THE ASSEMBLY - THE CUSTODIAN OF GOD'S TESTIMONY
THE ASSEMBLY — THE CUSTODIAN OF GOD’S TESTIMONY
Matthew 16: 13 - 20; Matthew 18: 15 - 20
JT What I have in mind is to call attention to the assembly. This is the gospel which speaks of it directly as the custodian of the testimony of God in this world. It is well-known that the gospels are intended to confirm the epistles, and this gospel supports Paul’s letters to Corinth. 1 Corinthians 12 tells us that God has set certain gifts in the assembly including the gift of government, which is an important item, to preserve and support what is of God; and to exercise needed discipline and correction. It is thought, therefore, that the Lord my take account of us as we are and of our history in this city and grant us such help as is needed, so that the assembly may have its place in all that relates to the testimony in this city, inclusive of the persons in the assembly. They are especially in view, particularly in Matthew 18 which supposes that difficulties would arise and it provides light as to how they are to be met.
PHH Would you please explain a little more what is in your mind when you say that the assembly should have its place with us in relation to the testimony.
JT Well, I think it is a divine system calculated to fit in with conditions as they are, meeting every exigency that may arise, whether it is by teaching, or preaching, or ministry generally. It is not the assembly in its heavenly relations which is before us. That is dealt with in Ephesians and is in mind generally in the Pauline epistles, but what is before us here is the assembly militant as having to do with adverse circumstances in the wilderness where evil has to be met.
WW Would this be like the children [p. 42] of Israel passing through the wilderness in view of reaching the land?
JT Well that is just what is in mind. But they reach the land. The tabernacle, of course, represents the assembly in the wilderness, although as in the land the tabernacle was set up at Shiloh, which was a provisional position until the temple was built, as it is said “Solomon built him a house”. (Acts 7: 47) So what we are dealing with now and what Matthew contemplates is the assembly in the wilderness.
Ques Had you in mind that as the truth of the assembly has a place with us, independent activities or movements are eliminated?
JT Well, that is a good way of putting it because independency has been the instrument in the hands of the devil whereby damage has been caused and requiring a change as indicated in verse 19 of Matthew 18. The earlier part of that chapter beginning at the 15th verse contemplates the assembly in order, but the 19th verse contemplates a change as the word “again” implies. The Lord had said “Whatsoever ye shall bind on the earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on the earth shall be loosed in heaven”, and then He adds “Again I say to you, that if two of you shall agree on the earth concerning any matter, whatsoever it may be that they shall ask, it shall come to them from my Father who is in the heavens. For where two or three are gathered together unto my name, there am I in the midst of them”.
But the remark as to independency may need a little elaboration so that we may get an understanding of what is in mind.
Rem I thought you were speaking of the assembly as the custodian of the testimony, and you spoke of gifts being set in the assembly. I was wondering whether you had in mind that the truth of the [p. 43] assembly as having place with us would rule out freelance activities or independency either on the part of individuals or of gatherings. There would be the unifying of thought and of judgement of what is said. I was wondering if that was what you were emphasising?
JT Well it is. In the 12th chapter of 1 Corinthians the gifts of government are referred to but the earlier part of the chapter deals with spiritual manifestations, running down to the end of the 27th verse “Now ye are Christ’s body, and members in particular”. Then it adds, “And God has set certain in the assembly: first, apostles: secondly, prophets; thirdly, teachers; then miraculous powers; then gifts of healings; helps; governments”. I thought of calling attention to that because where difficulties arise involving the persons of the saints, the matter of government and the discernment of conditions that have caused the difficulties is so necessary. Solomon would represent that side typically. In his realm he had to deal with the persons of the Israelites and right and wrong amongst them, hence we have the judgement between the two harlots. He discerned who the mother of the child was and that idea may be extended to the assembly and the saints as in it. The motherly spirit would care for the life of the child, or as we might say, the lives of the brethren, their general welfare, and hence if conditions exist which involve the brethren, perhaps their imprisonment or their being deprived of their liberties, all that has to be dealt with. We cannot be healthy if any members are, so to say, in hospital. I do not know that the idea of a hospital applies to the assembly but certainly if any of the saints are deprived of their true position, then there is the need for adjustment, and I should think the idea of governments — persons who understand government — then comes into action.
[p. 44] Ques I was going to ask how would the government be discerned.
JT Well, the question of history comes up in such an enquiry because of what may have happened, as, for instance, in Luke 13 the woman who was bent over for eighteen years. The Lord dealt with that, of course, but the assembly also has power to deal with conditions like it, and it is a question of administration, I would say, and what is discerned in my history by certain persons who can deal with such matters. We learn by history. We have already noticed that elsewhere. Troubles arise, as for instance in Israel, when Moses was enjoined to choose out seventy men to take part with him in the government. In the New Testament also the apostles according to the 6th chapter of the Acts suggested to the people that they should choose out seven men full of the Holy Spirit, persons who would be capable of meeting the emergency, which was a question of complaint on account of certain widows being neglected. The apostles said it was not for them to leave the word of God and serve tables, and they put it on the multitude to choose out seven men, well reported of and full of the Holy Spirit who could take on the matter of administration, but they were men who could be known historically as fit for the service.
Ques Does it show that if we are to get benefit from those who teach and those who have the gift of government we should be submissive and have an open ear to what such can bring in?
JT I think what you suggest is very good, and do you not think what has been suggested as to history is good too. We know those who have been going on amongst us for years and which persons are most likely to be useful in any given emergency.
Rem It says of Solomon that “all Israel heard the judgement which the king had judged; and they [p. 45] feared the king, for they saw that the wisdom of God was in him, to do justice”. (1 Kings 3: 28) The thing became apparent.
JT Quite so.
WHT Does this matter of revelation still enter into our having a right understanding of the assembly?
JT Well, we are dealing now in this chapter with the primary thoughts of God, what you might call the inaugural thoughts of the assembly, what the Lord had in mind as to it. He was speaking before it actually existed, because it did not actually exist until He went up to Heaven, having died and risen and the Holy Spirit having been given, because it is the descent of the Holy Spirit which constitutes the assembly.
WHT What I really had in mind was the need of revelation and that there was in the assembly what would meet every question which might arise.
JT Well that is true. That is what was in mind in making the proposal.
PHH In the second half of chapter 18 it is contemplated that there is a spirit of reckoning. Would that enter into these matters of brethren and their difficulties? Half of the section speaks about one sinning against another and so on, then later it speaks about the king who would reckon with his bondmen. Would that spirit enter into it in a practical way in regard to government? Verse 23 says “For this cause the kingdom of the heavens has become like a king who would reckon with his bondmen”. Does what you are saying about governments assume that there is ability to reckon things in the assembly?
JT Quite so, very good. The latter part comes in obviously to augment what is already said in the 15th verse where it reads “But if thy brother sin against thee, go, reprove him between thee and him [p. 46] alone. If he hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother”. That is what Peter evidently had in mind to enlarge on when he said “Lord how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Until seven times? Jesus says to him, I say not to thee until seven times but until seventy times seven. For this cause the kingdom of the heavens has become like a king …” — or as the margin says ‘a man a king’, meaning that manly feelings would be in it and not simply kingship or kingly feeling. Solomon of course was a king, but there were these feelings of a man, as it is said in the prophets “A man shall be a hiding place …” And so having begun to reckon, one debtor of ten thousand talents was brought to him. Is what you have in mind that this king represents what is needed in government and in the administration of matters among the brethren?
PHH Yes. It works out in the man; the spirit of reckoning between the king and the great debtor and then the relative situation of the great debtor to a small debtor. I wondered whether that was in line with your mind about the brethren getting help and not remaining in hospital, but getting the benefit of teaching and of the gifts of government in the assembly.
JT Therefore the great advantage of a kingdom, which includes the idea of adjustment of difficulties between the subjects of the kingdom, between man and man as it were. So that the assembly becomes the vessel, for the idea of the vessel comes in as in 1 Corinthians, as it says “So also is the Christ”; a remarkable expression! What would apply directly to Christ personally is evidently applied to the assembly. That is, Christ, being the great Administrator, is brought down to the idea of the assembly. It is as if the Lord Himself were adjudicating. These governments would represent Him in judgements [p. 47] arrived at, and hence Matthew 18 where a matter between two brothers has arisen, we are told of the procedure that is to be entered on so as to reach a right conclusion. The assembly is the arbitrator as to what happens to the offender, the Lord saying further “but if he will not listen to them”, (that is, two or three witnesses) “tell it to the assembly” — meaning it is a last appeal, such as heaven will recognise and endorse. So that you are on sure footing for we are never driven to the wall in these difficulties. It is not contemplated that we should take months or years in settling a thing. There is a means of settlement, an authoritative means of settlement, as it says “if also he will not listen to the assembly, let him be to thee as one of the nations and a tax-gatherer” — meaning he is an outlaw, so far as the person who is sinned against is concerned. Then it says in the 18th verse “Whatsoever ye shall bind on the earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on the earth shall be loosed in heaven”. So that we are on the surest possible footing in moving on these lines in settling matters.
SB How do you view the assembly here?
JT Well, as I have just remarked “Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth” — it is the assembly as on earth that is executing this office.
SB What I had in mind was whether this was the care meeting or the assembly meeting?
JT It is the assembly that is in mind. The care meeting would fit in with the procedure in verse 16. The care meeting is tentative and has no authority; the assembly alone has authority. The thing is finalised in the assembly.
Ques I would like to ask whether “telling it to the assembly” refers to the assembly meeting which would be convened in a case of discipline?
JT Of course in Matthew 18 it is not so much [p. 48] the actual composition of the assembly that is in mind. But it is seen by implication that the assembly is spoken of as a thing that is recognised in heaven, and whatever there has been prior to this it is now seen as functioning. We have to appreciate when the assembly makes a pronouncement and “if he will not hear” means that a pronouncement has been made.
Rem In the care meeting, as has been mentioned, the deliberations are rightly in view of the assembly but the care meeting has no executive capacity, the assembly retaining that. But an assembly meeting is not convened for deliberations as all that has already taken place in the care meeting.
JT So that the care meeting will have to be put into verse 16 of Matthew 18. First of all it is the reproval of the man. “If thy brother sin against thee reprove him between thee and him alone”. The care meeting would not have to go through all that, and it does not necessarily imply that an assembly meeting will be required, as it goes on “if he hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother”. There is no need of a care meeting, except that the brother who has been offended is caring for the other. But the care meeting is implied when it says “But if he do not hear thee, take with thee one or two besides, that every matter may stand upon the word of two witnesses or of three”. The care meeting is tentative and the question of witnesses comes up. “But if he will not listen to them” — that is plural — one or two, besides the one offended. “If he will not listen to them, tell it to the assembly, let him be to thee as one of the nations and a tax-gatherer”.
JM You do not think that the care meeting could impose restrictions pending the finalising of a matter?
JT I do not think that would be right at all.
[p. 49] Anything that is done in that way would be on moral grounds. If a brother has sufficient moral power to speak to an offending brother and advise him authoritatively, that might be observed, but it is not final.
Ques How far does the word “reprove” carry the matter?
JT Well, it would be just what the word implies. You might talk to him for an hour with that in view.
Rem There is a note in John’s gospel which says “To show the true character of anything, so as to convict, and hence reprove by showing a man’s fault”. Note ‘e’ to John 3: 20.
JT That is a word that ought to help us all. Here in Matthew, however, it is between the two persons, “Between thee and him alone”.
WHT Do you consider it important and necessary for the offender to be present at the assembly meeting or at least that he should be given the opportunity of being there?
JT Certainly. If it is convened for disciplinary purposes in which he is involved, he ought to be there, and if he is not there he is an offender for that. If he knows the assembly meeting has been convened and he is not there and his will is in it then he is adding to the sin.
SB Is it not convened that he should hear them?
JT Quite so.
SB I should like to ask, could he be gained by the assembly?
JT Yes. The word here is “If he will not listen to them, tell it to the assembly; and if also he will not listen to the assembly, let him be to thee as one of the nations, and a tax-gatherer”. The assembly would seek to gain him if possible, but the position now is more authoritative.
[p. 50] Ques It is not suggested that the assembly becomes a deliberative meeting of any kind?
JT I do not think so. That has often come up and I am sure it is proved from historical facts among the brethren, that it is not deliberative.
Rem So that the utmost care to do justice should enter into the deliberations of the care meeting prior to this, and if the spirit of forgiveness, to which attention has been called, is present, and if the person refuses to hear, it really increases the difficulty.
JT Because his will is in it.
WW What about the time between the care meeting and the assembly meeting? Should sisters not hear of it in that period?
JT There is no reason why they should not. We have scriptures that would bear on that, for instance “Let them ask their husbands at home”
WW But there are some sisters who have no husband.
JT Well, if they have fathers or brothers, or neighbours who are brothers they can ask them.
WW Before the assembly meeting?
JT I think so.
Ques Should sisters not be conversant with the exercises of the assembly generally so that there should be no surprises?
JT Quite so. It is a general matter. If we are characteristically in the assembly we want to know what is current.
Ques Is it not a remarkable thing how exercised persons do know?
JT Take a person like Anna in Luke 2; there are such sisters in the assembly. Well, she would want to know, no matter what it was, and she would enquire and pray accordingly, and be a great help.
SG Would it be proper for the brothers, as having looked into the facts of the case, [p. 51] to go forward to the assembly meeting with a tentative judgement or decision?
JT Well, I certainly would have a judgement, and tentative is a good word. You are preserving the function of the assembly and that alone can be final.
Rem If the offender comes to the meeting when the assembly is convened and listens to the judgement of the assembly and afterwards continues to come to the meetings and takes true ground, such a person would be recovered, would he not?
JT Quite so.
SB How does that come to light? Does it not show that there is a final voice at the assembly meeting?
JT There is a final voice. Each is to abide by it, particularly the offender. Here the Lord implies that it will not be so in some cases — “if he will not listen to the assembly”. The Lord implies there that certain would not listen, and that is the great difficulty usually in these cases, that the obedient ear is not there, obedience is the point and it carries us back to the principle on which the gospel is received, for it is said to be for the obedience of faith among all nations.
Ques Does the assembly meeting furnish an occasion for the offender to speak?
JT I would say so. Grace reigns, and there would be a readiness to listen. If the offender had a wish to speak there is no reason why he should not. He is still in principle in the assembly because the judgement has not been pronounced. The matter is proceeding.
SB What would be done in the case of an assembly meeting where a sister would be involved?
JT She could easily intimate what is in her mind.
SB Could sisters do so in the assembly [p. 52] meeting?
JT Well, why not? How did the Lord act with Mary Magdalene and the woman in Samaria? He would clear them at once if the state were there and indication given that there was some judgement of the matter; but it would be done in a comely way.
SB I would like help as to that. I have difficulty as to how that indication may be expressed.
JT There are many ways in which you can intimate your mind. Why should not a sister indicate a change of mind? She can sing a hymn. Why should she not make a confession? It could be done in a suitable way.
WA Should there not be an expression of love in matters of this kind that are evident in the assembly. The 13th chapter of 1 Corinthians follows the 12th where governments are mentioned, and shews how love would come in to help.
JT Quite so. The chapters are consecutive as they are in Matthew too.
Ques Does the word “listen” imply repentance?
JT it does. It is not simply that he hears but he is attentive to what is said and assenting to it too.
GHP Does the opening part of verse 17 contemplate that a person might be gained at the care meeting stage and the case may not have to go to the assembly meeting at all? If so, has it particular relation to Matthew 18, or does it apply generally. I was thinking of a grievous public sin.
JT Well, that would have to be taken into account, because sin is graded. We have to take account of the grades, and a case such as you indicate now has to be regarded as more serious. What we were considering had become bad because of his refusal to listen. What you contemplate is something which has happened outside.
Ques Does it mean in the setting here that the [p. 53] offender is only to be seen once, or is there to be a continued effort to gain him before finally going to the assembly?
JT I am sure patience would enter into that. Another thing which should be noted is the procedure in Leviticus 14 as to leprosy. How much patience is shewn by the priest in visiting the person who has got the disease! It is remarkable the amount of holy scripture that is allotted to this matter of leprosy, two chapters (13th and 14th) being devoted to it, and that is what is suggested now, that there ought to be plenty of patience.
SG In relation to the priest shutting the man up, without bringing it to the care meeting, is there any way in which he could bring in a modified measure of restriction in view of saving the brother before it goes to the accustomed place, viz. the assembly meeting?
JT Well, of course, the law of leprosy implies that the person is restricted while leprosy is at work. But then another thing that arises is that it is never suggested that there is no priest. That perhaps is the difficulty — the absence of priestly state. These two chapters in Leviticus do not suggest there is no priest — there is always a priest.
SG Would that priest be present at the care meeting?
JT Definitely; he should be present, and the offender too.
SG Could there be any restriction by the care meeting?
JT The care meeting has no authority to impose anything.
SG Supposing the care meeting put a ban of silence upon a brother, what would you say?
JT I would say that it was not right.
Ques Will you help us as to Leviticus in regard [p. 54] to this matter because that is a scripture that has been in mind, that the person there who has been in trouble is restricted.
JT Well, that is so, if there is evidence of guilt, evidence of leprosy, but then there is not always such evidence.
Ques Would not the evidence be seen in a wilful spirit?
JT Well, quite so. But what are you going to do with him? The will might be just for a moment and pass away. I think the procedure here in Matthew 18 is the thing to go by, that we have to wait for the assembly to act authoritatively.
Rem In regard to Leviticus, if the procedure already mentioned had been carried out and there had been deliberation, over a long period, resulting in the brothers in care deciding that the matter should go to an assembly meeting, would you regard it as very unusual that the person who had so much time and opportunity to repent should only repent in the short space of time between the care meeting and the calling of the assembly meeting. Would not that enter into the history of which you have spoken? It would seem to be unusual for such a drastic change to take place, although we should have to allow for the possibility.
JT We would have to allow that it is possible. So that when Peter says “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? until seven times? Jesus says to him, I say not to thee until seven times, but until seventy times seven”. I am referring to this to show the principle of forgiveness. This word of the Lord’s has to be kept in mind and we have all to look into our hearts and see where we are. This whole paragraph refers to the matter of forgiveness. Why should there be prolonged conditions of restriction on brethren? Why should not [p. 55] grace bring about something? We may put people into prison and keep them there, and it may be because of that they are not getting on in their souls.
SG I would like further help as to the difference between the priest shutting up the man and the inability of the care meeting to restrict. I would like to see the difference.
JT I would say there is some relation between the care meeting and the priest. Leviticus is, of course the priestly book and therefore it is a question of the priests, not the care meeting. If the leaders in the care meeting are priestly you will reach some end, but if there is some wrong principle governing them, or feeling, we reach nothing.
Ques Is the priest spirituality?
JT Yes, and intelligence.
HB Would the priest shutting up correspond with the moral and spiritual advice to the brother that would restrain him from activity rather than an authoritative action?
JT Quite so. Therefore the priest is the leading thought in all this. We are dependent on the understanding of priesthood in order to meet it. We often refer to Galatians 6: 1. “Ye who are spiritual restore such a one”. You may say that is the care meeting, but it is not the care meeting. Everyone in the care meeting may not be spiritual. Therefore we are driven to the idea of spirituality, and those in the lead ought to be spiritual and to influence all the others so that the priestly idea is dominant in the care meeting.
Ques Would not the one that we call an offender be called upon to listen to that?
JT Quite so. But that is not the assembly, which has its own place. You cannot restrict a man because you are in the care meeting. The care meeting does not do that. It is a question of the [p. 56] priest, and hence when you come to actual disciplinary action you must have the assembly.
SG Would the priestly action come in on individual lines like Paul to Peter in the occasion when he was remiss?
JT Yes, it would. The care meeting has a great place, but it is always tentative and looks towards the assembly for any action.
WRM Can one who is in fellowship be deprived of any one of the privileges of the fellowship?
JT The question is what the word fellowship means. If the word means what it normally means, he should not be deprived. He belongs to it. He has entered by the gates into the city. Entering in by the gates means you have a right to partake of the tree of life.
Rem I was wondering whether sometimes we get into a difficulty by avoiding a ban officially by the assembly but doing the thing tacitly by inference. Would you agree with that?
JT Quite so. If the brother is free from what you might call blame, or even what we get in 2 Thessalonians where you have the idea of restraint perhaps in the brethren, he is in fellowship. “Admonish him as a brother” the apostle says. Well, if he is to be treated as a brother the privileges of the assembly belong to him.
SB It might be thought that what you have said about the authority of the assembly in this final stage would somewhat encourage the offender, but does it not put him in a more serious position in regard to the assembly?
JT It certainly does. The assembly is intended to be custodian of all that God has down here and that is what we are dealing with, and Matthew 18 augments and clarifies it from our side. Peter is mentioned as having the keys of the kingdom and [p. 57] that is for the protection of the assembly, “On this rock I will build my assembly and hades’ gates shall not prevail against it”.
SB Would that be why there is no mention of forgiveness being exercised?
JT Well, it is, and the function of the assembly, the authority and power of the assembly appears, taking care of what is of God and including persons breaking bread. So the assembly can go on. The brother’s position is clarified.
RMcG If the thought of the brother being recovered is taken account of fully, has his past history to be kept in mind? I was thinking of what has been said as to history, that we have to take account of it if a brother offends, and even if it has got to come before the assembly, but if he has been restored would you have to bring up his past history after that?
JT No, why should you? He is restored.
Rem So old scores are not to be paid off. Justice is mentioned so many times in relation to Solomon. It is the idea of a wise and understanding heart and largeness of heart — a word to all who have to exercise government in any measure.
JT First it is the kingdom and then it is the house itself. We should look at the saints, not simply as the kingdom, but as the house. How beautifully Solomon went up to the house of the Lord — the manner of his going up! That is what is in mind in Matthew. The kingdom is available for that purpose. So that there should be such a beautiful scene as in 1 Kings 10 where the queen of Sheba came up. That is the idea of the testimony.
Ques Can the assembly meeting take a lesser action than withdrawal, can it impose restrictions without withdrawing from a person? I was thinking of the question that was asked about a care meeting [p. 58] imposing a ban of silence which you would disallow, but could the assembly meeting do that?
JT Well, I don’t know. I recognise restriction, but the assembly can do that — not the care meeting.
JnoG I would like to ask, if it is not diverting, would we be justified in showing any measure of reserve towards a person who has given concern before the assembly takes authoritative action?
JT I would say yes. Certain things are required and the brother should commit himself to them. It is not desired to excommunicate or put the brother or sister away, yet the circumstances in his history are such that there should be restraint — he should feel he is under restraint — but the assembly has its place in the matter — it is the assembly that is doing it.
JnoG I was thinking of one, say, who has given concern to the saints. Ought we to maintain our relations just as with any other saint until the assembly takes authoritative action, say withdrawal?
JT Well, that would be a question of the priest, and of course I do not know how it would work out in your case. You are the person involved — how would it work out?
JnoG I am not sure it you have got what is in mind. If one is giving concern and is before the saints in care capacity, should we maintain our relations towards him or her as with any other of the saints who are going on well until the assembly takes action of withdrawal?
JT I would think so. The priestly element would help us and that element should be in the assembly. If it is not there you cannot talk about the assembly, but if it be there the brethren concerned would understand, and yet nothing is done authoritatively, for the priestly side is a question of the Spirit of God operating in our souls.
Rem Withdrawal is emphasised in 2 Thessalonians 3: 6 “[p. 59] Now we enjoin you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw from every brother walking disorderly and not according to the instruction which he received from us”.
JT Well, there might be that. I would say that the passage in 2 Thessalonians 3: 6, would bear on this point. There is a distinction between that and 1 Corinthians chapter 5 where you have actual withdrawal; that is, it is putting away or removal.
JnoG That is in relation to an individual. Could we extend the principle to a company?
JT Well, I don’t know. You mean, I suppose, something has gone wrong in a local meeting and it has become leavened?
JnoG I mean, if a locality is not going on well, perhaps it is considered that there is unjudged evil there, would the saints in surrounding gatherings maintain a measure of outward reserve until that would be judged?
JT Well, I am not so sure about that. There has been history amongst the brethren which has afforded much help as to matters of that kind, such as the Ryde trouble. The assembly there was held by certain meetings to be leprous. Brethren were for a time uncertain about the condition at Ryde, but at any rate it was still acknowledged to be an assembly. It was made clear at the time that so long as an assembly is acknowledged as in fellowship, it has all the privileges of the assembly and any brother is free to go there. It took quite a long time for all this to emerge but the position was as stated. It applies to what you are raising now and we have to be clear that if an assembly is recognised as in fellowship there can be no restriction on anyone visiting it. We have to wait for some authoritative person or persons or assembly to pronounce as before God a judgement on the situation.
[p. 60] Ques In that connection I would like to ask a question. If there is a gathering in which there is a measure of difficulty which is known, is it within the jurisdiction of a neighbouring meeting to request others to keep away from that meeting?
JT I think not. The matter is serious. It is a matter for heaven, and heaven acts through the priest here.
Rem So that a priestly person with the good of the saints heart, and a little food supply, should not be restricted from going to the place to help.
JT Certainly not. How are they going to get help? History helps us and we have the case of Glanton to guide us as to this matter. Such things are part of our experience and should help us in other things like them.
JnoG Supposing that help has been tried for a long time and there is still no improvement of conditions, what then?
JT Well, I would say the surrounding gatherings are in question if they cannot help. We had it at Newcastle, and the Lord came in and set the thing right. There was will at work, not only in the assembly concerned but also in the assemblies around. A whole district may be affected. One could cite many other similar cases.
Rem If a meeting has assembly status you would avoid any activity or suggestion that would weaken that as long as it continued.
JT Quite so. There is no suggestion in Paul’s letters that the meetings in Galatia should be abandoned or that brethren should keep away from them. Likewise there is no suggestion that the gatherings around should avoid Corinth.
JnoG What constitutes assembly status in that setting?
JT Well, so long as the Spirit of God is there and [p. 61] there is no evidence that He has been set aside. If the Spirit of God is quenched then I would say that that company is undeserving of recognition as an assembly. But Paul did not say that of Corinth or of the Galatian assemblies.
Ques If in a small meeting a case of judgement arises and they have no gifts of government in that meeting, what will they do?
JT Well, I don’t know. You would have to show that it was so. You are speaking now abstractly.
Rem I am thinking of some of the smaller gatherings and a difficult case arising and no actual gift of government in that locality.
JT Well, what about the second part of Matthew 18, which contemplates only two or three. It does not contemplate the gift of government — it contemplates brethren who gather unto the name of the Lord. “Where two or three are gathered together unto my name, there am I in the midst of them”. And the previous verse says that “if two of you”, (meaning two of the assembly) “shall agree on the earth concerning any matter, whatsoever it may be that they shall ask, it shall come to them from my Father who is in the heavens”. Therefore what you enquire about is implied in these two verses. There is no question of gift. It is “two of you” or “two or three”. It is simply the persons — the personnel of the assembly, and they agree in prayer about a thing and they meet together, two or three of them, and the Lord says “I am with you”. In the latter verse the Lord says He is with them, and in the former God answers their prayer. If you have two or three who are characteristically of the assembly, or two who pray — the same remark applies, why cannot the matter be settled?
SB What if the two do not agree?
JT [p. 62] They do here. If even two out of twenty or out of a hundred agree, the Father will act.
SB If they are three and three, what then?
JT The three, if they are right, will get support from God. Heaven recognises such persons, however few. The persons have to be taken care of, and heaven knows the persons. The Merarites in their levitical service were to take care of the persons. If there are three wrong and three right, the three right will be heard in heaven.
SG If the three and three continue in deadlock for a long time until eventually there is an appeal to a nearby meeting, and the nearby meeting acts in a certain measure towards it, how should we be regulated as surrounding the locality?
JT The nearby meeting may not be right.
Ques “Unto my name” would be important. Would not that diminish any petty feeling, and completely eliminate personal prejudice?
JT Quite so. It says “Two of you”, and again “Unto my name”. Heaven recognises what is there.
SG If the nearby meeting has all the facts and others have not, are the latter not at a disadvantage?
JT Why have the others not the facts? If they are there nearby and acting in a neighbourly way in accordance with Deuteronomy 21, why have they not the facts? They are there to be had, surely.
Rem You cannot get the facts if you stay away from the place.
JT Quite so. If any nearby brethren want to help, let them go where the thing has happened.
Rem They should bring in help where the trouble is.
JT Quite so. According to Matthew 18, the thing ought to be brought before the assembly. If the assembly exists characteristically the thing ought to be brought to them.
[p. 63] Ques Does that entail that there should be two or three witnesses?
JT Well, there was only one in the days of Abigail; one of Nabal’s young men brought the testimony to Abigail about what happened, and that brought the matter to a settlement. Lay it before the assembly. We are not told how many are to do it. The word is, “tell it to the assembly”. The brother who was offended in Matthew 18 was to tell it to the assembly. No matter how many there are who are not of the same mind, he is doing what is right.
FB What you brought before us recently was that the basic thought in the assembly is love — I suppose it is the lack of love that causes trouble?
JT Love never fails. I am certain that love, if it existed, would never allow an issue to be carried over years or months. It never fails. This verse contemplates two conditions that heaven recognises. First, two saints agreed, and second, praying to God. Heaven recognises them — the Father does and answers it for them — not for the assembly — for them.
Ques Would we be quick to act if we were conscious of the fact that if one member suffers the others suffer with it.
JT Quite so, and that is the skill with which Paul wrote his letters to Corinth. The 13th chapter is the great chapter of love. It never fails. The whole chapter is about love.
Rem I suppose the Corinthians did not know that Paul wrote his first epistle with many tears?
JT Quite so.