JUDGMENT (10)
JUDGMENT (10)
JT The suggestion is to briefly refer to headship in the first part of the chapter so as to link it on with our present thought of the Lord’s supper. The subject begins in verse 2, “Now I praise you, that in all things ye are mindful of me; and that as I have directed you, ye keep the directions. But I wish you to know that the Christ is the head of every man, but woman’s head is the man, and the Christ’s head God”. It is thought that the subject of headship fits in peculiarly as introductory to the Lord’s supper in the service of God. The tendency with us is to have our own thoughts about things, and hence the subject of headship would tend to regulate us and keep us subject.
JTJr Does headship according to the Corinthian epistles allude to the public side of the truth?
JT I would think so, especially because of the reference to the hair, and that it is given to the woman for a covering. Many take that to mean that it settles the whole matter, that the hair as a covering is enough, but it is not so; because the apostle says if a woman have not long hair she should be shaved, which is very drastic, and it shows how much the matter is in the mind of the Spirit of God, as to the public appearance and order of the assembly.
ABP Is subjection a feminine thought?
JT Of course it is general, but it runs through scripture as characteristically feminine.
LES Would all this be in mind in Ephesians 5 where it says, “... even as the assembly is subjected to the Christ”? Does what you are saying lie at the base of our understanding of what the assembly is and its functioning?
JT Not simply that she is subject as a matter of fact, but that she is subjected.
[p. 447] AM The public side is especially in mind, because there is a distinction between men and women, brothers and sisters. It is in that connection we come together for the Supper. So that what is not seemly on that level has to be met first.
JT Yes, and therefore, as has often been remarked, we do not exactly come to meet the Lord, initially; we come to meet the brethren. And that raises the question as to what marks us as brothers and sisters together.
AR It is not only that people may be looking at us but angels also. It is said that there is seen in the assembly the all-various wisdom of God. Do you think the wisdom of God is seen in our sisters having a covering on, indicating subjection?
JT It would seem that angelic distinction is involved in the fact that angels are spoken of so much as having to say to the assembly.
VCL In the private side the hair is not overlooked, typically, by the Lord in the Song of Solomon. It comes in prominently in chapter 4: 1, “Thy hair is as a flock of goats, on the slopes of mount Gilead”. That would show the height this truth would reach.
AR More than long hair is spoken of in this chapter. There is also the matter of a covering, that is ‘authority’ on the head of woman, verse 10.
JT That is a verse not much understood; it reads, “Therefore ought the woman to have authority on her head, on account of the angels”. Authority there means that there is a sign or a symbol of authority on her head.
LES Would it not furnish a bulwark, if understood, as over against the incoming of the floods of evil?
JT I think it does, and it is a question of how much sisters take it on, because there is a great deal of discussion on this point; and when the subject is ended, it is said, “But if any one think to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor the assemblies of God”,
[p. 448] showing that the apostle was refusing the idea of contention on this point.
DMcD Would you say something in regard to long hair? There are sisters amongst us who have their hair cut.
JT Well, this subject affects every brother and sister, every sister particularly.
FNW Is that one way in which priestly sensibilities would show themselves in the sisterhood?
JT Yes, ‘priestly sensibilities’ is a good expression because it is so allied with the service of God, and that is the point we are aiming at just now, the service of God, and what is becoming in it.
AM So that the public position is only introductory; it is only a means to an end, is it not? The end in view is the spiritual side of things, and the sisters are included, all are on the same level in that regard.
JT Gradually we come into the service of God, we come into sonship, sisters and brothers alike. The service of God is progressive, from glory to glory, and the idea of glory is attached to the woman’s hair.
AR Do you think that Mary came into the idea of brethren when she got the message from the Lord in John 20? He said to her, “go to my brethren and say to them ...”. She carried that message to them.
JT Doubtless she would have in her mind all that was proper to a sister.
AR I was thinking of what was said. She must have understood the idea of brethren before she could understand the idea of sonship; we must work it out that way in the service of God, coming to the idea of brethren first, before we can work out the truth of sonship.
JT I would say, rather, that the relationship as brothers and sisters comes first; brethren is a more advanced thought, really, and particularly if we have [p. 449] in mind what the Lord said, in John 20, “My brethren”. But what we alluded to at the beginning is that we come together as brothers and sisters. We meet as saints; that is the idea, and we go on from glory to glory.
WAT Those in John 20 have to learn headship, for the napkin which had been on the Lord’s head was lying in a separate place; this was before Mary got the message we referred to.
JT That is very suggestive. The napkin was laid in a place by itself. Surely that would call attention to headship.
CAM The matter of headship will continue eternally, I take it. The setting here in regard to the man and woman is a provisional idea, would you say?
JT Yes, because we are still in the public position; the order in which we are under the government of God now, as we are sitting here in this hall.
CAM I thought that was why you distinguished between brothers and sisters, and brethren, and sons, which latter would be an eternal thought.
JTJr The first reference in the book to a brother is in chapter 1 — “Sosthenes the brother”, as if that feature was in Paul’s mind in the public setting; and then in chapter 9 he speaks of a sister: “have we not a right to take round a sister as wife”, verse 5. These two thoughts were evidently in the apostle’s mind in connection with the government of God.
JT Just so, although they come short of the full thought. What has been said is right — it is the provisional thought, because it will not continue eternally. What will continue is sonship, and from the feminine side what will continue is the assembly.
AMcD Is that why we get in chapter 1 of the Acts, not only brothers mentioned, but also “several women”.
JT Yes, and among them the Lord’s mother. She must always be in mind when the question of women [p. 450] comes up because she is singled out in the history of humanity, you might say. There is none to be compared with her in that sense. And so the Lord places her in the hands of John, putting her in the charge of John as it were, and He says to John, “Behold thy mother”. John is regarded as her son; the Lord distinguishes him in that way. She is to regard John as her son. So he took her to his own home; there is remarkable distinction in that sense, in Mary.
ABP In Isaiah 7 it is “the virgin”. The article is emphatic. Is that an honour that is paid to Mary in the prophetic word?
JT Quite so; much is made of it in some authorities.
SW Would you go as far as some do that Mary was immaculate?
JT Oh no, you could not say that; that is not true. The Lord Himself, in John 2, says, “What have I to do with thee, woman?” We have to bear that in mind. She is a creature, and had really to be saved.
AM Is it important that the teaching here goes back to Genesis 1 and 2, especially chapter 2, before sin came in? I was thinking of man being God’s image and glory; the woman, man’s glory; man is not of woman, but woman of man. That refers to the period before sin came in. So that it is a very fundamental matter in the mind of God.
JT And then how the woman comes in in the history of humanity; how she comes in maternally; the place she has maternally. We are all aware of that; we should be aware of it. We are born of woman, every one of us. God recognises that, and certain suffering connected with it, but then at the same time there is a certain distinction and honour connected with it. The Lord Jesus Himself is referred to as her Seed. Hence the great distinction attached to her.
ABP Is the use of the covering and of the token referred to in our chapter a means by which a sister can [p. 451] show she has a right judgment of what took place at the beginning of man’s history and overcome in relation to the deception of Eve?
JT Yes, but her beginning was before that. It is a remarkable thing that Adam was not conscious while she was being formed or built; the word ‘built’ is used as to her. It is not used as to man; it is used as to the woman. God built a woman, so that she has a greater distinction in that sense. And so Adam said, “This time it is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: this shall be called Woman, because this was taken out of a man”.
CAM The maternal idea does not come in until God makes the pronouncement that it was not good that man should be alone.
AAT Our chapter speaks of a woman praying or prophesying. We know that in the assembly the woman is silent. When does she pray?
JT She prays with the brethren; when they pray, she prays. The brother that prays is not the only one that is praying, the brother that prays is just a leader in the prayer. We would be very sorry to see a sister come in without her hat on, in the assembly.
AR Would you say that the maternal side is seen when Adam calls Eve the mother of all living?
JT Exactly.
JHE Does the woman really shine in Luke 7? The man, the Pharisee, was amiss there with his questioning, but the woman was subject; she washed the Lord’s feet with her tears and wiped them with the hairs of her head.
JT That was a glorious service. Others have done it too, Mary of Bethany for instance.
LES Would this thought be extended in 1 Timothy 2 in regard of the women who profess godliness? The apostle refers to their hair and to their deportment.
JT Quite so, you can see there the place she has [p. 452] in the service, and how much intelligence the woman is supposed to have. So ultimately sisters, as Lydia and Phoebe, are regarded as servants as well as brothers. That is the way we are to classify ourselves as in the service of God. Spiritually sisters are brethren of Christ and sons of God. What is said in 1 Corinthians as to women being silent refers to what is public.
RWS It would be difficult to have the service of God without the sisters.
JT It would not be just right without the sisters, not that it could not be, but the assembly implies brothers and sisters.
JAP Hannah calls Eli her lord, she says, “my lord, I am a woman of a sorrowful spirit ... Take not thy handmaid for a daughter of Belial”. Is not the subject way she speaks to Eli, although spiritually superior, very lovely?
JT Yes; all that Hannah did was perfectly comely. She comes in among the worshippers. She comes in with them, just as Mary, the mother of our Lord, does.
ABP Is there a spiritual meaning to the end of verse 12? Has it a bearing upon the Supper? “For as the woman is of the man, so also is the man by the woman, but all things of God”. I have in mind especially the words, “so also is the man by the woman”, wondering if that has a spiritual application to the saints as together on Lord’s day morning and the way in which their feelings enter into the calling of the Lord to mind. They bring in the Man, so to speak.
JT “For as the woman is of the man”, would work out in an individual and provisional matter in everyday life.
ABP Yes, I can see that that is the basic setting of the verse, but I wondered if this principle, in a spiritual way, could be applied to the subjective feelings which move the saints as together for a calling of the Lord to mind.
JT You mean that body feelings enter it? As to [p. 453] the individual side, I think we might inquire whether Mary and Joseph would not set out the thought; Joseph was by the woman there. In Luke you see how beautifully they are brought in together. Mary kept all the things in her mind, pondering them in her heart. If we were to inquire into Matthew we would see more the idea of the man, because he acts so righteously and beautifully as a man there. The thought of the assembly coming into the matter would be covered in chapter 10: 15 — “intelligent persons”.
JTJr What you bring up about Matthew and Luke seems to open up a different view of this verse from that we might have had. I have never considered it that way, and it is very enlightening that Matthew is the man. The woman is there, but the man in prominence. In Luke the stress is on the woman, but the man is there, too.
JT And he is a righteous man, he is viewed as righteous. Joseph is more distinguished in Matthew than even Mary, stress being placed on his righteousness. It is a question of the assembly gospel and righteousness comes into the history of Joseph there more than in Luke.
CAM The stressing of the woman in Luke seems to help. Even the genealogy there is thought to be Mary’s, is it not?
JT I think so. In Luke Joseph is said to be “of Eli”, whereas in Matthew “Jacob begat Joseph”. The genealogy has Joseph more in mind than Mary in Matthew.
RWS So he is a righteous man; it is not a righteous brother or a righteous husband, but a righteous man.
JT That is the point, that he is distinguished as a righteous man.
AR Does that bear upon assembly administration?
JT Yes. It brings out the importance of the man for administrative purposes.
ANW [p. 454] Why does the apostle open the paragraph in our chapter with a word of praise, hopefully praising them, in contradistinction to the verse you now refer to where he emphatically says, I do not praise. Was he hopeful as to headship, do you think, but alarmed as to behaviour at the Supper? He says in verse 2, “Now I praise you, that in all things ye are mindful of me; and that as I have directed you, ye keep the directions. But I wish you to know”, etc.
JT The ‘but’, verse 17, comes in, and it is very important that it is there, because the apostle is going to say something negative. But he is going to stress the positive, too. In the first chapter of the epistle the question of division amongst them is mentioned and in verse 17 of this chapter we have also division referred to, only the assembly is brought into it immediately, which I think we ought to notice. The assembly is brought into it immediately here, whereas in chapter 1 it is not brought in and yet the same things are said. You just wonder why that should be.
RHS When we come together for the Lord’s supper, is the headship of Christ to be before us mainly to regulate us, or is there opportunity to give expression to it in our thanksgiving?
JT Well, I think there is opportunity to give expression to it. I believe we are impressed as we proceed in the service of God that the brothers are the ones that are speaking, whereas in time, while the brothers always speak in assembly, yet there is this thought of the assembly, and instead of the idea of division being stressed, as in chapter 1, we have the assembly stressed.
JTJr Meaning that the assembly was there in spite of what might be called division?
JT Well, exactly; the apostle, in this chapter, is now coming to the real thought that is in his mind, and that is the service of God. He has in mind the [p. 455] actual service of God on the first day of the week.
JTJr So when we sit down in our localities, there might be difficulties but the positive thought is there in the assembly which should lead out of every difficulty.
JT That is right, and it does, too. We already alluded to the prescription that the apostle mentions in verse 17, but he says immediately, “I do not praise”. He says that immediately. And then he says, “ye come together, not for the better, but for the worse. For first, when ye come together in assembly ...” Now he is not saying, Ye are not the assembly, but he does say that the assembly is there and they are regarded as in it. Some may wonder why I am pressing all this, but it is very important to see that the assembly is immediately brought in, and that it is not abrogated or neglected or set aside by the condition that existed; it is still regarded as there, although the Corinthians are not acting properly in it.
AR So that when we commence our meetings, we commence with the idea of a moral whole, the word involves a moral whole, so that it eclipses the idea of divisions.
JT That is good, you refer to Exodus 12 for the ideal of a moral whole; it does not necessarily mean every one in the gathering but there is a moral completeness attached to it. The footnote in the New Translation to Exodus 12: 3 reads, “’Assembly’ is the congregation looked at as a moral whole, a corporate person before God”. That is something for every one of us to take note of so that we will see what attaches to us as we come together in assembly.
RWS Was there reluctance on Paul’s part to believe all that he heard? In chapter 1 he says that it has been shewn to him concerning them, but here he says, “I hear there exist divisions among you, and I partly give credit to it”.
JT He evidently got facts himself, he is not relying entirely on Chloe’s information.
RWS Why does he partly give credit? He does not say that he wholly believes it.
JT He says, “I hear there exist divisions among you, and I partly give credit to it. For there must also be sects among you, that the approved may become manifest among you”. The word ‘must’ there has moral bearing.
CAM Would it be right to distinguish between the expression “in assembly”, verse 18, and the expression in Acts 1: 4, “being assembled with them”?
JT ‘In assembly’ may be compared with a legislative chamber, like the House of Commons in England, or Congress in this country; that is, there is a time when they are regarded as in session, when they are in function. The passages you mention — Acts 1: 4 and 1 Corinthians 11: 18 — illustrate this.
WAT When are the approved made manifest?
JT Well, they are there and discerned; it is a question of what is to be seen morally when the saints come together, there are those that are approved, and there are those that are not approved. The Lord helps us to discern them.
WAT Do we see that in Judas?
JT Well, he was there; in fact, on the night in which Jesus “was delivered up”. Judas was there, a most solemn thing. It shows what can happen, and yet we have the status of the assembly.
ABP Does this passage mean that the approved come to light during the issue? The issue makes the approved manifest because they are feeling things with God. There were sects, but during the period of this divided condition, there were those who felt things with God and maintained the oneness in their exercises.
JT Just so, and therefore we come to the most [p. 457] solemn phase of the chapter in verse 26; we must keep before us that what is contemplated is the assembly in function notwithstanding the difficulties that came up; notwithstanding the actual state of things in Corinth.
ABP Well, was it not the existence of the approved that gave the apostle courage to say that they had assembly status?
JT There must have been some that were right, for he says “that the approved may become manifest among you”. Therefore we cannot cover ourselves in these cases, because the assembly has that in it that exposes. That which exposes is light and this is seen in the approved.
ATD So that what we have here is consistent with what it says in the first chapter, in the beginning, referring to the assembly at Corinth.
JT Well quite so; there is much said there what we may call objective, that it is not exactly a state at the time; the apostle liberally gives credit for it.
ANW Would you say the apostle regards them as together in one place in connection with the Supper itself? Verse 20 says, “When ye come therefore into one place”.
JT They are contemplated, of course, in one place or they would not be in assembly.
ANW In John 20 it says, “... where the disciples were”.
JT The word together is not there, it is where the disciples were.
RWS And despite the fact that, as Paul said, their being together was “not to eat the Lord’s supper”, they are still regarded as in assembly. Is that right?
JT Only the negative thought there is that their conduct was wrong as shown in verses 21 and 27 to 32.
DP Has the truth to be maintained at its proper level, whatever our state may be?
JT Yes, but we must remember [p. 458] there were some that were right, some that were commendable were there, as we have said. The assembly status is maintained in that sense, in that some were manifestly approved.
JTJr But there were also those that were despising the assembly, evidently, for verse 22 says, “do ye despise the assembly of God ...”.
JT Yes, but there were some who were approved, otherwise there would be no assembly at all. We can thank God for that. And so the thought is carried right through to the second epistle: “having in readiness to avenge all disobedience when your obedience shall have been fulfilled”, 2 Corinthians 10: 6. He was looking for that. But there were some all the time who were manifested as approved.
FNW Do you think the Lord had this kind of thing in mind in John 3, “For every one that does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light that his works may not be shewn as they are; but he that practises the truth comes to the light, that his works may be manifested that they have been wrought in God”, verse 20.
JT There were some there who were just in that case; some were not approved, and others were. Assembly status was there nevertheless, and that is a most important matter to have before us.
RHS What is meant by assembly status?
JT Well, the apostle speaks of the approved, and they were made manifest. They were there and were manifest. They gave the assembly its status, because these, I believe, were the greater number.
RHS Would it require two or three or just one?
JT The context would indicate there was a goodly number, as I said. The many in the second epistle, chapter 2: 6, would clearly show this.
AR So he goes on to say, “let a man prove himself, and thus eat of the bread, and drink of the cup”.
JT So, in verse 34: “If any one be hungry, let him eat at home, that ye may not come together for judgment”. So the apostle is correcting the whole matter in this chapter; and very likely it was corrected.
JTJr And so the first day of the week, as it comes round, should have this effect of correcting things. If the Supper is taken, it should arouse within us what is in keeping with the assembly and we should seek to come into line with it.
JT You can see what a wonderful thing the assembly is here on earth, how God can use it for correction.
AR So that there is to be self-examination going on all the time.
JT We are challenged all the time as we come together in assembly.
JAP Would you say a word as to our outward conduct at the Lord’s supper? There is the singing and the part we take; does all that enter into a right testimony?
JT The apostle says, that it is not a food question at all in the sense of getting sustenance for the body. He says, “If any one be hungry, let him eat at home, that ye may not come together for judgment”. Thus we may see how easily we may involve ourselves in judgment by certain conduct in the assembly.
DP When public disorder exists in a locality, does it not require skilled leadership to bring about adjustment?
JT The leaders, to help in that sense, must be of the approved, they would show what is right in the presence of the others. And so the matter would be corrected; so he says, for instance, “For as often as ye shall eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye announce the death of the Lord, until he come. So that whosoever shall eat the bread, or drink the cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty in respect of the body and of the blood of the Lord”. Notice that it is not the blood of Christ here, it is the blood of the Lord. And then, “But let a man prove himself, and thus eat of the bread, and drink of the cup. For the eater and drinker eats and drinks judgment to himself, not distinguishing the body. On this account many among you are weak and infirm, and a good many are fallen asleep”. How solemn this is! “a good many”, he says. We were remarking as to numbers; here the apostle specifies a good many as having fallen asleep. And then, “But if we judged ourselves, so were we not judged”. That is the point that is stressed now, self-judgment in the assembly. It is not simply what we are doing every day of the week, but in the assembly when we come together. Misconduct in the assembly is a most serious thing. Should persons come in and misconduct themselves in the assembly, when the saints are together, it is the most serious thing in the sight of heaven.
JHE The assembly is no place for license, you are under the authority of the Lord.
JT Quite so; it is thus a question of the blood of the Lord, you will notice.
ABP Moses was told to take off the shoes from off his feet, for the place whereon he stood was holy. I wondered if you do not have a similar situation here, that the fire is in the bush, in principle; many are weak and sickly, and many are fallen asleep. Would that not be the Lord maintaining His presence amongst them, but not in any sense compromising His holiness?
JT Quite so; and how very solemn it is that “a good many are fallen asleep”! You just wonder that a thing like that happens in a gathering.
LES Are we sometimes confronted with the damaging influences of our younger people belittling the dignity of the assembly?
JT Hence the importance of their keeping with the elder brethren so that they will not misconduct [p. 461] themselves. The Lord would help us by the example of others how to behave.
AR What do you say about “when ye come together to eat, wait for one another”, verse 33?
JT I think it refers to the order of the assembly involving mutual consideration; “wait for one another”. You might say, Why were you not there in time? Of the Lord it was said that, when the hour was come, He sat down and the twelve apostles with Him. He would not have to wait for the others. But some might come in late, so it looks as if the apostle is making much of the assembly, and that we should be in the attitude of waiting on one another before we actually begin. But then that would also be qualified by what it says of the Lord, as I noted. “When the hour was come, he placed himself at table, and the twelve apostles with him”, Luke 22: 14. It shows that He was not late; He was there when the hour came.
AR So it refers back to verse 18: “when ye come together in assembly”.
RWS Was there a meal connected with the Supper in the early church?
JT I should not think so; this instruction precludes it. He says, “If any one be hungry, let him eat at home”, verse 34.
JTJr That would cover other things, too; if you need to sleep, sleep at home.
JT Quite so. Sleeping in the assembly is most distressing. The last verse of the chapter says, “But the other things, whenever I come, I will set in order”, showing how much the apostle stressed the importance of order in the assembly.