⬇ EPUB

SEPARATION (1)

JT I have been thinking of the house out of which the Lord went as said in verse 1, and the house into which He went (verse 36). The understanding of these two houses helps greatly in the understanding of the assembly. The Lord says in verse 51, “Have ye understood all these things?” They say to Him, “Yea, Lord”. Then He adds, “For this reason every scribe discipled to the kingdom of heaven is like a man that is a householder, who brings out of his treasure things new and old”. The instructed man is like a householder.

Another feature that marks this section is that they ask questions of the Lord; indicating that the transitionary period between the two houses is so complicated that there is a danger of missing our way in it; safety is in asking questions of the Lord. The disciples came up, saying, “Why speakest thou to them in parables?” Matthew 13:10. That is a good question! Then in verse 36 He went into the house, and His disciples came unto Him, saying, “Expound to us the parable of the darnel of the field”. And so you have an explanation, and an exposition. The explanation covers the kind of ministry, but the ministry itself has to be expounded.

The first house is a very solemn consideration, because it refers to the religious world in its family character, as affording social things; what ministers to the natural affections and desires of people. I think chapter 12 lays bare the things that were working in the Jewish house, and which correspond with the religions in the world today. Before the Lord leaves ^[p. 290] that house, He exposes what is there. And so before any one leaves what he may have been connected with, the thing ought to be judged, as exposed to him. Chapter 12 is the exposure of what was in the Jewish house — a terrible state of things, involving satanic workings.

Ques Would the Lord leaving the Jewish house have an application to us?

JT Yes. If we understand chapter 12 we shall see the necessity for going out, for separating from the existing state of things around. But the house in verse 36 opens up the truth of the assembly, and is a reason for those who are in the light of it continuing where they are.

Ques Would the first house be suggestive of Laodicea?

JT Just so. The Lord does not say one good word about Laodicea; indeed, it is the only church He has not a good word for. Nevertheless, although He is outside of it, He is standing knocking at the door, and saying, “If any one hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in unto him” Revelation 3:20. That brings out His gracious service in this period; a service which would be reflected by those who are walking in the light.

Ques Would the state of things in the house first referred to correspond with the state of things mentioned in 2 Timothy?

JT Pretty much, indeed. Therefore it behoves us to examine chapter 12, that we may see what is in the religious world around us.

Ques Perhaps you would say a few words in connection with chapter 12, as to what is found in that house.

JT Well, first you will notice that the Lord calls attention to what was presented in the way of testimony to it; and in doing so He mentions different persons familiar to the Jews, such as David, Jonas ^[p. 291] and Solomon; there was there in His own Person a greater than the temple, a greater than Jonas or Solomon, and He calls their attention to this.

Ques Was that in order to attract to Himself whatever might be of God in it?

JT Exactly; and there were those who followed Him; they are seen at the end of the chapter: “And, stretching out his hand to his disciples, he said, Behold my mother and my brethren; for whosoever shall do the will of my Father who is in the heavens, he is my brother, and sister, and mother” Matthew 12:49,50. These were the results of the testimony presented. He also speaks of the “strong man”: “how can any one enter into the house of the strong man and plunder his goods, unless first he bind the strong man? and then he will plunder his house” Matthew 12:29. Now the Lord did that. His object was not to cleanse, or rectify the house, but to plunder it. Plundering it would mean taking the persons that were under satanic power out of it, delivering them. Now I think that is what God has been doing for many years past. He has been presenting a powerful testimony in Christendom, and some have been affected by it; they are doing the will of God, and so the Lord regards them as His brethren.

Rem It also says in that chapter, “He that is not with me is against me, and he that gathers not with me scatters” Matthew 12:30. That is a very solemn consideration.

JT Yes, indeed! Some say, Why not remain where you are, and improve things there? But what was the Lord doing? He was plundering the strong man’s house. In chapter 11 they had definitely rejected Him. He upbraids the cities where His works were done.

Rem Well, if He has left such an house, we should surely not be found in it. We should be found with Him.

JT Yes; He exposes it for us, so that we may ^[p. 292] judge and leave it. For no one should leave any place where God has been known without proving that the Lord is not there.

Ques Would the fact of the Lord having left the house be sufficient authority for one to leave it also?

JT Surely. He tells you why; chapter 12 exposes what is there. So you leave that house intelligently.

Ques Would you leave that house without having an object before you?

JT The Lord is giving us a lead here. He is the object before us. We go forth unto Him without the camp. His position is defined, and there is reproach attached to it too.

Ques Is this the way to the assembly?

JT Yes. The first thing is that you leave the house, namely, the religious system, whatever its name, that has proved unfaithful to Christ. Such systems no doubt afford much for the natural heart in its social affairs; but it is remarkable how the evil and poverty of them has been exposed in these days.

In Matthew the Lord invariably reflects on Jerusalem — on the worldly system that then existed. In Matthew’s gospel the Lord at the end meets His disciples in Galilee. Distance from Jerusalem is implied. In Luke’s gospel it is said that He led them as far as to Bethany; that is a very short distance; He led them out, but they were near enough to be a witness. The distance between Jerusalem and Bethany was fifteen furlongs; they could thus conveniently return to Jerusalem, which they did. The record in the Acts shows that they were there as witnesses to Christ in grace. You can tell the most hardened about Christ in grace; the Lord will leave you near enough for that. But when it is a question of church relations, of fellowship, He says, as it were, You must go far away; you must make a great distance between you and Jerusalem. Hence according ^[p. 293] to Matthew He sends a message to His brethren that He would see them in Galilee. They had to take a long journey from Jerusalem. That is the point in Matthew’s gospel. You cannot make the distance too great, from the standpoint of fellowship; there must be no mingling. A certain class of brethren well known to us do not go far away from Jerusalem. Not that one wants to accuse, but the principle of their fellowship was, so to speak, very near Jerusalem to begin with, and it remains there still.

Rem That recalls to one’s mind Pharaoh’s request to Moses, namely, that he and Israel should not go far away from Egypt.

JT Yes, indeed; but the Lord would put a barrier between them and Pharaoh.

Rem And does not the enemy still continue to make that suggestion: You may go a little way in separation, but not too far?

JT Yes. Occasionally you hear of people going back to the systems they had left; but the truth is they do not have far to go; for they did not go far enough away at the outset. Questions are asked later on in the chapter (Matthew 13:54 - 58) by His enemies. That is a different matter. They are infidel, antagonistic questions. The Lord does not answer them. They have been answered. But the questions we have been considering are very different; they are questions asked by people who greatly desired to hear the Lord’s explanations.

I think it is very important to keep in mind that Matthew removes you as far as possible from the religions of the world; and there must be no going back, or intermingling, for that would nullify the fellowship. What has actually happened in some cases is that brethren, giving up separation, start mingling with the current religions around, and though they may retain the right name, the power is gone.

Rem So that, clearly, no compromise can be tolerated. The word is, “whosoever shall do the will of my Father who is in the heavens, he is my brother, and sister, and mother” (Matthew 12:50) and is not that the test?

JT That is the test; and with that the Lord marks His brethren off. Then another house is seen, and a family circle; a house marked off, you might say, as of God. Into that house you may safely go!

Ques Would it not be possible to take up the principle set forth in Matthew, and omit that which is set forth in Luke?

JT Then you would be unbalanced. The assembly and the gospel go together; but Matthew insists on separation with a view to the truth of the assembly being maintained. In chapter 16 the Lord left the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and departed; not only did He leave them, but He went away to a distance from them. And again, in chapter 24, we read, “And Jesus went forth and went away from the temple” Matthew 24:1. He went away from it, He put a distance between Himself and it. That is the teaching in Matthew. But in Luke’s gospel the distance is not so great because He would have the grace of God presented to the Jews. You must present the grace of God, or the dispensation is lost sight of. So in Luke He says, “remain in the city till ye be clothed with power from on high” Luke 24:49. They were to preach repentance and remission of sins in His name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Rem Abel would be on Matthew’s line, and what was seen in David on Luke’s. Abel was in spirit apart from the state of things around, and offered his sacrifice, recognising what was due to God; then, on the other hand, David expressed the desire to show the kindness of God to any of the house of his enemy, Saul.

JT Of course it was for Jonathan’s sake. When David heard that Saul and Jonathan were slain, he ^[p. 295] rent his clothes. His grief was not feigned; it was real. He thus sets out this dispensation from the standpoint of grace. We must not be daunted by persecution, and we must be greater than the enmity.

Rem The queen of Sheba is referred to in chapter 12. She took a long journey to get answers to her difficult questions.

JT Yes, and here was a greater than Solomon; but the Jews were not taking advantage of His presence.

Rem Sometimes people go to the wrong person with their questions; but the Lord is able to answer every question, and He is at hand.

JT Souls feeling their way out of the house of chapter 12 come in for great consideration, because it is a transitional state of things, and more or less foggy. We must not assume that they have the sunlight that we enjoy; we little realise how much fog and difficulties are in people’s minds; hence very great patience is necessary in answering their questions.

Rem The men of Jabesh-Gilead were blessed by David because they buried Saul. And again in the case of Abner, David and all the people were found weeping; and David himself fasted until the going down of the sun, and the people took notice of it, and it pleased them; 2 Samuel 2:5; 2 Samuel 3:32,36.

JT One of the most interesting passages in David’s history is the record of what took place at Ziklag in connection with those who were unable to cross the torrent Besor. It was there he commenced to make statutes. The men of Belial, of those that went with David, said, “Because they went not with us, we will not give them aught of the spoil that we have recovered, save to every man his wife and his children, that they may lead them away, and depart” (1 Samuel 30:22); but David said, “Ye shall not do so ... for as his share is that goes down to the battle, so shall his share ^[p. 296] be that abides by the baggage: they shall share alike” (1 Samuel 30:23,24). David there sets out the principle of overcoming evil with good. Then in the opening of the second book of Samuel he is at Ziklag; and you find that there he sets out the position indicated in the epistle to the Romans. He is at Ziklag for three days; a period of exercise. Then an Amalekite came out of Saul’s camp, with tidings of Saul; and, thinking that David would be like himself, a natural man, revengeful, and delighted to hear of his enemy being slain, he said, “I happened by chance to be upon mount Gilboa, and behold, Saul leaned on his spear; and behold, the chariots and horsemen followed hard after him. And he ... saw me, and called to me ... . He said ... . Stand, I pray thee, over me, and slay me ... . So I stood over him, and put him to death” 2 Samuel 1:6 - 10. He thought that David would have been glad, and given him a reward, but instead, David lamented, and had the Amalekite slain. And then he puts his exercise on record; “The beauty of Israel is slain upon thy high places: how are the mighty fallen” 2 Samuel 1:19. He was moved by divine feelings. He could not but lament that the Philistines had gained the victory over one who had been anointed with oil. And so it is, as we look from that point of view at our fellow-Christians, nominally, who have been overcome, we do not rejoice, but rather deplore their shame.

Rem God has been pleased to record David’s feelings on that occasion.

Ques What is the position now, in view of the end of Matthew 12?

JT The parable indicates an extraordinary situation; a situation, really, that gave occasion for His leaving the house. That is to say, there were mixed results; and His disciples want to know why He speaks in this way. For the believer, at that stage, it was a transitional period, and the ministry is parabolic, it is intended to hide the truth; a very remarkable ^[p. 297] thing; many would say, Make it as plain as you can, bring it down to the level of the people, make your remarks popular; whereas the Lord was hiding the truth; only the initiated could understand it. Things are not learned in Christianity as they are learned in a public school, where everything is made as plain as possible for the natural mind to understand. God is not dealing with the natural mind at all; He is dealing with the spiritual mind; and I have to ask questions of Him. He had spoken to them plainly, and they had rejected His words; but now, He says, I will hide it, and thus you must expose yourselves. It is a judicial exposure on God’s part; men are exposed because they have not got the Spirit; like the foolish virgins they have no oil, their lamps are gone out, and they are left outside. The true believer, having the Holy Spirit, understands the parables.

Rem The Lord here immediately answered the questions of His disciples.

JT Yes; He said, “it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of the heavens, but to them it is not given” Matthew 13:11. It is now a question of the sovereignty of God. What the Jews had, they held in a natural way, but now there is something which they cannot understand in a natural way, because it is purposely hidden; the understanding of it depends on the Spirit. The spiritual understands “all things” 1 Corinthians 2:10.

Rem It is a mercy they cannot understand it, because it would only make them worse.

JT Good soil is a man with “an honest and good heart” Luke 8:15. That is to say, you want to know the matter, and you have no selfish motive; the seed falls on good ground, and it springs up and bears fruit. If it falls on any other ground there is no definite result for God. It is well to know whether people are honest in regard to what they profess to seek. Are they leaving the first house because perhaps things were personally unsatisfactory, and not ^[p. 298] for spiritual reasons? If so, they are disqualified.

Rem The two disciples of John went after the Lord; He saw them following, and said to them, “What seek ye?” And the answer they gave showed there was an honest exercise; “Teacher, where abidest thou?” And He said to them, “Come and see” John 1:38,39.

Rem It is remarkable that they wanted to know where He dwelt. The Lord led to that. It suggests the family idea — where He dwells!

Ques How would you regard believers who have left us? Would you regard them from the grace point of view?

JT Well, we have to accept their decision. The gracious attitude of God towards all is a feature of the dispensation, but the attitude seen in Matthew has also to be maintained. Some of us were speaking about manhood being the guarantee for the maintenance of the dispensations, like the trees that grew on the banks of the river, of which we read in Ezekiel 47:6,7; Ezekiel 47:12. The seventh verse would suggest what God set up in the way of men at the outset, as a result of Christ’s ministry, and that of the apostles; and those referred to in verse 12, those that grew up in the dispensation itself. In either case they are trees, and are suggestive of spiritual persons; “it shall bring forth new fruit every month, for its waters issue out of the sanctuary; and the fruit thereof shall be for food, and the leaf thereof for medicine” Ezekiel 47:12. Now in these men you have the principles of the dispensation revealed; and so you find in the Acts that distinct persons are called attention to: first there is Peter, then John, Barnabas, Stephen, Philip, and then Paul.

Now, referring to the ministration of grace; Philip represents manhood as seen in preaching the gospel. There is great need of preaching; are we exercised about it? Some may say, Well, we have no gift, and ^[p. 299] that may be so; but you never can tell that you have gift until you begin to preach. Scripture does not say a word about Philip having gift, or even a mission. It says, “Philip, going down to a city of Samaria, preached the Christ to them” Acts 8:5. And that, I believe, is intended to remind us that the preaching is to go on. He went himself; it does not say anybody went with him. You may perhaps say, The brothers do not give me the hall, nor do they ask me to preach. There is not a word in Acts 8 about Philip being asked to preach; he “going down to a city of Samaria, preached the Christ to them; and the crowds with one accord gave heed to the things spoken by Philip ... and there was great joy in that city” Acts 8:5 - 8. He corresponds with the man on the bank of the river. You see what resulted from a man preaching on his own initiative; and then God comes in and speaks to him through an angel. That is to say, God intervenes providentially to help such a brother. The angel says, Go down to the desert. There is nothing to minister to the flesh in a desert! And as he goes down the Holy Spirit says to him, “join this chariot” (Acts 8:29); and He gives him one man to preach to. So Philip joined himself to the chariot; he is to be linked up with that man — an Ethiopian. That was not anything for the flesh. The eunuch was reading the Scriptures. It is all the Holy Spirit now; the black man is converted soundly, and goes on his way rejoicing. Philip went down into the water with him; he identified himself with him; and when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more. Then, too, it is most remarkable that Philip is the only one in Scripture called an evangelist; and he commenced his service as of himself, as far as the record goes; and it was under very uninviting circumstances, for there was a great persecution raging at the time.

^[p. 300] Rem If one were exercised, and on the lookout for individual souls each day, what a testimony would go forth!

JT Yes, I am sure of it. It is a question of doing what your hand finds to do. And remember that the congregation is the world. The first great preaching, as far as we know, was when Peter “lifted up his voice” (Acts 2:14) (in the open air, no doubt) and spake to those around him, and about three thousand souls were converted. It is true that preaching depends on gift, but one must begin, and it is in the service the gift develops. As you see the need and seek to meet it, the Lord helps you.

Rem Philip was one of the trees which the Lord had planted.

JT Yes; he was on the bank.

Rem The Ethiopian eunuch was a most important convert.

JT He was; and I think God shows in Philip how He would overcome national rivalry and prejudice. The Jews had no dealings with the Samaritans, and He would also give Philip the honour of speaking to one of the sons of Ham. It is interesting to notice that Philip is used to the conversion of the eunuch; the Lord converts Saul, and Peter has to do with Cornelius. In the house we have been looking at, there was plenty of religious form, but it was according to man’s will; but the house where the Lord is with His disciples, every one is adjusted; so that we go back again to Jerusalem in a very different way to that in which we left it; we go back in the spirit and power of Christ.

Rem It has been said that unless one is qualified to preach amongst the saints he should not go outside to preach.

JT What we are speaking of refers to the preacher’s responsibility; the saints committing themselves to him is another matter. We should get ^[p. 301] into our minds the idea the Holy Spirit intends to convey in regard to what Philip did.

Rem In Acts 21 Philip is mentioned as the evangelist, and it says he had four daughters, virgins, which prophesied.

JT That is very interesting. I suppose they would not be carried away by what he said, simply because he said it. They would have the mind of God about things.

← Previous Article 36 of 60 Next →