THE ASSEMBLY AS CUSTODIAN OF THE INTERESTS OF CHRIST
[p. 318] THE ASSEMBLY AS CUSTODIAN OF THE INTERESTS OF CHRIST
JT What is in mind particularly is that we might all see that the assembly is the custodian of the interests of Christ. We see in chapter 18 how it has a final word as to differences among the brethren. The interests of the Lord are not at the disposal of any nation or accumulation of nations, nor dominated by any person on earth. The assembly is constituted to take charge. Matthew has this in mind, the Lord saying in Matthew’s gospel that He is with us always even to the end of the age, not exactly to do things for us but that we should do them ourselves according to the light and ability He gives us, but He is with us, and so if any acute situation arises He is with the two or three gathered unto His name. I think the point that is important is, that drawing near to this section of this gospel of Matthew, dealing with the assembly and with the revelation made as to it and as to the Lord Jesus, we have stressed the idea of faith. That is, what we are dealing with is a faith matter, not simply a visible matter such as would appear in relation to any human matter or organisation. It is a faith matter, and so we have such statements as the Lord’s remark to Peter as having attempted to walk on the water, “O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?”. His faith was little. Then again we have the Syrophenician woman of whom the Lord says, “Great is thy faith”, and there are such statements which bear upon the passage in the gospel. Thus we are dealing with a faith situation, a faith system. Christ is above, He is not visible to the natural eye. It is said, “Whom heaven indeed must receive till the times of the restoring of all things”
([p. 319] Acts 3:21); but He is going on with the assembly and calling it. The Spirit too is not visible, but He is here. These are the thoughts one had.
Ques What is secured in the thought of the “Son of the living God”?
JT That will come in later if you do not mind. In verse 13 it says, “When Jesus was come into the parts of Caesarea-Philippi, he demanded of his disciples, saying, Who do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some, John the baptist; and others, Elias; and others again, Jeremias or one of the prophets. He says to them, But ye, who do ye say that I am?”. I was thinking we might dwell a little on this situation indicated here as to what people are saying. It is not what we think first of all, it is what we say, whether it be to one another, or to men, but men are saying things about Christ too, unconverted men. Perhaps it would be helpful that the young ones here might come to see they should have the right thought of Christ in naming Him, and then too the instruction is in a certain geographical setting, Caesarea-Philippi, which would mean it was outside the Israelitish territory. The assembly is not presented as exactly a part of Israel’s possession. Later on the disciples ask the Lord whether He should at that time take up the kingdom of Israel (Acts 1: 6), but that would becloud the assembly. He had already assembled with the brethren in Acts 1 and therefore we have to understand what the position is with regard to Israel, and with regard to the nations too, because the Lord Jesus is to rule over the nations also, but both are in abeyance, and we have to leave that, the Lord is leaving it. The Father has kept all these secret things in His hands. The Lord is now coming to the Spirit and the assembly, so that He says to the disciples in Acts 1 that they are to be witnesses. He would send them out as His witnesses. They were to wait for the coming of the Spirit, so that everything now [p. 320] hinges on the presence of the Spirit, and He is not occupied with nations nor even with Israel but with the assembly and all that relates to the assembly; that is the gospel.
Ques Had you in mind we should have the firm conviction of the Person of Christ with regard to faith?
JT Yes, especially young people. The young need to be guarded so as to have the right understanding as to Christ. Zacchaeus “sought to see Jesus who he was”.
Ques So would you say that is the first thing to be established with us, as to what we should say? Is that the ground on which the disciples act when sent out to all the nations: “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptising them to the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”,
JT Yes, just so, and that someone knows. Peter knew, hence Peter says, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God”, so that it is a question now of the Son of the living God. So much is being said now, we ought to be on our guard as to whether we can say the right thing. It is what we say, not what we think!
Ques Why does the Lord ask the question, “Who do men say that I the Son of man am?”.
JT It is to make the matter clear, to give them to understand that men are talking about Him. His name had become public now. The brethren ought to know what they say, not only what they think.
Ques Is there a reason why the title, “Son of man” should be introduced with regard to speaking to men?
JT The Lord says when He was come into the parts of Caesarea-Philippi, “Who do men say that I the Son of man am?”. Now arises the question as to the Son of man, and notice it comes in before we have the revelation made as to the Son of God. “Son of man” refers to His public position with regard to the [p. 321] whole race of man, so the mind must be centred in Him. He is the Son and Heir, Heir of what belongs to man; the Son of God is Heir to what belongs to God, therefore He certainly has a right here to the position in which man is, but the Lord had in mind, however, that the revelation would come and the Father would have part in the thing. He would take up the matter, so that someone answers and that someone is Peter, and therefore the matter is settled. It was the revelation. If what we are engaged with is revelation, what can anyone say? It is a revelation from God the Father; what need for debate if it is a revelation? Have we the revelation? We have; that is the point here.
Ques Is the same order seen in Acts 7 where Stephen testifies to the Son of man, and then in chapter 9 Saul preaches that Jesus is the Son of God?
JT That is a good connection, I should say, because the public position is the one in mind, the parting of the ways, Stephen being cast out and about to be martyred; his martyrdom involved a new situation which would come out in Paul. That is another matter which comes into this section. The great thought of what was revealed to Peter was intended to be Paul’s great matter, the great subject of his testimony. “He preached Jesus that he is the Son of God”, Acts 9: 20. Peter never did, as far as we know. It was a question of Paul, and that brings up another matter as to Paul’s place in the assembly. Stephen says, “I behold the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God”; it was a matter of humanity. The gospel implies humanity, “God is one, and the mediator of God and men one, the man Christ Jesus”, 1 Timothy 2: 5. It is a question of men, therefore the Son of man is seen at the right hand of God. It is spoken of in John’s gospel as “In heaven” showing that the title “Son of man” involves His presence as Son of man. It [p. 322] involves that He is a divine Person. That is what we all need to understand, especially the young ones as they are coming into the truth.
Ques Is not ignorance as to the Son of man the great defect in Christendom?
JT So that what men were saying implied they could say what they like about it. We sometimes see the Lord’s name connected with ungodly men. No one who loves the Lord will admit of that for a moment, they would never admit of placing the Lord’s name against great men of the earth.
Ques How far did Peter go in his preaching in Acts, that “God has made him, this Jesus whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ”?
JT That is the official place. Here he went the whole way as to the Lord’s deity, “Christ, the Son of the living God”. Notice the word ‘living’, meaning he did not imply a dead system of things, but living. The assembly is the assembly of the living God too.
Ques One feels the importance of this great matter to which you have referred. Would you just help us, especially the young, how we can get these right thoughts with regard to Christ when His name is so lightly spoken of?
JT Well, of course, the Spirit is the great Teacher in that sense. The Lord is the Teacher too, and John tells us, “They shall be all taught of God”, John 6: 45. These are great facts to keep before us, and now you are enquiring as to how the young are to arrive at the truth. Well now, I would say the truth of the household enters into this matter. It belongs to Paul’s line. Paul arrived at the full truth of Christianity as it was intended to stand in this world publicly; he preached in the household. He did not make much of baptism, but Peter would make much of baptism. Paul baptised the household of Stephanas, showing he was thinking of that and the place the children have in view of the assembly. All are to be [p. 323] taken account of potentially. All believers are to be taken account of and held as belonging to the assembly. If in time they break away after being baptised in the household of faith that would be apostasy in principle. While they remain in the truth nominally, their conduct being in relation to it they are to be held in relation to the assembly, and the teaching of the assembly is to be for them as well as for the brethren. It is a question here of teaching.
Ques Is that why they are addressed in the epistles to the Ephesians and the Colossians?
JT Quite so. They are not held in the same importance in Corinthians, nor in Romans. Not that these epistles ignore them at all, or set aside the thought of the household, but it is remarkable they come in such prominence in such epistles as Ephesians and Colossians. Brethren will do well to pay attention to it, if they are to come into the assembly. It is the design of God that our children are holy. They are held in the mind of God in that way and the teaching should have that in mind; the assembly should be in mind.
Ques Is Timothy an example: “From a child thou hast known the holy scriptures”?
JT Very good! That is what I would say exactly. There was good reason for it. His grandmother and his mother are spoken of, implying that not only the immediate parents of the children are responsible but the grandparents too.
Ques Does the name the Lord gave Peter have a bearing on what you are saying?
JT It is to call attention to his responsible position. The Lord names him, He gives him his proper assembly name. The Lord had the assembly in mind, “I also” (verse 18), meaning the allusion is to what the Father had said to him in revelation. The Lord alludes to that, “I also, I say unto thee that thou art Peter”, that would be he is material for the [p. 324] assembly, but the name Peter is called in John, “Cephas” meaning the same thing, the name the Lord gives to him directly as the last Adam, so that his status is established as to the assembly.
Ques Do you mean He speaks to Peter in his responsible position first as having received the Father’s revelation, and then, when He says, “I say unto thee that thou art Peter”, on the line of purpose?
JT Quite so. He is material; one man who knew, and I think Paul had that in mind when he said, “Ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ”, Ephesians 3: 4. If there is one man who knows, one man being a creature, why not others? I think the Lord is stressing one answering His question because of revelation, not simply because he had heard it from others or that it was a known thing, but it is by revelation. I think that is the great point, the basis of our position on the earth today is revelation, there is no question about it. Infidelity being current is simply wickedness, just denying revelation.
Ques Is “On this rock” on the revelation?
JT “Rock” has a known value in scriptural language; it refers to Jehovah, the word ‘rock’ signifies what is impregnable. The position of denial is simply wickedness; indeed it is blasphemy.
Ques Is revelation consequent upon Peter’s confession, “Thou art the Christ”?
JT Revelation is already made in the words, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God”. That is what he confesses, what he says, but that is already in his soul. That is where any idea of a stone or Cephas lies; the stones are impregnable too, the thing spoken of is also impregnable, “Hades’ gates shall not prevail against it”, the assembly.
Ques Does “Look on us” bear on this? Would this truth have an effect upon the lame man at the beautiful gate? Peter says, “Look on us”. [p. 325] I wondered whether he would have this truth stabilised in his soul?
JT “Look on” would have some allusion to the word “Cephas”, the thing indicated in the word applying to Peter, and John too. If anything comes out from God it is not intended for one person but to be spread abroad, so when the Lord says to Nathanael, “Thou shalt see greater things than these”, He changes it to the plural, “Ye shall see”. I think that is important to get hold of. The idea you are speaking of would spread out to John and to all of us because it is a question of what is in Peter’s soul that would spread.
Ques Have you in mind that the principle of “Look on us” would be developed locally?
JT I should say so. If a man is converted the thing is to spread. To illustrate that I would quote the woman of Samaria. You could hardly get a better case. She went to the men of the city and said, “Come, see a man who told me all things I had ever done: is not he the Christ?” (John 4: 29), and there was a nice spread of the truth. That is the basis upon which the assembly is formed.
Ques This was a special revelation?
JT I am quite sure it was, a great fact to present before Peter’s eyes. He who is said to be the Son of the living God is also the Christ. That is exactly what He said to the woman of Samaria. He told her He was the Christ. That enters into her testimony and into Peter’s testimony. It would extend to Paul’s doctrine. I should think it included all.
Ques His special ministry of the Son of God?
JT Well, yes. The revelation was there.
Ques The assembly includes Jew and gentile?
JT Quite so. That is what is meant here. It spreads out to the gentile. The epistle to the Ephesians assumes that and enlarges on it.
([p. 326] Question with regard to the Messiah and “Son of the living God”.)
JT He was the Messiah of Israel. The word is He is the Christ the Son of the living God. He is Christ as well as the Son of the living God.
Ques Are you bringing this before us that we should be in the light of this revelation in the faith of our souls?
JT Even our children should be brought up in this great matter of the living God and the revelation made. Christianity is established on this line. It is an impregnable position and the children should know what to say to their school-fellows.
Ques Why does the Lord say here, “Thou art Peter”, but when he is coming with Andrew his brother the Lord says, “Thou shalt be called Cephas”?
JT The word ‘Peter’ is just material for the building. We remarked Cephas is the name which the Lord gives as the last Adam. That is the way I think it should be understood.
Ques Thou art a stone-material?
JT Just so.
Ques Does He name him in view of this coming to light?
JT John and Matthew run together, John later, I suppose, so there is the idea of a name because the word ‘Peter’ or ‘Cephas’ becomes a name, but here it is viewed as material, the one is just material for the building, “I will build”; the word ‘build’ links the two things together, and Cephas is brought in in 1 Corinthians 15, but not Peter there. The Lord appeared to Cephas. Peter is stone. There was such a thing as material for the building and that is important too. What we are called to is to build up something the Lord has in mind, and it is to be impregnable, “The pillar and base of the truth”.
Rem It is suggested that all should be stones?
JT Mixture is what does damage.
[p. 327] Ques I wondered about the distinction between the assembly of Christ and the assembly of the living God?
JT It is very precious that the Lord has an assembly. It shows how divine Persons regard each other. He has the assembly and God has it. It is said God purchased it with the blood of His own (Acts 20: 28). The Lord builds it Himself.
Rem “In heaven” is stressed here, “My Father which is in heaven”, and “bound in heaven” and “loosed in heaven”. All that is bound up with what is committed to Peter in relation to the keys of the kingdom. Will you help us a little as to why that thought is stressed?
JT It is a feature of Matthew, but of course it is generally true too. The heavens are brought in as well as the earth. The assembly involves, according to John, a universal position; indeed it is said in Hebrews, “He who has built all things is God”, “all things” refers to the universe, and we are told in that epistle, “He that has built it has more honour than the house” and the builder is Christ, so that it is a universal position, not simply what may be on earth by itself, such as Israel or the nations but the assembly. The assembly stands in relation to the universal position and the idea of heaven. Heaven is prominent in Matthew. What power there is in the universal position, it is not Israel simply, but God was coming out universally, therefore the assembly is always to be regarded as universal. Look at Corinthians in its principles, it is universal, “Thus I ordain in all the assemblies”; any local thoughts are foreign.
Rem The prayer meeting takes a universal aspect, it comes into line. Help is needed to go beyond what is local or district.
Ques Is this thought of building and revelation individual or more [p. 328] general?
JT I think it is what we come into. We have been speaking about the children and what they come into. What do they say they have come into? Is it church of England? It is a matter of revelation, hence it stands. That is the way it should be worked out. We are brought into a universal position and it is on the basis of revelation. All these religions claim revelation but it is all false. We have what is true here, we build into what is impregnable. I think children should be impressed with that and so with all of us in what we are saying to one another or to men.
Ques Do we come into it by way of faith?
JT That is what I am thinking, only revelation is greater than faith.
Rem Revelation stands once for all; the Spirit of God caused it to spread.
Ques Is what comes in by way of revelation by the Spirit held in faith on our side?
JT If we have not faith we are not in it, so that faith is the test now. If one professes to be converted what has he got? Because the position has been secured by the death of Christ and the ascension of Christ and the gift of the Spirit. What has he got? It is a faith matter.
Ques Have you in mind that Peter’s confession showed what he had got?
JT I should say so. The Lord confirms it, “Thou art Peter”, not a Jew, not a fisherman, not son of Simon; the point is he was Peter. That is he was material for the new building.
Ques Is this worked out in Peter in chapter 2 of his first epistle, the living stones being built, and in Paul in Ephesians 2, being built together for a habitation of God?
JT One is for spiritual sacrifices and the other for a habitation of God. “He who has built all things is God”. That building is not this material, but He [p. 329] that builds the house is greater than the house. It is material we are dealing with here; that material stands. The earth and heavens pass away but that material stands. Peter deals with what is passing, where there are all kinds of material things, but this material stands. The heavens and the earth pass away but this does not. It is indestructible. Hebrews 12 sets it out in contrast to the things which can be shaken. It is opened up in, “Receiving a kingdom not to be shaken”, Hebrews 12: 28.
Ques “I also”. Does that indicate the greatness of the Builder here?
JT Just so. He is another divine Person. He speaks of the Father.
Ques What is the importance of ‘Christ’ coming before “the Son of the living God”? He confesses Christ first, then the Son of the living God.
JT I would take that to be to set aside mere Jewish thought, the thought of the Messiah historically, the way it was held amongst them. The Father is the One who gives revelation. He would establish the Lord on an entirely new footing because Christ is associated with the truth right through in the assembly, and He is made Lord and Christ. We address Him in that way.
Ques You are emphasising the Father and Christ here, two divine Persons. Would that be in accord with Peter’s ministry being effected by the Father and the Son, that he is to first sound forth the truth of a divine Person, the Spirit, down here?
JT He is called the first apostle in Matthew. “First ... Peter” would imply in the Lord’s mind that he had the first place with the apostles before Paul came. Not that he is relegated to the second place. It is never said of Peter that he preached Jesus as the Son of God; he never used that title in his preaching; it is as if the Lord reserved it for Paul.
[p. 330] It was the first thing Paul preached. He says, “God ... was pleased to reveal his Son in me”, Galatians 1: 16.
Ques Does this testimony stand? The gates of hades cannot prevail against it.
JT That is the idea one would like to have in one’s own soul and in those of the brethren. We stand on impregnable ground which cannot be destroyed. It is a question of accepting that, and then the Spirit would support us in the position. We might die, we might suffer but the thing cannot be destroyed.
Rem Say a little on verse 19, the keys of the kingdom.
JT It shows what God can do in a man. Peter had the power to bind and loose, and indeed the apostles had, speaking in general in chapter 18, “Whatsoever ye shall bind on the earth shall be bound in heaven”, so it is a great matter. Peter had that power. It is exercised in the Acts. It is what we have in the assembly. It is one of the items that have come down to us; though Peter has passed away the binding and loosing has not passed away. John says, “Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted to them; whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained”. This is in the assembly; it is something the assembly has, and it greatly helps us when a lawless element arises. There is this power in the assembly and we can deal with evil, we are not driven to the wall.
Ques Would it be right to say a man of flesh and blood reveals nothing of divine Persons?
JT The Father and the Son can reveal, therefore the whole position is outside the power of the devil.
Ques Why does he use the word “whatsoever” not ‘whosoever’?
JT Whatever lawless thing there may be. Persons may become things, they may become associations. Take the Roman Catholic system. It is a system of persons but it is an association and it is treated as such in the Revelation.
[p. 331] Rem The Lord enjoined them after such a confession that no man was to say He was the Christ.
JT We are not to make these precious things public matters for the natural mind; we are to speak mysteries. We are not to cast our pearls before swine. Christendom is the things of God brought down to men’s mind. When we preach we preach on the principle of mystery. We preach by the Spirit but not for the natural mind of man as man, but as taking account of men as God takes account of them. The natural mind is not appealed to; it cannot take in the things of God at all.
Ques Is this binding and loosing applicable in the local company now?
JT Quite so, in the sense of binding sin on a man; if one known as a brother has known he has sinned and if it is unjudged I would say that principle holds; it is in keeping with John 20, “whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained”. These are remnant times and we have to acknowledge all the weakness of the position, hence the word is, “Thou hast a little strength”, and we exercise that.
Rem The natural mind does not understand Christ and the assembly.
JT That is quite true, it is mystery.
(Question with regard to severity in dealing with one who has sinned.)
JT Well, if you analyse the first epistle to the Corinthians you will be fully confirmed in that. “What vengeance!”, and yet the man was restored, showing severity is warranted.
Ques If sins have to be retained, what happens?
JT It is a question whether he ever was converted, but then it is a comfort to know the man in Corinth was a bad case and he was restored quickly, more so than the highest hopes any one could have. He was restored and the apostle enjoins them to forgive him and comfort him. But if a man’s sins are [p. 332] not forgiven and have to be retained, I question if he was ever converted.
Rem It speaks of being saved so as by fire.
JT That is true too. If his sin is retained solemnly before God it is doubtful if he was converted. We have to leave that, I would say.
Rem So we look for repentance, “If he repent”.
JT Quite so. Repentance must be there before he can be forgiven. “Convict before all”.