NOTE OF CONVERSATION ON THE PRECEDING READING ON NOVEMBER 4th 1947.

NOTE OF CONVERSATION ON THE PRECEDING READING ON NOVEMBER 4th 1947.

Inquiry was made regarding persons who had failed and who may have repented, whether in view of their having judged themselves, the fire, so to speak, having done its work, there would be any necessity to bring the matter before the assembly. If persons have judged themselves, is their sin not gone before God and why should there be any necessity to take assembly action for remission?

Mr. Taylor remarked on the nature of such failures. Certain things may come under the heading of Galatians 6: 1, and could be met by spiritual persons dealing with them; other things being more serious, could not be cleared apart from assembly action.

^[p. 290] The case was cited of a person involved in a course of self-will, opposition and party activity, but he had, at least in measure, judged himself and Mr. Taylor was definite that such a case could not be cleared in the sight of heaven apart from assembly action.

He referred to 1 Corinthians 5, the purging out of the leaven, which was a deeper matter than the putting away of the wicked person. How are others, who may have been affected in any matter, to get clear? and also how are saints themselves to judge the leaven in their hearts unless it is brought to the assembly? 1 Corinthians 5, whilst involving that the person was not repentant, it says, “being such”, the same principle as to purging out the leaven would operate even where repentance has taken place.

John 20 was referred to and Mr. Taylor stressed the “ye”. Who are the “ye”? It is not the care-meeting. It would be parallel to the “ye” of Matthew 18: 18 or the “two of you” of Matthew 18: 19. We have to take the four gospel records together and in considering John 20: 23, keep Matthew 18 in mind also.

The thought of grading was referred to and Mr. Taylor agreed that this would be kept in mind. There may be relatively trivial offences which could be cleared personally, or by one or two spiritual persons. It is a matter for priestly discernment as to the extent of the sin, but in cases of uncertainty it would be wiser to go to the assembly. This cannot be wrong, whereas, not to do so may be. It is not a question of endeavouring to keep things from the assembly, for it is one of the functions of the assembly to deal with failures that may arise. The scripture “Let not the assembly be charged” is not apropos in such cases.

We must keep in mind heaven’s part in these matters, and assembly action, either in retention or ^[p. 291] remission, is in the sight of heaven. If there is ground for remission, why should a matter be covered? It is pleasing to heaven, and the setting out of the whole matter helps the saints in self-judgment, and clears the position of the person concerned in an unequivocal manner. Letting things like this go by default, which leaving them in the care meeting would involve, does not clear the position and is not sufficient.

The above was confirmed by letter from Mr. J. Taylor, January 14th, 1948 (see Letters of J. Taylor, Volume 2, page 398).