go on after you have given thanks for the loaf, to go on in priestly power. The Spirit is always with us, I mean normally, in the character of Comforter or Paraclete. He is always present and would support us, and the Lord as Priest supports us, as it says in Song of Songs 8: 3, “His left hand would be under my head”; that is support of my intelligence; “and his right hand embrace me”; that is support of affections. The Lord graciously does that in His own way, so it is a question of being maintained in your giving of thanks.
TA Matthew says as to the loaf, “Take, eat”. Does that go farther in regard to nearness to Christ and apprehension of His glory and His work, than the remembrance?
JT I think they go together. Luke and Corinthians only mention the remembrance, and say nothing about our eating. Luke has the remembrance in mind and public order. Matthew and Mark have in mind the building up of our constitutions that we might be supported in the position. “This is my body” makes for the unity of the one body. I should not like to separate what we have in Acts 2 and in Acts 20 from the assembly. In principle the assembly was there in Acts 2, only that in Paul’s ministry we get the setting of the thing. What the Lord gave to Paul, you may say, was not added to; he says, “For I received from the Lord, that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus, in [p. 235] 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”, 1 Corinthians 11: 23, 24. I think “for you” alludes to the gentiles. “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”. That part is added to Paul’s message. That is, the idea of remembrance is attached to the cup, but in general what Paul delivered to the Corinthians is the same as Luke records. Luke records practically the same thing, so that I do not think it would be right to undervalue the Supper as the twelve had it. It was what the Lord gave them, but Paul intimates that he did not get it through them. What the Lord gave to Paul was the same as He gave to the twelve.
TA It says in Matthew 26: 29, “But I say to you, that I will not at all drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in the kingdom of my Father”. I thought that applied to the Jews.
JT That is the passover. The fruit of the vine is the earthly relation. That was all over before the Lord’s supper was instituted. Luke separates the passover from the Supper. Matthew and Mark do not separate it so carefully. They tell us ‘Eat this’, and ‘drink this’, and they tell us they sang a hymn, and they went to the mount of Olives. Luke is occupied with the public order and with the remembrance, the Supper as a memorial in connection with which we have the coming in of Christ, and Paul takes up that line. Luke is to support Paul.
RRT Is the service of the temple a higher order of service than the service of the tabernacle in the wilderness?
JT It is. There is no service mentioned in the tabernacle at the time the glory came in. Aaron is not in view. Moses could not enter. It is just that,
[p. 236] the point is, I think, that all the saints are in their places, that is the teaching for us. We come together and sit down and we are all filling our place in the body and functioning. The service is not yet on. Moses and Aaron washed in the laver, but that is all, whereas service is active in 2 Chronicles.
RRT I have been thinking of the service of sonship; it is indeed the highest form of service. The service in connection with the tabernacle was priestly, but when it comes to the service in the temple, we have the thought of the son connected with it. David makes much of Solomon as son and his service gives character to the temple.
JT That is right. It is on a higher level, the heavenly side of the position. The tabernacle is more the saints in their position as anointed, it is the public side. In the temple personal dignity is in mind, because of what we are.
RRT The only anointing you get is the anointing of David seen in Chronicles. It is not a priest, but a son that is anointed.
JT Great intelligence enters into the position in Christ, in which we have part. We are said to have the mind of Christ. We have part in that mind. The high caps worn by the priests refer to this.
WB It says, “For glory and for ornament”.
JT I think the idea is to exclude the natural mind. It is not to be allowed. These high caps allude to the dignity of intelligence.
JD It says in verse 39, “Thou shalt weave the vest of byssus; and thou shalt make a turban of byssus; and thou shalt make a girdle of embroidery”, and then it refers to the high caps for Aaron’s sons.
JT It is remarkable the place they have, and then what goes with that are the linen breeches. That is, we are free from natural excitement in the assembly. You do not get carried away with tunes or the like. All is in dignity, free from natural [p. 237] excitement. Linen is what sobers and keeps you balanced whereas wool would excite, producing warmth and heat.
JLF Do you think there is danger of excitement in the service of song?
JT We will have to see the place that song has in the service of God. The first mention is Exodus 15, it begins there and is taken on later in a greater way by David and Solomon, and song is the prevailing thought. Song is poetic. Spiritual poetry incites spiritual feelings, and they run smoothly. The mind is brought into things in an easy way in poetry.
HG-h You are not advocating the use of hymns too freely in the morning meeting?
JT No, but still there should be more place, I think, in the assembly for the recognition of Christ’s relation with the assembly, as leading up to what He is in relation to God as Father. I believe there should be more room made for that, because I believe the mass of the saints are not much beyond the enjoyment of their blessings, and even if you do not go beyond that you may have a good meeting, one which is acceptable to heaven, but there are very few of us able to take up the heavenly side. “Rejoice not, that the spirits are subjected to you, but rejoice that your names are written in the heavens”, Luke 10: 20. That is where the heavenly side comes in, so Ephesians begins almost immediately to say that God “has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenlies in Christ”. Ephesians 1: 3.
EWM If we had power to go on perhaps our meetings would be a little longer.
JT They often are no longer than they should be because there are so many present. More scope should be given for the working out of the assembly. The passing of the bread and cup takes considerable time where there is a large number. I think the [p. 238] Lord would help us to make more room for His relation with the assembly as giving Himself for it. Paul says, “Now the Lord is the Spirit, but where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, looking on the glory of the Lord, with unveiled face, are transformed according to the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Lord the Spirit”, 2 Corinthians 3: 17, 18. All that comes under Christ, from glory to glory, so that we put on dress suitable to heaven, taking on the heavenly.