READINGS IN MATTHEW'S GOSPEL (4)
READINGS IN MATTHEW’S GOSPEL (4)
Matthew 5: 1 - 26; Matthew 7: 24 - 29
JT We are all aware that this series of readings is in the gospel of Matthew. At the opening reading attention was called to the fact that the ascension of Christ is not mentioned in this gospel. On the other hand, it was pointed out that the Lord speaks of Himself, in the gospel, as with the disciples all the days, until the completion of the age; so that stability is suggested, not from the standpoint of what is in heaven or of our heavenly relations, but because of what is here on earth. The Lord Himself promised that He would be with the disciples throughout the dispensation, and then the Spirit would be here, although that is not stressed so much, but clearly it is in mind, to be apprehended throughout the gospel. And then another feature is the mountains which come into evidence, which goes with the idea of stability, as has been remarked. They involve stability and conspicuousness, not as heavenly bodies or what is in heaven, but what is present on earth in the sense of stability.
JS What is conspicuous here?
JT Yes; what is here is just the point. It says, “But seeing the crowds, he went up into the mountain”. It is over against the plain or valley.
JS Why is it called the mountain?
JT The article points to the characteristics of the mountain. It is over against the idea of the plain or the valley and is a well-known expression in countries which have mountains.
AR Is this one of the mountains that are round about Jerusalem, Psalm 125?
JT That is the idea of it, I think. The reference is in the Songs of degrees, or ascent, which would carry with it just what we have been saying. The mountains are round about Jerusalem; so that the idea [p. 66] conveyed here would be what is round about the assembly; what is for our protection.
WFK Is this teaching in the mount only for disciples? It says that His disciples came to Him there. Is that a higher spiritual elevation?
JT Just so; the idea of the mountain runs right through. Chapter 4 has one but it is hardly in keeping with what we are saying now. It is the one to which the devil took the Lord. It is said, “Again the devil takes him to a very high mountain, and shows him all the kingdoms of the world, and their glory”, verse 8. It is a similar thought, only the enemy is taking advantage of it to attempt to mislead the Lord.
AAT It says, in chapter 8, that when He came down from the mountain He met a leper. Is that in the plain?
JT Exactly. It points to what is in the plain. We shall see more later in this inquiry, perhaps, as to chapter 8 and also chapter 17 where we have a similar allusion to what the Lord found after He came down from the mount of transfiguration. In chapter 14: 23 the Lord went up into a mountain apart to pray; a mountain is also referred to in chapter 15: 29, where it says that He sat down; then in chapter 17: 1 we have “a high mountain”, which we often refer to as the mount of transfiguration; then in chapter 24 we are told that Jesus “was sitting upon the mount of Olives”; and in chapter 28 the disciples went to Galilee to the mountain which Jesus had appointed. So that the idea runs right through the book and may be well regarded as denoting what is available, in the sense of mountains, for protection.
AI Would the disciples be in keeping with what the Lord was doing?
JT They were in keeping as seen in our chapter, because they represent persons that are not afraid to take journeys, and to sacrifice to get the advantages [p. 67] such as meetings like this afford. Meetings like this involve sacrifice, and the idea here would be that His disciples came to Him. He went up into the mountain and His disciples came to Him there. They knew He was there and He did not disappoint them, because it is said, “having opened his mouth, he taught them”. It was worth their while to go up. And we would trust that a meeting like this is worth the while of the brethren to be here, the Spirit of God being here.
EAL Would the words “having opened his mouth” link with chapter 4: 4, where it speaks of God’s mouth?
JT Just so: “... every word which goes out through God’s mouth”. God was speaking in Christ.
TEH Two mountains are referred to under the old economy (Deuteronomy 27). Jotham seemed to avail himself of one during a very distressing time among the people of God. It says that he stood upon mount Gerizim and cried, but when he was finished he ran away. What is the significance of him being afraid after having been on the mountain of blessing?
JT Well, running away would be to avoid violence, which is justifiable, if necessary. It says that it was because of Abimelech his brother.
TEH He gave a most remarkable outline and warned of the result of not hearkening to God’s voice.
JT Yes; he got his word in as to the kind of person that should rule. Abimelech was not that person, but Jotham had the right thought.
TEH I was wondering if he had caught the spirit of the Lord Jesus, because this would involve universal rule eventually.
JT Exactly.
ABP In Revelation 17: 9 the woman is said to sit on seven mountains. Would that be a rival position to the strength of the assembly in Matthew?
JT I would say that; it would mean strength in [p. 68] the sense of political economy or the like. The Roman system, of course, was marked by that same thing; a form of strength in the sense of subordinated skill and experience.
RWS So the Lord’s ministry, or doctrine, is spoken of as having authority. “He taught them as having authority”. Does that link on with stability — the idea of the mountain?
JT It would be the strength that goes with authority when it is of God. And, of course, this was of God.
RWS Is it not so today that there is authority in the ministry?
JT Just so. What we have already remarked as to stability is that it belongs to the assembly, really. In Acts 15 we have the idea of what is stable set out in certain who were pillars; who were a source of strength in the assembly. Peter would be one, as Galatians 2: 9 shows. He would be a source of strength through divinely given stability. Stability is implied in this gospel. It is not exactly support from the heavenly side, by what comes down from heaven. That is found in the Acts. It is what arises in view of the Spirit being here; and of course, the Spirit being here involves a way for Christ being here. It is a way for the Lord being here. So that we have men who are truly pillars alluded to in that chapter, and they are actually called that in Galatians. And these meetings, which we have from time to time, are intended to be occasions of strength. The brethren are sustained in this way by instruction, and by example, and by fellowship. Where should we be without such meetings? Where should we be without the assembly and all that it involves? We come together and acquire strength mutually by coming together; but then the Lord adds to that, saying, “Where two or three are gathered together unto my name, there am I in the midst of them”, Matthew 18: 20. He is there for support; so that Matthew stresses the feature of strength, but [p. 69] strength arising from what is in the brethren, from what they are; and the Lord is here, and the Spirit is here, and the whole position is one of stability.
JTJr Would the legislative side, therefore, as suggested in these chapters, be enforceable? There would be strength in the legislation?
JT That is good. It is not a matter of so many speeches, as in well known legislative places in this and other countries where their speeches are numberless, and where there is an enormous volume of law. Someone has said that it would take six hundred years to read all the legal matter that has been published. Matthew is not that. Matthew is what is available for the assembly in brevity, without enlarging things unnecessarily. It is the strength of what is said.
CAM I suppose that all that legislation is intended to bring blessing, if possible, which it does not do; but this starts with blessing?
JT Just so; these nine expressions of blessedness! Of course, that is the great basis of the gospel. It is a question of the legislative mountain, as we may call it, in this chapter. It begins with these blessings. And the reference is to persons; so that the thing is brought down to the disciples, and we may say, to ourselves. It is said, “Blessed are the poor in spirit”, in verse 3, and so on down to verse 10, “Blessed they who are persecuted on account of righteousness”, but when we come to verse 11, it is, “Blessed are ye”, that is, we have the persons who are blessed. “Blessed are ye when they may reproach and persecute you, and say every wicked thing against you, lying, for my sake. Rejoice and exult, for your reward is great in the heavens; for thus have they persecuted the prophets who were before you”. So that blessing is vouchsafed to us even today, in this company, when the enemy is attacking.
DP Why does the Lord sit down to minister in this [p. 70] position?
JT I suppose to show it is deliberative. That is what we are doing now. It involves deliberation. We are weighing what we are saying. We have opportunity to do that. How much there is in it that affords strength for the brethren!
CFE Following on these blessings it says in verse 13, “Ye are the salt of the earth; but if the salt have become insipid, wherewith shall it be salted?” And then in verse 14, “Ye are the light of the world”. Does that give them a dignified position?
JT It gives them a preservative position; and, of course, it would give them dignity if they were preserved. What we need is preservation; the whole scene around is polluted, but the salt is preservative. Light also is a preservative element, but salt is a very striking figure of what is preservative.
FHL Would it appear that the test of the ministry on these mountains seems to come, in almost every case, at the foot of the mountain? This occurs in chapter 8, and then in chapter 14. The Lord comes off the mountain, and the evidence of the power is there.
JT Just so; and especially in chapter 17. It is so in the other gospels too, particularly in Mark 9: 14 - 27. And the going up involves strength.
FNW It says in Ezekiel 43: 12, “This is the law of the house: Upon the top of the mountain all its border round about is most holy”. Would that link with Matthew, showing how the constitution of the assembly is to be worked out from this elevated position.
JT Very good. It is a question of the law of the house; not the ten commandments, as we say, but law as a principle. “This is the law of the house: Upon the top of the mountain ...” It is a question of principle: a great word that belongs to christianity — the word principle.
AR The last blessing has a reward in the heavens. Why is that?
JT “Blessed are ye when they may reproach and persecute you, and say every wicked thing against you, lying, for my sake. Rejoice and exult, for your reward is great in the heavens”. You marvel at how prolific the idea of wickedness becomes. It says, “Every wicked thing”. And it does not say the reward is in the mountains, because the heavens are in mind, too, in this gospel. They are in mind as conservatories, as it were, where things are kept secure; but the strength is down here where it is needed, where the enemy’s power is. It is not that it comes down; it is there in these mountains. There are six of them in a good or positive sense, in this gospel.
RWS It speaks earlier of certain who were “sitting in the country and shadow of death, to them has light sprung up”. Is this thought of light springing up an extension of the fact of the Spirit being here?
JT That is just what I was thinking; it is a feature of Matthew. Light springing up is an allusion to the Spirit, I am sure. It is very precious and very comforting that there is such a thing as light springing up. John says, “In him was life, and the life was the light of men”, John 1: 4, but in Matthew, the light is springing up. It is found where the shadow of death was, but in John, “In him was life, and the life was the light of men”. It is the implementation of Matthew showing how men are provided for as over against angels, or over against Israel, by what is in Christ. It is a question of light, but it is seen in life, and it is in Him. But Matthew says that it is springing up.
ANW In John 9: 5 the Lord says, “I am the light of the world”, whereas here it is “Ye are the light of the world”, verse 14.
JT So that we are reminded of, “Look on us”, Acts 3: 4, and we think of what the Lord is ready and able to do at any time in any gathering of His people. I mean to say, look at ourselves, in that sense. See what there is. “Ye are the light of the world”. And also, “Ye are the salt of the earth”. And then all these characteristics that are mentioned in the nine beatitudes are to call attention to what the saints are, and what you can expect from them.
JS So that in Matthew it is a question of what is established on earth.
JT Quite so.
WFK It says that the pure in heart shall see God. How do we see God? Is it through Christ?
JT Just so. “No one has seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him”, John 1: 18. Things all must flow out from Christ. That is how a passage like that has to be understood, because everything hinges on Christ.
AI Would the apostle be one of “the poor in spirit” when he said he was less than the least of all saints? Would that answer to this?
JT Quite so. This passage would bear on Psalm 41: 1: “Blessed is he that understandeth the poor”. The poor are despised, but one who remembers such is valued. But here we have the “poor in spirit” as blessed. The qualities mentioned here are enrichments, which involve what we may look to and expect in one another for the carrying on of the testimony of God here below. It is what the saints are themselves and what may be worked out in them.
JTJr The Lord said to his disciples on one occasion, when they were suggesting fire from heaven, “Ye know not of what spirit ye are”, Luke 9: 55. Would the “poor in spirit” be a kind of characteristic quality in the saints: that they are to be marked by that?
JT I should think so. The Spirit of Christ says in the Psalm referred to, “Blessed is he that understandeth the poor”. And Paul said that he was diligent [p. 73] to remember the poor, Galatians 2: 10. He was always forward to do that, but then when you think of Christ, He is to be remembered as poor. What a Man among men! And He had nothing outwardly to rely on at all. What would He say if one were to ask Him, What have you? Well, there He is; let Him be considered, reverently, and see how He went on in spite of the poverty.
DP Would the Lord’s legislation here excel that of Moses? and would the position He occupied set aside the temple? Moses was the great legislator in the Old Testament, but would he not be superseded here by Christ?
JT The question is whether the Lord means to set aside anything that was of God. He said, according to verse 17: “Think not that I am come to make void the law or the prophets; I am not come to make void, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Until the heaven and the earth pass away, [p. 75] one iota or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all come to pass”. So that this gospel contemplates that whatever there is of God, it is to be conserved and used.
JS He established the law; He did not make it void, but established it.
JT Well, quite so; the whole Pentateuch is ours. “Every scripture is divinely inspired, and profitable”, 2 Timothy 3: 16. Things that are profitable are to be valued; and see how this gospel provides for what there is and conserves it. Everything is conserved in Christ.
ANW The alternate reading to ‘fulfil’, in the footnote is, ‘Give the fulness of’. It is not exactly to fulfil a thing as being commanded to do it, but to give the fulness of it.
JT That is good; that is to say, Christ comes in, and whatever there is of God He will keep and fill it out as it had never been expressed before. It is to give the fulness of the thing. I think we have to look into the matter and see whether we are making use of everything [p. 74] there is, whether it be a Moses or any other. Think of how many persons there are in the Old Testament whose ministry is profitable! Take for example one man who particularly comes to my mind now, in 1 Chronicles 4: 10 who asked for certain things and God granted them. It says, “And Jabez called on the God of Israel saying, Oh that thou wouldest richly bless me, and enlarge my border, and that thy hand might be with me, and that thou wouldest keep me from evil, that it may not grieve me! And God brought about what he had requested”. God brought about what that man asked for. We have to look around and see what there is. There are small or little-known persons who have something from God, and it is to be utilised, and so the Old Testament is ours. And as 1 Corinthians 3: 22 says, “All are yours”.
JAP In that meeting in Acts 15 James called on Amos for help.
JT Just so; he quoted from Amos 9. I think the brethren will confirm what has been said: that Matthew is the assembly gospel and the principle would be that everything is to be utilised. If it is usable, then keep it and make the most of it.
ABP Is some new thing added in verse 22? The Lord refers in verse 21 to what had been said to the ancients, but then He goes on to say, “But I say unto you”, as though something further is to be brought in in this new administration.
JT That is very important, too. There are other things in that section if we can move on now to further thoughts in this chapter. We have touched on the blessednesses that are mentioned earlier in the chapter and now we have these things. But there is one point that we have already touched on: “Think not that I am come to make void the law or the prophets; I am not come to make void, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Until the heaven and the earth pass away,
one iota or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all come to pass”, verses 17, 18. So that we can see what treasuries there are in the Pentateuch for us to explore and utilise. But then there are additions here and that is a great matter that is stressed. The Lord says, “But I say unto you”, verse 22. Now the mind is directed to a great Speaker; One who has the final word, too. In verse 20, it says, “For I say unto you, that unless your righteousness surpass that of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of the heavens”. That is for us, to inquire as to what quality our righteousness is; we are challenged now as to the kind of righteousness we have. Then in verse 21 the Lord goes further, “Ye have heard that it was said to the ancients. Thou shalt not kill; but whosoever shall kill shall be subject to the judgment. But I say unto you, that every one that is lightly angry with his brother shall be subject to the judgment”. The brethren should be reminded that emphasis is placed upon what the Lord says in this section: “I say ...” Attention is being called to the greater Speaker that is here. He is the One to whom we must pay attention. Then it goes on: “But whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be subject to be called before the sanhedrim; but whosoever shall say, Fool, shall be subject to the penalty of the hell of fire”. I think there is instruction there that we should take notice of as to judgment. These things come into our care meetings and have to be looked into as to what they are, because sin is graded, and the Lord is grading sin here.
AI What would “lightly angry” with a brother mean?
JT Well, one word I would say about that is, “Be angry, and do not sin”, Ephesians 4: 26. Do not sin in being angry with your brother; but it is clear you have to regard your brother in his true value, and remember he is an important person in the mind of heaven, so do not deprecatingly [p. 76] say things about him.
JS Were you going to say something about gradation?
JT There is not time to go into it in detail. Our brother was commenting on being angry with our brother; and then it speaks of calling your brother a fool. How lightly we may do these things and sin! But then the gradations are there down to verse 22. Then it goes on to say, “If therefore thou shouldest offer thy gift at the altar, and there shouldest remember that thy brother has something against thee, leave there thy gift before the altar, and first go, be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift”, verses 23, 24. So we are told how to behave; that we cannot think we are perfect because we are offering a gift to God. We have to think of the past, too. God requires what is past; and we are to see about our brother; if he has anything against us, can we not amend it. I believe it is on the basis of Romans; being right with God, and being right on earth before we think of ascending to heaven.
WFK Would this point to the gathering together to the Lord’s supper?
JT That is right.
WWM In mentioning Romans, did you have in mind chapter 8, where it says, “the righteous requirement of the law should be fulfilled in us”, verse 4. Not only has it been fulfilled in Christ, but it is to be fulfilled in us now.
JT Just so — so that if we speak of the Lord’s coming, because we ought to speak of it constantly, for it is a precious expectation, then, what about our righteousness? That has to be attended to, but here we are reminded of the quality of our righteousness, not the volume, but the quality.
WWM Would verse 23 refer to the sensitiveness of the Spirit in relation to the fact that a brother has something against you? That consciousness would be [p. 77] brought about by the Spirit and affect one in such a way that he would be exercised about it?
JT Yes. The Spirit would be present to remind you.
WWM It speaks of those “who do not walk according to flesh but according to Spirit”. If I walk according to flesh I think of myself, but if the Spirit is operating with me I think of my brother.
JT So that the priestly state would refer to this, offering something to God, but in that priestly state, if something comes up in your mind that you recognise has to be straightened out here before we go up we have to pursue the matter until it is straightened out.
AAT I notice the way this question is handled here is, that if the brother has anything against you, you are to take it up with him; but in Matthew 18 it is the other way around.
JT Matthew 18 has to be looked at from a distance. It is an objective view. You are to consider for the meeting, for the assembly.
CFE You spoke about the quality of our righteousness. Were you referring to verse 20? It says, “For I say unto you, that unless your righteousness surpass that of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of the heavens”.
JT Yes. I had in my mind what is said in Genesis 15 about righteousness; that Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. That is a fine quality of righteousness; faith reckoned as righteousness; not simply what you do with your hands, but faith being reckoned to you as righteousness. It is the quality of righteousness.
RWS There seems to be a certain ruggedness which the Lord is developing in this gospel to carry the truth forward, a sort of rugged fibre in the spiritual constitution, because all these features must finally be carried forward. The Lord says, “Again I say to you,
[p. 78] that if two of you shall agree on the earth concerning any matter”, Matthew 18: 19.
JT Yes; to illustrate that, I would refer to the book called “The Irrationalism of Infidelity”. It is a very rugged production, but a very effective one as dealing with evil. We have to be rugged in dealing with evil sometimes, and I think that when we come to chapter 23 of this book, we shall see what that ruggedness means, how the Lord deals with evil. He used strong language, and we get touches of it here.
EAL Righteous anger would be distinct from “lightly angry”. Being easily angered may arise from personal feelings; whereas righteous anger would be more in relation to assembly matters.
JT Yes; and strong language may be necessary, too. If we look at chapter 23 we shall see how strong the language is: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites”, verse 29. It is strong, rugged language, but how effective! It is the Lord Himself that is using it.
ETP Paul’s language was rugged in connection with Peter when he withstood him to the face, Galatians 2: 11.
JT Just so; you might say it was not seemly that a younger man should be so strong in speaking to an older brother, because Peter was actually older than Paul, but Paul says, “I withstood him to the face, because he was to be condemned”.
AR Who is the judge and the officer in verse 25 of this chapter?
JT “Make friends with thine adverse party quickly, whilst thou art in the way with him; lest some time the adverse party deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. Verily I say to thee, Thou shalt in no wise come out thence till thou hast paid the last farthing”. I would say they belong to the heavenly system. There are many so-called officers or policemen here in this city.
They are called ‘officers of the law’, but there are a good many judicial men, too. The judicial department in this city is big, and the one in Washington is bigger still, and it has to be respected. I refer to this just to call attention to the system. This country has a legal system, and the heavenly system has a legal department and the judge is supposed to be there; so that in the book of Leviticus, where leprosy is dealt with, there is always supposed to be a priest there. He is constantly needed; he is never wanting. It never has to be said that there is no priest. The divine system has these departments, and David’s regime implied that. It was departmental; David’s twenty-four courses; the number twenty-four instead of the number twelve was to show how the thing was intensified. And so, in the book of Revelation, you have the number twenty-four carried out. The book requires it.
GVD What answers in the assembly’s day to the sanhedrim in verse 22?
JT That was a Jewish court, having a supreme character, but in Deuteronomy 16: 18 lesser or lower courts are spoken of. If you make comparisons between christianity and Judaism, you might call them local care meetings. There were lesser bodies in different cities, so that instead of going to Jerusalem, they could settle matters in them.
GVD It had to do with one who was contentious, who said to his brother, Raca; that one is subject to be called before the sanhedrim.
JT The sanhedrim, as said before, had supreme authority, and could deal with such a matter.
JTJr The Lord suggests, in verse 25, to settle matters out of court; that is, without taking them to court. “Make friends with thine adverse party quickly, whilst thou art in the way with him”. The thing would not need to go any further if it were settled in that way.
JT It is a very happy thing if you can have matters [p. 80] settled out of court, so to speak, because it means that love exists if you settle things without formal assembly attention.
EAL Do you think that one thing which prevents our being quickly reconciled is that we carry resentment against what the brethren have done, instead of recognising the Scripture and working matters out on a spiritual basis?
JT Just so; we are anticipating a little, but chapter 18 provides for two or three to be brought into the matter before taking it to the assembly. The matter can be settled out of court if love exists.
EAL Reconciliation is suggested in verse 24: “First go, be reconciled to thy brother”.
JT These are important points. We are not yet in chapter 18 where things are settled in court; where assembly authority is asserted. In this chapter, the Lord is legislating for smaller matters. You might say, we are on the mount of legislation, and in law there are small matters and great matters, so I think these instructions are for small matters; the idea of being reconciled.
RHS Does the fact that it says, “Lest some time the adverse party deliver thee to the judge”, suggest that there is time for the offender to be reconciled to his adversary?
JT Yes; but be careful; he may not wait! He may proceed to the judge, but this small court, as it were, is provided so that we can settle small matters and go along happily.
FHL You have referred to the wear and tear on the circle of fellowship. Would not the law provide a constitution that would resist all that.
JT Just so.
DMacd Does verse 26 indicate that unless we are reconciled God’s government may come upon us?
JT I think that is a very wholesome inquiry, because God’s government comes in. God does not [p. 81] have to give an account of His matters. Things may happen and we may not get any account of why they happen, but if one should go back in one’s history he will know. So, we should see to matters. “Verily I say to thee, Thou shalt in no wise come out thence till thou hast paid the last farthing”. That is the government of God.
EAL I think you have said that metropolitanism, as understood in the light of the truth, is not a geographical thing but a heavenly one.
JT That is right. Metropolitanism, if brought down to our time, is the heavenly side; ‘Jerusalem above’ is heavenly. Therefore, metropolitanism today would be that we have recourse to heaven, if the brethren understand what I mean. The metropolitan idea is seen in the book of Acts, up to chapter 14, when eldership was first inaugurated. When eldership was inaugurated it was with the idea that there was the means of dealing with matters locally, because the elders would be men who had experience with God.
TEH Did Jethro provide for these smaller matters being attended to, calling for skill in others besides Moses?
JT Quite so. In Exodus 18, Jethro proposed to Moses that he should have helpers in the judgment as carrying on the service of God among the Israelites; that he should have chiefs of tens, and fifties, and hundreds, and thousands; that he should not be required to do everything himself. That was the idea; what Jethro advised Moses was right and Moses accepted it. But Hobab, who appears to be his son, in Numbers 10, is not of any value at all. So that we might be misled if we were to make too much of Jethro or anyone like him. They are children of the wilderness. They do not characteristically belong to heaven. Jethro did well in Exodus 18, but in Numbers 10 Hobab would not go with them into Canaan. He would not be eyes for [p. 82] Israel; he was a child of the wilderness and said he would return to his own land. Therefore, you would not rely too much on that type of man. It is only the heavenly man that can be relied on fully. “He who comes from above is above all”, John 3: 31. You can rely on Him.
ABP Would it be out of place to ask, in relation to administration, if there is a scriptural basis for meetings in a general area, but in separate towns, working together in relation to administrative matters? Is it a right principle that separate municipalities in the same general area work together as one, administratively?
JT We might begin with what is being done in this city, and in other cities where there are more meetings than one, but are regarded as all in the same city, that they work together, as in Corinth. But you have in mind separate towns that have no direct municipal relation, and that they assume to work together?
ABP There are several instances in this country where that is being done, I believe, and I was wondering about the principle that relates to it in the light of what we have been speaking about. Is this a right question to bring into this meeting?
JT What we have just said is clear enough, that is what we are going on with in this city; but then, if you go across the river you will find several meetings that are not related to each other as we are here, and therefore there are different circumstances, and the principles governing these circumstances have to be considered. Perhaps you would state clearly, by example, what you mean.
ABP I simply had in mind what is being done in the Boston area, and at Winnipeg and St. James, and elsewhere, and has been considered for a long time in the San Francisco area. One thought it may be appropriate to ask the question here, for help as to the [p. 83] principle underlying the working together administratively of meetings that are not really in the same city.
JT Then the question comes up immediately whether the word city applies to the area, and in some cases that is so, and in others the brethren who reside there do not think so. If you can designate that it is a city the matter is clear, for there can be only one assembly in a city. Paul directed Titus to “establish elders in each city”, Titus 1: 5. Therefore, when greater New York was inaugurated, all the boroughs of the city were regarded as New York because they were all governed by one mayor. Thus other places can be so designated on the same principle. In general, the local brethren in any place should be able to name it.
APT In Acts 16 it says that Paul came to Derbe and Lystra. And then later on it says that Timothy had a good testimony of the brethren in Lystra and Iconium. There seems to be one idea there with respect to several places: Derbe and Lystra in verse 1, and Lystra and Iconium in verse 2. There seem to be several cities there all together.
JT You cannot be sure as to whether they were regarded as one, because reports of a brother’s conduct, or qualities, or value in the service, may spread far beyond his local meeting. Besides, chapter 14: 6 links Derbe as a city with Lycaonia and Lystra.
APT It says that a certain disciple was there.
JT ‘There’, I believe, should be taken as referring to Lystra as last mentioned, especially as Derbe is regarded as a city, as already remarked. I do not think the facts would warrant our regarding it other than that the cities were there and that Timothy was well reported of the brethren in those places.
RWS Acts 20: 4 says, “Timotheus of Derbe”.
JT There you get the brother’s locality. I am glad you mentioned that because that passage mentions several others, and the point was to bring out that the [p. 84] work of God was designated in all these different places including Derbe.
FHL The principle remains that assembly administration has a local character.
JT Just so. We are referring to the constitutionality of the assembly, but now that this matter has come up, we might cite London as a clear case of where wisdom is required because various changes had to be made from the time of the revival of the truth to the present. And brethren in other localities where there are several meetings will be well advised if they follow what is done there. The immense increase in the growth of cities shows that great wisdom is needed in the determination of boundaries. The history of the work of God has to be noted carefully. And where the metropolitan thought is already applied it should not be ignored.
EAL Do you think the idea of Decapolis, denoting ten cities, may be a help in that regard?
JT That is good, too; the grouping of the city idea and the accumulated evil that is inevitably involved being kept in mind. The idea of ‘ten’ has in mind the responsibility that is there. I believe that is what enters into that particular section of scripture.
DPC In Acts 15, we see brethren gathered together, some from distant parts of the world. Would you say that was a great general conference?
JT I do not think there was one like it before, and there has never been one since which has had the support of the Spirit. That is the last general council we get in the Scriptures. It is as if God were to say, in receding from Jerusalem, that He loved it and was hesitant to leave it. He had that council there to bring out and expose the doctrines of Judaism, which were being used of the devil to corrupt the assembly. God settled the issue in Jerusalem; He settled the matter there, and Paul and those with him had to go [p. 85] there.
APT In chapter 5, Jerusalem is called, “The city of the great king”, verse 35.
JT These expressions ought to be noticed in Matthew for it is the only gospel in which Jerusalem is called “the holy city”, chapter 4: 5 and 27: 53.