BAPTISM
[p. 268] BAPTISM
1 Corinthians 12:13 - 31; 1 Corinthians 14: 14 - 25
WB I notice that you attach a great deal of importance to the moral state of the assembly to which the epistles are written. Is not some knowledge of that necessary in order to understand what is set forth?
JT Quite so. What gave rise to the occasion for the writing?
JB God allowed such conditions to come about in order that we might get the gain.
JT He allowed the Corinthian assembly to come into this sad condition and He seizes the opportunity of furnishing instructions as to it that have a universal bearing. So the letter is addressed to the “assembly of God which is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called saints, with all that in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ”. It is as if God would say, ‘This state of things exists in Corinth, but you all take notice’.
HG Is the thought of baptism brought in in verses 12 and 13 of chapter 12: “So also is the Christ. For also in the power of one Spirit we have all been baptised into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bondmen or free, and have all been given to drink of one Spirit”?
JT It is not a negative thought. Water baptism is a negative thought; it does not administer anything positively. This baptism is positive. The idea is merging us positively with one another.
HG In the obliteration of all that is natural?
JT It would amount to that, of course, but it is a positive thought. The negative side of water baptism would do that. It brings us all into newness [p. 269] of life. That would mean the obliteration of all that attaches to us naturally or otherwise. I can conceive of the saints at Rome, as Phoebe brought the letter to them, and as they came to the words, “newness of life”, saying, ‘What does this mean? Am I to be a patrician or the like, a ruler or an emperor?’ All that belonged to the old order. The word “newness”, of course, means something entirely different. You could not find anything to correspond with that word in regard of life in the whole of Rome, except for just a few christians. As baptism of the Spirit is taken on, such people merge together on this new principle. We sit down together in the power of the Spirit. The idea of baptism is an overwhelming one. As water influences you, so does the spiritual thought overwhelm you altogether. It was said of the Lord, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I have found my delight”. John the baptist could use the word ‘baptise’ with a better understanding than any. He was at the Jordan where there was plenty of water. He used plenty of water. He understood the baptism of the Spirit. The Jordan was not a theory; it was a fact. So is the Holy Spirit a fact. It brings us together whatever we may have been before, obliterating all that in a positive way. Do you not think so, Mr. G.?
HG It is very helpful. The thought before you is that of merging in newness of life, not just in life.
JT Quite so. The principles of society may grade people, and some are in this class and some in that; but I may not be quite satisfied with the classifications. I may not be quite satisfied that so-and-so in the next state is in a higher rank than I am; my name and pedigree are as good as his. Obviously I am not satisfied with the classification. I think the point here is that you are classified by an arbitrary action of the Spirit in a powerful way, and that you are perfectly satisfied in that you drink into it. You can [p. 270] say that drinking is your own action, but it says here that, we “have all been given to drink of one Spirit”. It is what is produced. It is a very happy thing to drink of one Spirit, the Spirit of the baptised company.
JB Is there any relation to John 4?
JT There is no idea of one living water. In John 4 it is for the individual but here it is collective and is concerned with one Spirit. John 4 would precede this. This marks a distinct advance in the truth of the body as presented in Scripture. The first reference to it doctrinally is in Romans 12 where we are said to be one body in Christ without any reference being made to the Holy Spirit. Here we are baptised into one body by the Spirit, and we drink into one Spirit. Romans takes me out of any kind of fellowship in the world. It takes me out of all that and gives me another status, one body in Christ. None of these bodies can claim to have any such status as that, one body in Christ. Here it is beyond Romans because we are baptised in the power of one Spirit into one body. We are made to drink of one Spirit. So if you lived in a town where there were freemasons, etc., you might see what they had to tell you; there may be lots of things that are mysterious, but they never give you anything positive; the more you talk about it the more mixed up you get. But I come into that town and I find a few christians and they have drunk into something, into that Spirit, and they are happy and contented in what they have got. That is the thought. So for us there is a kind of deliverance from the world in this verse. Baptism of the Spirit corresponds as an allusion to the sacrament of the Lord’s supper. Whenever we sit down together at the Lord’s supper, this verse fits exactly. There is the idea of merging with the brethren. A brother that has a gold ring is no better than the other who has none; they are merged together. Then as we partake of the Lord’s [p. 271] supper, the cup comes. We have all been made to drink of the one Spirit; it is present in our heart. You are happy sitting down in the assembly, the place of richness and fulness.
HG There is a tendency to pass on to that which flows out of the Supper without appreciating the importance of the eating and the drinking.
JT There is the memorial side which is the breaking and eating of the bread and the drinking of the cup, but Matthew and Mark record the eating and drinking without saying anything about the memorial. Luke speaks about the memorial, but does not stress the eating.
HG Is the eating in Matthew and Mark in connection with the Passover supper?
JT “Take, eat; this is my body” is additional to the Passover. It is the Lord’s body which is the food; making for brotherly unity.
HG Does not Paul bring it in in the previous chapter? It is a kind of merging together of the affections of the saints. They drink together in happy fellowship.
JT That is a very good way to put it. Rome has seven sacraments but Protestants have only two. The first sacrament takes me out of the world into the wilderness; the second supports me in the wilderness in the way of food, but Luke adds the idea of memorial which appeals to every lover of Christ.
Ques Does not the apostle Paul get these thoughts of the Supper partly from Luke?
JT I think Luke got it from Paul. I think that is how it stands. The apostle Paul spoke a long time at Troas and we are not told what he said. It is for us to infer that there was a great volume of spiritual communication at that time. It was a time of spirituality. When I say that, I have in mind that in John’s gospel the Lord finishes up in Bethany, in a [p. 272] great spiritual occasion in which nothing is said, except what Judas says and the Lord’s correction of that. It is an important thing to notice this spiritual occasion in which nothing was said. At Troas you have just the opposite, a long discourse by Paul and then a long conversation afterwards before the breaking of bread, but there is no record of what he said. It is one of the things that is left for us to think over. The Scriptures are full of subjects for meditation what the Holy Spirit has not told us, but which exists somewhere; it never falls to the ground. None of the words of Paul fall to the ground. When we come to the record here we are told that there are certain things about the Supper, and I apprehend that even Peter would learn from Paul; he would see more closely what the Lord meant as recorded in the gospels. If Peter and Paul were to meet after this and to compare notes, you would see how the men would stand, that Paul really had more.
HG “Ye announce the death of the Lord, until he come”. What did Paul discourse upon at Troas? Where is it?
JT Oh, I do not know. Troas was a warm place; Paul spent seven days there; and the brethren coming from different parts represent the work of God. They were all there; the Holy Spirit said there were many lights in the upper chamber, the scene of Paul’s discourse.
JB What we have to come to is the wealth that lies in the Spirit. The word of the covenant and the Spirit remain with you (see Haggai 2: 5).
JT Quite so. He misses nothing; He is the custodian of all these things. He brings to your remembrance all whatsoever the Lord has said. It is to bring out that the presence of the Holy Spirit here is a fact and not a theory.
HG Is it your thought that we might get [p. 273] divine impressions although we do not have scriptures for such?
JT Quite so. You do not minister Scripture; you minister Christ. Maybe you have the very thought that Paul had at Troas.
LES So that what the Spirit said is not recorded but it is left to those who are spiritually capable to get it now.
JT Well, exactly. There is nothing lost. The letter to Timothy is an example; it was written by Paul to Timothy but there is no doubt that it was never opened up of old to christians as it has been in our times. The Holy Spirit has brought out of that epistle more than was ever brought out in Timothy’s day. It was written for us really. It was never taken up in the early days. Do you not think so, Mr. G.?
HG Very suggestive.
JT If anyone has the time to read about the fathers, he will not find anything about them in the epistle to Timothy.
HG It would be best to go back to the grandfathers.
JT Quite so. We can claim them. The genealogy in Matthew is to show you how the claim has been made on two or three generations. Three kings were passed over yet the link is established. We can establish the link with Paul, and pass over many generations, yet the principle is laid down in Matthew. We get the link from Paul. I do not know whether you have thought of it, but the Lord in speaking about the defection of Judas in John 13: 20, says, “He who receives whomsoever I shall send receives me”. That is to validate the testimony of Judas that it did not fall to the ground. He was a minister and the Lord had sent him. The testimony comes that way. I do not need to take him as that, but I can go back to the grandfathers, go back to Paul. When [p. 274] I go back I find that the Holy Spirit has dismissed two or three kings. I do not know if I am speaking intelligibly to the brethren, but the Lord said, “He who receives whomsoever I shall send, receives me”. If the Lord starts a thing, I can link it back to that source. I should not wonder if some of the popes gave good things, gave out truth, but that does not establish them as right by any means. The great thing is to be able to take what is of God and to take it back to its source.
Now I would refer to verse 15; can I start and begin an independent move under these circumstances? Can I say to the foot, “Because I am not a hand, I am not of the body”? Can I begin an independent movement? If I am in the good of verse 13 I cannot do it. The idea of being independent or isolating myself is shut out.
HG You could only do so if there were evil.
JT You are dealing with an established fact here. You are baptised. We have been made to drink into one Spirit. As having part in that, can I start an independent movement? The question here is not one of separating from evil, but ‘because I am not an eye or an ear, I am not of the body’.
LES How would that work out individually?
JT It would mean that I am not getting the place that I wished, and that I am seeking a place for myself.
HG It suggests that because you feel that you are not outstanding in the body, you sink into nothingness.
JT Well, it says here, “If the foot say, Because I am not a hand I am not of the body”. What is the ground of the foot saying, “I am not a hand”? I think it would work out as a person being dissatisfied with the place that he has.
WB You would say that each one has a place in the body?
JT [p. 275] Yes. The point here is to take the place given you; the idea is that it is an organism.
HG I thought that it would encourage everybody to find their place and to function in that place. Everyone is to be serviceable in some way in the body.
JT The principle, as applied to the Lord’s people, is clear enough; each member of the body should function. We are so many units and if I do not have the place that I desire, if I am functioning as a foot and would rather be a hand and become one doing something instead of walking around, that is trying to start an independent movement: I would rather be someone that does things; there is a reputation in doing things. Then the next danger would be of schism. “The eye cannot say to the hand, I have not need of thee; or again, the head to the feet, I have not need of you”. We are dependent on one another.
HG A bishop would take the position that he is not dependent on the people, but that they are dependent on him.
JT He would indeed. The first allusion would check individualism and isolation; the second would check clericalism by the truth of the body.
HG Sometimes you find one’s brethren who are not functioning because of youthfulness, but there is something potential in them.
WB Do you not think that a good many are discouraged and feel that they are humble, and have no incentive in their minds to go on? They drag along in a discouraged sort of way.
HG I think it works out in the meetings. One hears of some who are hidden away for a long time, and are then brought into view.
JT The Lord is pleased with places where meetings that are somewhat large are dividing up; where He is starting new gatherings. He is making them available to help others, and I have observed that [p. 276] in many places where this has been done, that there is an increased measure of spiritual power. Younger brothers that have never said anything come forward.
HG There seems always to be an inclination to move in regard to any light that God may give us.
JT Brethren like the big meetings. There is a little of the Babylonish touch in it. You have a meeting in a town where a hundred are breaking bread, and you make three meetings out of the one. You have three meetings going on instead of one, and the results for the Lord are increased. There is more testimony and more doors are opened for people to come in and get help.
LES The word in Deuteronomy in regard to fewness would come in here.
JT That is right. It is paradoxical that the blessing should be marked by fewness; the opposite of a blessing would be a curse. There was a curse in Bethesda where the mind of God was supposed to have been known and acted on. The small gatherings depend on the Lord. We do not want ten leaders to tell us what to do; we want the Spirit. If they stand up and say, ‘If you do not do what we say, we will withdraw’, it is a curse.
EZ “For where two or three are gathered together unto my name, there am I in the midst” would show that two or three is the smallest possible unit.
JT The idea is fewness there and it is to bring out that the power is with the few, even two of you. But the general principle of God in regard to the assembly is more companies. This section is to bring out men; if you can get a few men, that is the idea. It was said of Reuben, “Let his men be few”; men that live (Deuteronomy 33: 6).
Rem There must be some reason why they are grown men; they have had experience.
JT It is like Gideon who was to select a seven-year-old bullock. A three-year-old bullock is just as [p. 277] large, but not as orderly. The great cry is for men.
HG There is a man there. What He wants is men. You like to be a man yourself.
JT Those fingers that wrote on the wall were not the fingers of a novice; they were the fingers of the hand of a man. The queen-mother knew about a man. She was an overcomer; she came in when the fingers wrote on the wall and she knew about Daniel. A man is a man in any kingdom. A report goes out about something; we all listen to it, and tell it to others, just like a lot of children. A man would ask about such a report, ‘Is it true?’ The Lord is looking for men.
Rem Would you say that the soul of man in a sense is the same as a woman?
JT Having your senses exercised and discerning between good and evil. The Lord said, “The men whom thou gavest me”. They were not babes exactly. He made them. He said to His Father, “Thou hast ... revealed them to babes”. They would be under His tutelage at first and for some time. They are the disciples and they became grown men under His tutelage.
HG The blending seems to be exercised that there might be no division in the body but that the members might have the same regard one for another, a sort of balance. One feels that it is hardly possible in the large meetings.
JT That is right; one has to admit that. You do not know some of the names, and you feel that you miss if you cannot address them by their name; the link is weak.
HG You feel that you would like to have amongst you brethren who come to you and tell you that they have been praying for you. It might be very humbling but you would like to have it. They are concerned about your spiritual welfare, having the same concern one for the [p. 278] other.
JT It is remarkable how many names Paul knew in that long list in Romans 16, and he salutes each one of them. He mentions them by name and he can say something about each.
HG It is like the high priest almost; he has all their names.
JT Quite so. What this chapter is leading up to is grown men with a view to ministering things and carrying on properly in the assembly. God would have men, not madmen, persons who like to be taught. The man in Decapolis was clothed and in his right mind, and there was not another there, as far as we know, who wanted to go on with the Lord. Why should he stay? The Lord left him there; he was a man. Then the next miracle or sign in that chapter was the healing of the woman whom the Lord calls, “Daughter”. The next is Jairus’s little girl raised up. These three appear in Luke 8, and are illustrative of assembly material: the man, the woman, and the girl, the young life. You have those three elements in the believer, and the apostle is aiming at them there. The spiritual man was dominant: “I will pray with the spirit, but I will pray also with the understanding”. It is thus that we may have some idea of what God designs in the assembly as to balance, sobriety and intelligence.
JB There would be no such thing as a person speaking and not knowing what he was talking about.
JT It is not men only, but it may be sisters also. The sister in Luke 8 would be silent in the meeting, but she would be most interesting to speak to. She is a transparent woman and tells them all that she knew. The little girl that was raised up would be a most interesting child, and there is a more spiritual touch in her than there is in the man. The Lord would not take anyone in to see her except Peter, James and John and her father and mother. The assembly is made up of these three who reflect what [p. 279] is in heaven. It is fresh young life, but spiritual life. Paul is aiming at conditions like that in Corinth. He brings in chapter 13 to explain fully his thought of what man is according to God. He has light. You see his desire there prominently. If you want gift, you desire the right kind of a gift that can exercise love. It operates in the meeting where the whole assembly comes together. Chapter 11 is coming together in assembly, while chapter 14 is the whole assembly coming together in one place. It makes it the most attractive place, a most attractive meeting. They come together and wait on the Lord, and there is room for the Spirit to use men to minister.
JB Is that like that which took place at Troas?
JT They were breaking bread there. I do not think that that is a pattern meeting at all. You get the pattern in Corinthians. It is the public side of things. God is the God of order. Troas would link more with the whole period; there is a prophetic touch about it.
LES Would you say that the meeting suggested in chapter 14 is on the same level as that in chapter 11?
JT No, not quite. Coming together in assembly is descriptive, and I believe it begins the week. The Lord’s supper belongs to it. The two meetings are not described in the same way. In chapter 11 it is “when ye come together in assembly”. That is the first time he mentions it. In “when ye come therefore together into one place” combines the two thoughts, coming together in assembly and coming together in one place. The idea is that all the persons of the assembly in the place are in one room.
HG If you have three meetings in the town, all three would come together. You could have any number together in assembly like this.
JT So you have the Lord ministering to large numbers, a group of five hundred brethren at once. But then there is the idea of the very few, and it [p. 280] alludes to the assembly, the saints having direct touch with one another. It is the Lord’s instrument, so to speak. In the whole company coming together in assembly, it is not the assembly doing anything, but the gifts doing it.
LES It would involve intense spiritual sensitiveness.
JT The Lord is holding this vessel or instrument under His hand. In chapter 14 He ministers to them through a gift.
WB They come together without any official power, but they are together in assembly character.
JT Chapter 11 is written having in view the assembly in session and functioning in itself as an instrument. It is not a question of any person in it. When the whole assembly comes together, it is more for gift to function.
WB Is fulness also an advantage? When the assembly comes together in one place, it is an advantage to have many, and the more the better.
JT It is quite obvious that that is so.
Ques Is there a difference between verses 18 and 20 of chapter 11?
JT They are alike, but verse 20 brings in the idea of one place. On the day of Pentecost, it says, they were together in one place. I am not sure that we have this exact expression elsewhere of coming together in assembly. The Authorised Version does not give this; we should all have the New Translation when reading Scripture. It is very helpful, and a legacy for the assembly.
HG Why not use it in the meetings?
JT I think it is wise to keep it out lest we might appear to have a Bible of our own. It is wise to keep the Authorised Version that God has so blessed.
HG I should be very afraid to speak on a subject without looking at the New Translation first.
JT God has [p. 281] provided it.
JB Very few like the Revised Version, 1881.
JT It was a very inaccurate translation and is not to be trusted.
HG Chapter 12: 7 would suggest a manifestation of the Lord.
JT Quite so. It seems that the whole assembly is included; it says, “to each”.
HG Is there the power of love in exercising the gifts? Divine affection is set for the welfare of the saints.
JT Yes, there is something very fine about a full-grown man according to Christ. He has ability to serve the saints, and he has something that he can use in serving them. And then he can be restful if some other brother can give something and serve Christ (and be silent himself). It requires grace, but it is what the Lord is aiming at.
HG Is verse 26 spoken approvingly or otherwise? Every man ought to have something to give, but he should not come to give it.
JT Yes, it is a question of wealth. He controls himself to refrain from giving it if the Spirit is not in it.
HG I do not think it enters the mind of the average brother that in a meeting of this character he might have something; so-and-so has something — that is not my job at all.
JT This matter of the ‘open’ meeting resolves itself very largely into one of confidence. Whether the Lord has confidence in us to allow us to get up, and whether I have enough confidence to wait on you, or whether I think I can do better myself. Am I going to betray the confidence of my brethren, and, instead of affording them an opportunity, am I going to take it myself?