CONTINUITY

E. C. Burr

1 Corinthians 1: 1–3; 2 Corinthians 1: 1: 2

I refer to these scriptures, beloved brethren, in order to promote exercise and, I trust, accord among us in relation to the question. Is there continuity in the recovery or is there not? One might think as seeking to hold the ground that there is such continuity, that the question was not of prime importance nor need it be significantly considered. But the question is raised. It comes up in readings from time to time; it comes up, also, in other ways, and while the saints are not to be troubled “by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter” (2 Thessalonians 2: 2), it is well if questions that do arise are worked out in exercise in our spirits, so that we can ourselves each intelligently and committedly give the answer to them.

The question is really whether, ever since the Lord began His great work in recovery one hundred and fifty years ago, there has been a continuous line down to the present day which we may expect to continue to the rapture, or has the incidence of various things in history interrupted that line? and if we believe that, that that line has been interrupted, then we must also admit that at some point, if there is anything here for the Lord, He must have had to begin again. I think that that conclusion is inescapable and that if the matter is presented in that way, the affirmation that there has been continuity will ring in the minds of the brethren.

I refer to these two scriptures in Corinthians because it will be noticed, as has often been noticed before, that the address to the assembly in Corinth is the same in both epistles, “the assembly of God which is in Corinth”. While different matters come into the opening of Paul’s addresses to this assembly, the greeting is the same, “Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ”. The address and the greeting are the same and you might therefore conclude that in Paul’s mind there was continuity in Corinth. You might, however, say—and some who raise contention about these things say things like this—‘But there was sin in Corinth, there was failure there, there was breakdown there, there was unjudged evil there’, and the simplest reader of the first epistle will realise that those things are all true. Not to condone them, but the things that were actually gone on with in Corinth are in our day amazing. Doctrinally things were amazing—there were brethren breaking bread who did not believe in the resurrection. “How say some among you that there is not a resurrection of those that are dead?”, 1 Corinthians 15: 12. There were some who came to the Supper and took their own meal before others and, indeed, put to shame others of their brethren, and that in a local assembly. And Paul has to say to them, “When ye come therefore together … it is not to eat the Lord’s supper”, 1 Corinthians 11: 20. That is to say, some other objective was before them, or alternatively, that what they took in the shape of the Supper could not rightly be dignified by that name. And there were divisions among them which were evidently publicly known and there was sin among them which was outrageous, even in the eyes of the nations—all these things in a local assembly.

But in the second epistle Paul addresses “the assembly of God which is in Corinth”. We have no knowledge of the time at which issues in Corinth were judged. We know that they were judged from the tone of the second epistle and from the facts in it. We know that a brother was, as we say, put out of fellowship. We could not nowadays say that, we would have to say he was withdrawn from, but Paul says, “Remove the wicked person from amongst yourselves”, 1 Corinthians 5: 13. A brother was put away from the local assembly. We do not know precisely at what time that was. But it seems to me that in Paul’s mind the fact that the matter was judged once attention was drawn to it—we might even say, once the Lord had Himself indicated His own point of intervention—at that point the Corinthians dealt with the matter and Paul goes on with them, “The assembly of God which is in Corinth … Grace to you, and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ”. In spite of the shameful history of Corinth Paul does not address them on any lower level than that continuous thread that he had carried in his own spirit in relation to that local assembly from the beginning of his address in the first epistle.

In Acts 18, as far as I recall, there is not exactly reference to the assembly in Corinth. Paul went there and preached the word of God—he preached in the synagogue and he preached in the house, but there is not exactly reference to the assembly. But when he wrote the epistle it was to the assembly of God in Corinth. In the second epistle, in spite of the history, Paul again addresses “the assembly of God which is in Corinth”.

I believe, beloved, that this line, this, I might even say, principle, can be traced through scripture. One only has to look at chapters 9, 10 and 11 of Romans, to see how the matter may be identified there in principle in relation to Israel. There you have a nation which has stumbled at the stumbling stone. You see them scattered, you see a people disobedient and opposing; you see a people to whom God had all the day long stretched out His hands and they had been disobedient and opposing. You see a people blinded in part until the fulness of the nations be come in; you see a people represented as branches cut out of the olive tree.

And then, what does Paul say? “So all Israel shall be saved”, Romans 11: 26. You see, he has not forfeited the principle of continuity in regard to the activities of God. What a great thing that is!

I think, beloved, that we may trace these things—we may see that if God has begun something He will see it through to the end. Failure there may be, as to which all those concerned in it would rightly be increasingly humbled, and I trust that insofar as we ourselves make any profession of anything in the present day, all the time it is coloured by increasing humility as to things with which we have been involved. But I trust, indeed I believe, that I carry the beloved brethren with me in believing that there has been continuity right through.

You might say, Where do you identify this? I could point to occasions where I can identify it, point even to the occasion which I almost describe as traumatic that occurred in 1970, when I saw beloved aged sisters weeping at what was proceeding. In that I see the thing going through. And I believe, beloved, that, in spite of our own humiliating sorrows and failure, the Lord never ceased to manifest Himself among us. I believe that that was said among us some seven years ago and I believe that the brethren remained with what was said, that the Lord did not fail.

Does this mean that the Lord condones evil? It means that the Lord comes in in order that like the Spirit of God He may raise up a banner. He would rally to Himself all who in their right judgment desire to be in the line of continuity, and eventually when the Lord acts He finds that He has enough to continue with, we may say. In His grace, as we have been reminded already, He has recovered others to it. May He in His goodness continue to recover our beloved brethren to it. I believe it is one mark of continuity in regard to what the Lord has established that there is the desire for the recovery of brethren to it. I believe that must be characteristic.

But, you may say, where then would you say that continuity ceases? I do not think that that is a difficult question to answer. I believe that continuity ceases when ground is taken different from that on which the Lord has established recovery. I believe that when there is, as was said in that historic remark, heartlessness as to the Person of Christ, then continuity is broken in upon. And until that is judged those who continue in that line are on a line that is not the continuity of what the Lord established in recovery. Many beloved brethren (we may so regard them as belonging to Christ, many having the Spirit) continue even in fellowship of that kind and we long for them, beloved. When the place of Christ is brought into challenge, then the continuity is necessarily trenched upon when it may be said, as one said at the time, that if things that were professed in the 1840’s were true, then Christ Himself needed a saviour. Does anything more need to be said to show that the line of continuity had been broken in upon there, not only by the persons who said it, but by the persons who received those who said it and by persons who received those who would receive those who said it. These things interrupt the line of continuity.

When truth is brought out as to eternal life and persons reject it and persons describe those through whom it comes as heretical, does that continue the line? Or does that interrupt it?

When persons set aside the great basis of continuity in 2 Timothy and consider that questions of unequal yokes and that kind of thing may be taken up with a measure of impunity or, at least, may be defended, is that the line of continuity? Beloved, these things depart from the line on which the Lord has indicated that things would be continued by faithful men in that epistle. And in that epistle the guideposts for us, I believe, are “the testimony of our Lord” (2 Timothy 1: 8), and “Jesus Christ raised from among the dead” (2 Timothy 2: 8), and “Let every one who names the name of the Lord withdraw from iniquity” (2 Timothy 2: 19), and “thou hast been thoroughly acquainted with my teaching” (2 Timothy 3: 10). That is the line which is given to Timothy in order that the continuity of things may be established.

Therefore, if we look to see whether there has been continuity or interruption, let us examine whether there has been a continuance in the things with which the Lord first began recovery, as I say, about one hundred and fifty years ago. If we can identify that even in feebleness there has been the intention to maintain these things or that there has been recovery to the maintenance of these things, then we may speak of continuity. If there has been departure from these things unjudged, then we would have sorrowfully to say that continuity has been broken.

Beloved brethren, what do we believe? What do we believe here tonight? Are we here in the light of the fact that humbly, even weakly, we seek to continue what the Lord first established, I say, seek to continue what the Lord first established, or have we come to it that at some point the Lord had to begin again? I do not believe so. I believe that when the suggestion was raised in this city five years ago that for one Lord’s day we should not break bread, in rejecting that, the saints were manifesting that continuity was what was in their minds in whatever humility and weakness. Beloved brethren, may the Lord confirm us in it and may He enable us in grace to defend it against any, whether from within or without, who would call the matter into question. Let not the saints be troubled by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter.

Word in meeting for ministry, London
22 November 1977