THE FOUNDATION OF GOD
[p. 170] THE FOUNDATION OF GOD
1 Corinthians 1: 1 - 9; 1 Corinthians 3: 14 - 17; 1 Corinthians 5: 6 - 8; 2 Timothy 2: 19, 21
JT The object in mind in the first set of scriptures read, is to call attention to what was at the beginning, the Holy Spirit having come. The saints at Corinth are addressed according to what we have read as “the assembly of God which is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called saints, with all that in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both theirs and ours”. The saints at Corinth are thus regarded as having the status of the assembly of God, which is at Corinth. The passages read treat of the truth in an abstract way, as I hope to show. The brethren will understand that I use the word abstract in no sense to baffle our minds, but simply that we may see that divine conditions are seen as intact, notwithstanding the serious evil that had arisen in the assembly at Corinth. The evil, in itself, did not disturb the status of the assembly, for it is regarded as “the assembly of God” in Corinth in spite of what had transpired. The same is true of what was read in the third chapter which refers to the temple of God and then in the fifth chapter, where, although there was serious wickedness, they are enjoined to purge out the old leaven, “according as ye are unleavened”. That is the abstract idea. It is said that they were unleavened notwithstanding the serious evil which had arisen, but the Spirit of God through Paul urged the saints to purge it out. The passage in the second epistle to Timothy shows that evil had come in to such a degree in the profession that it had to be called a great house; the local companies being no longer acknowledged publicly as the assembly of God. It is viewed as a leavened system, not as it was in 1 Corinthians, but because of the seriousness [p. 171] of the evil that had come in. That evil is indicated in what is said in verse 16 of the chapter read, “But profane, vain babblings shun, for they will advance to greater impiety, and their word will spread as a gangrene; of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; men who as to the truth have gone astray, saying that the resurrection has taken place already, and overthrow the faith of some”. That is to say, the faith of some that were there was overthrown by the evil doctrine, but even so the Spirit of God says, “Yet the firm foundation of God stands”. That is to say, the foundation that Paul said he had placed in Corinth stood in spite of the evil that had come in; that foundation was of God. Paul goes on to say, “The Lord knows those that are his; and, Let every one who names the name of the Lord withdraw from iniquity”. That is to say, the withdrawal from iniquity would enable those who thus acted to pursue what is indicated in the first chapter of 1 Corinthians. They would not assume to be the assembly of God, but would act in the light of it, recognising that they were but a remnant of persons who had withdrawn from the public profession of Christianity. The apostle then goes on to say, “But in a great house there are not only gold and silver vessels, but also wooden and earthen; and some to honour, and some to dishonour”. This is followed by another statement of special importance, “[p. 173] if therefore one shall have purified himself from these”, that is, vessels to dishonour, “in separating himself from them, he shall be a vessel to honour, sanctified, serviceable to the Master, prepared for every good work”. These preliminary remarks have been made deliberately, so that the brethren will understand what is in mind. The last scripture read in the second epistle to Timothy contemplates where the brethren are now. God is mercifully coming in and [p. 172] separating His people from the evil that has grown up in Christendom, so that His service should continue. It is said here, “Yet the firm foundation of God stands”. It is not said, that it should stand; it does stand, so that, as having withdrawn from iniquity, we can go on with the service and testimony of God.
TM We must keep the abstract idea in mind; and, acknowledging and judging the ruin that has come in, separate from iniquity. Is that in your mind?
JT That is right. The abstract idea refers to what God has affected, and we are entitled thus to regard those who are separated from the evil, as being separated ourselves. Any who think that they can continue in the public associations of Christendom, without being separated from the evil, will find that God will not be with them. The Christian profession is now regarded as a great house, in which there are vessels to honour and vessels to dishonour, but in order to be serviceable, it is necessary to withdraw from iniquity, and be separated from the dishonourable vessels.
AI The great difficulty has been, in persons trying to rectify the bad conditions of things, whereas we are told to withdraw from iniquity and separate ourselves.
JT That is the word. It is plainly stated, “Let every one who names the name of the Lord withdraw from iniquity”. The iniquity is not stated, but whatever iniquity it may be the believer ought to be able to discern and name it. And then it goes on in verse 20, “But in a great house there are not only gold and silver vessels, but also wooden and earthen; and some to honour, and some to dishonour”. These are specified. The iniquity of verse 19 is not specified. It is for us to discern iniquity and to withdraw from it, but verse 21 says,
“If therefore, one shall have purified himself from these in separating himself from them”; that is to say, from “vessels to dishonour”; such are unconverted or unjudged persons operating in the things of God.
JM Is this an individual matter?
JT The separating is. Paul says, “Let every one”. We do not separate en masse. Each separates for himself. Multitudes might go on with the evil, as is evident in the profession; but those who have withdrawn and separated, as coming together are purified, and can in humility take on the position of the assembly of God, carrying on the service of God.
RP Is that the way in which the fellowship can be recognised?
JT Quite so; where there is separation from evil. Following that there is the positive side, stated in verse 22, “But youthful lusts flee, and pursue righteousness, faith, love, peace, with those that call upon the Lord out of a pure heart”. That is where, I might say, the conditions are seen.
AI We are balanced with those two words “with those”. Some might have had an independent view of the pathway, but it says, “with those that call upon the Lord out of a pure heart”. There are those with whom we can walk.
JT We can. Thank God there are some in many places throughout the world with whom we can walk and follow what is of God. We would like to be sure that the brethren have the abstract idea, that we might understand what is meant in the scriptures read in 1 Corinthians. The scripture in chapter 3, for instance (verse 16), “Do ye not know that ye” (that is the saints in Corinth) “are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?” And then, another thing as to the abstract idea is in verse 14, “if the work of any one which he has built upon the foundation shall abide, he [p. 174] shall receive a reward. If the work of any one shall be consumed, he shall suffer loss, but he shall be saved, but so as through the fire” (verses 14, 15). The man is saved in spite of the fact that his works are burned up, meaning that abstractly he is a subject of the work of God, and that in itself remains, but he never judged the principle of the evil; he was saved so as through fire.
TM Do you see the principle of it in Lot? He never judged the principle of the world, yet he was saved, but as through the fire.
JT He was difficultly saved. Peter says, “if the righteous is difficultly saved”, referring to the conditions through which he is saved.
AM-r Is the foundation here the same as in 2 Timothy 2?
JT No; save in the sense that what Paul laid at Corinth was of God, hence the Corinthian saints are said to be the temple of God without any modification or qualification, although the apostle goes on to say that there was evil amongst them. That is to say, they were viewed abstractly as the temple of God, because the Spirit of God was dwelling there. It is God’s foundation, although Paul had laid it.
WC What might we understand by these terms, “the assembly of God”, and “the temple of God”?
JT Well, the assembly of God is the way the saints are addressed in the first chapter; they are also said to be the temple, but this has a different meaning. The idea of assembly is that the persons are called out of the world and constituted, by reason of the presence of the Holy Spirit and the work of God in each individual, equal to act for God as His assembly; but the temple is where divine communications are made, where God speaks to His people. The word assembly does not mean the same as the word temple, although it refers to [p. 175] the same persons. The divine communications are made because the Spirit of God is in the place.
DSM Does the first epistle to the Corinthians bring out the furnishings that are available for the saints of God who accept the ruin spoken of in second Timothy?
JT Quite so. In verse 4 of chapter 1, Paul says, “I thank my God always about you, in respect of the grace of God given to you in Christ Jesus; that in everything ye have been enriched in him, in all word of doctrine, and all knowledge, (according as the testimony of the Christ has been confirmed in you,) so that ye come short in no gift”. The apostle does not speak of their requirements, but rather of God’s enrichments or furnishings, that they are well furnished. “in everything ye have been enriched in him in all word of doctrine, and all knowledge (according as the testimony of the Christ has been confirmed in you), so that ye come short in no gift, awaiting the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ; who shall also confirm you to the end, unimpeachable in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ”, and then he adds another great furnishing, “God is faithful, by whom ye have been called into the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord”. The whole thing thus stated is abstract, and there is no discrepancy. The work of God is contemplated; what He had effected in the Corinthians.
JL Does the status of the assembly stand connected with the fellowship of His Son?
JT It does clearly. The abstract passage, I would say, ends in the ninth verse, although the abstract idea runs through the whole epistle, but these verses in themselves contemplate the intactness of the assembly in Corinth, in spite of the fact that there was actual evil there, but it was stated by the apostle in view of the evil being dealt with. However, it was not all dealt with or put away,
[p. 176] because it is said later in the second letter that there were certain things to be dealt with (2 Corinthians 12: 21); but in that there was that which had been dealt with — there was a good moral reason for regarding them as clear.
Rem So that the abstract position enables us not only to find our way intelligently in relation to the profession, but also to go on together as working out divine thoughts.
JT That is the idea; to go on together. As already remarked, there is that which we are to flee and what we are to pursue. “But youthful lusts flee, and pursue righteousness, faith, love, peace, with those that call upon the Lord out of a pure heart”. Thus it is that we go on together. We might be a hundred, or two only, but we can go on, and the Lord Jesus has promised to be with us. As it says at the end of Matthew, “lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end”. Then in Matthew 18: 20, He says, “Where two or three are gathered together unto my name, there am I in the midst of them”.
AI You mentioned the remnant idea of things, and I suppose that always has to be taken account of. The word to Philadelphia says, “Thou hast a little strength ... and hast not denied my name”. Weakness is there, yet there is a little strength.
JT Quite so, but that epistle contemplates the intactness of what there is. It is the day of small things. What is of God is there, and in a remnant, and He says “Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee”; ‘thee’ here means the whole assembly. The assembly is indwelt by the Spirit of God. We are to be kept “out of the hour of trial, which is about to come upon the whole habitable world, to try them that dwell upon the earth”, Revelation 3: [p. 177] 10.
AB Why does he bring in the brother, Sosthenes, in the first verse of 1 Corinthians?
JT I would say, to show the brotherly spirit that Paul maintained, for he was not writing simply for himself. He says, “Paul, a called apostle of Jesus Christ, by God’s will, and Sosthenes the brother”. You will find the same thing in other epistles. It is to bring in the brotherly element in order to add to the apostolic authority of Paul. In Exodus, Moses was to be the apostle to unfold the truth, but Aaron was given to him as a brother; “Is not Aaron the Levite thy brother?”, God says, Exodus 4: 14. Aaron as a brother would link up with Moses, and so here the brother is linked up with Paul. The extension of that would mean in this day, or wherever the brethren are gathered, that the brotherly element would be present as well as the authority that the Lord has placed among us.
ER We get “in Christ Jesus” seven times in the second epistle to Timothy.
JT That is proof that they were maintaining the intactness of the position. We are in Christ Jesus. We are not in the system of men.
TM Would you say that we have an analogy to that in Exodus 32, where Moses pitched the tent outside the camp? He acted on the principle of separation from the iniquity, owning the ruin.
JT Quite so. He went outside the camp because of the wickedness in the camp; the camp was corrupt. It is a very good scripture to bring in, in relation to 2 Timothy and 1 Corinthians.
AM-d What is involved in the expressions, “call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” in 1 Corinthians; and then in 2 Timothy, “call upon the Lord”?
JT Well, I would say that the name of the Lord Jesus Christ is basic according to the Acts. The gospels and all the ministry are in that Name, and so John says, “that ye might have life in his name”. Things are held in that Name. It means that the Lord is not here. He is absent, but His Name is here, and the Spirit of God supports that Name, and those that call upon it. But then when we come to the Lord in the second epistle to Timothy, “But youthful lusts flee, and pursue righteousness, faith, love, peace, with those that call upon the Lord”, I would say that refers to the authority of the Lord; it is to remind us of His authority. His name carries with it all that He is, but His authority is in the term “Lord”. He is made “both Lord and Christ”, we are told, which is important to keep before us. There are those who separate from the brethren, and do things that are contrary to the truth, and to the principles governing the assembly. Well, they are lawless, and the Lord will deal with them. The incestuous man who is spoken of in Corinthians is dealt with on that principle.
WS You mean on the principle of what is due to the Lord?
JT Just so. The apostle wrote to them saying, “For I, as absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged as present, to deliver, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, (ye and my spirit being gathered together, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ), him that has so wrought this; to deliver him, I say, being such, to Satan for destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus”, 1 Corinthians 5: 3 - 5. It is clear there that the authority of the Lord is carried into the act of discipline against the man who is put away from amongst the saints; he is delivered unto Satan for destruction of the flesh that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
RP What is involved in “all that in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both theirs and ours”, 1 Corinthians 1: 2?
JT [p. 179] Well, I think it is to bring out the universality of the assembly. That brings up another matter; namely, that at the beginning, in the book of Acts, there was a metropolitan situation at Jerusalem. The word assembly is used in the singular in Acts 2: 47. The word assembly may not be strictly there, but it is in the principle of it. The assembly was there at Jerusalem in a metropolitan position in Judaea, and the Lord added to it, but in due course, as the testimony went on, through the labours of others and the apostle Paul, there were assemblies formed in gentile cities, not only the assembly in Jerusalem. There may have been several gatherings in Jerusalem, but no matter how many they would be called ‘the assembly of God in Jerusalem’. In due time, we have assemblies in other cities, and it is said in Acts 14, that Paul and Barnabas chose there elders in each assembly; that would mean that these assemblies were constituted as self-supporting wherever they were throughout the earth. They would not be regulated by Jerusalem as a metropolitan centre. Wherever assemblies were formed, there were elders and these elders would rule, so that the order of God would be maintained, and with it the unity of the assemblies; as it is said by Paul, “Thus I ordain in all the assemblies”. They would be in the same fellowship; the same teaching that marked one assembly would mark all the others, and that, I think, is what is meant here by the words, “all that in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both theirs and ours”.
DSM So that no local exercise would be taken up except in the light of what is universal.
JT That is the idea. Whatever is done should be such as could be endorsed by the brethren everywhere. Local independency is against the principles of the assembly in that [p. 180] sense.
FI Paul says in Corinthians we are “called into the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord”. Is ‘our Lord’ the bond of fellowship?
JT That is just what we get here, and “God is faithful, by whom ye have been called”. There is “the fellowship of his Son”, our Lord, and then there is “the communion of the blood of Christ”, that is, His death (chapter 10: 16); and then there is “the communion of the Holy Spirit”, 2 Corinthians 13: 14. So that the fellowship is the great feature in those matters.
WC Does the reference to “his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord”, dignify the fellowship?
JT I would say so. It is not simply the Lord, but He is the Son of God; that is the great feature in it, that Christ is the Son of God. It is a great thing to keep in our minds the dignity of the fellowship. Imagine a person saying he was going out of fellowship in the light of that. How ridiculous, and yet how wrong!
Ques Does that dignity enter into the working out of things in Matthew 18, “if also he will not listen to the assembly, let him be to thee as one of the nations and a tax-gatherer”?
JT Quite so; “let him be to thee as one of the nations and a tax-gatherer”. He shows that he is unfit for the fellowship, and that the assembly has power to deal with evil. If the assembly is not recognised, the person is disqualified for the fellowship.
TM What is your thought in regard to localities where things have dwindled down to one brother? Does it bear out what we have here in principle?
JT Well, it would make it necessary for him to walk alone. He would have to do it. God would not leave him alone long.
AI Would you think that in the normal setting there are two or three gathered [p. 181] together?
JT Well, of course, he may have to learn to walk with God like Enoch; one brother could not maintain the service of God in the assembly, he could not break bread alone, and, of course, he may have to suffer and sacrifice and go to the next meeting. He would have to sacrifice so as to be with the brethren.
TM Even if there were two or three sisters in the locality walking in the same path.
JT Quite so, but they could go on and break bread together if they were in a normal setting. They could continue to break bread because there are two or three. The scripture does not say two or three brothers, but “two of you”.
TM One would like help in regard to dealing with evil where two or three witnesses are needed. In regard to dealing with evil can sisters be with us?
JT Quite so. They should be listened to. The Lord rebuked the apostles in Mark 16, because they did not believe what the women said.
AI Is there a normal assembly function with one brother?
JT Why not? It may be small conditions, but it is a situation that the Lord can own, because you have three or four persons who love the Lord, who have the Spirit, who are of the assembly. Why not continue?
JB The keeping of the concrete idea before us would be a great matter?
JT Quite so. That is what I was saying. I hope we all take it in, because it is an immense thing in heaven to have one or two who love the Lord Jesus, and who care for His interests. Sisters, or even a sister, are regarded as capable of exercising discipline. If there is a brother there, and he is not going on in the truth, the sister may have to separate from him, which would be [p. 182] exercising discipline.
HP Does the whole of this epistle govern the situation?
JT 1 Corinthians does. It is all one thing, really. It is in the singular. It is all one commandment, really. Paul says, “let him recognise the things that I write to you, that it is the Lord’s commandment”, 1 Corinthians 14: 37. You see what scope we have in the term “Lord”.
WS I was wondering if the elect lady would come in here?
JT The second epistle of John speaks of this: “The elder to the elect lady and her children, whom I love in truth, and not I only but also all who have known the truth, for the truth’s sake which abides in us and shall be with us to eternity. Grace shall be with you, mercy, peace from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love. I rejoiced greatly that I have found of thy children walking in truth, as we have received commandment from the Father. And now I beseech thee, lady, not as writing to thee a new commandment, but that which we have had from the beginning, that we should love one another. And this is love, that we should walk according to his commandments”. So that this elect lady was being instructed, and exhorted in regard to all that we are speaking of. That as regards the truth, John says, “That ye might walk in it. For many deceivers have gone out into the world, they who do not confess Jesus Christ coming in flesh — this is the deceiver and the antichrist. See to yourselves, that we may not lose what we have wrought, but may receive full wages. Whosoever goes forward and abides not in the doctrine of the Christ has not God. He that abides in the doctrine, he has both the Father and the Son. If any one come to you and bring not this doctrine, do not receive him into the house, and greet him not; for he who greets him partakes in his wicked works”. I think we can see that discipline is involved in all that.
FI Is it not one of the greatest encouragements we have in walking in the pathway in which we are, that we are able to exercise discipline. There are other companies of Christians who are not able to exercise discipline, but we are able to exercise discipline as moving in relation to divine principles.
JT I am sure we all agree with that. At least we all should.
AB God does not go on with evil either small or great.
JT Quite so. We do not need to, because we can separate from it. “Let everyone who names the name of the Lord withdraw from iniquity”.
TM So that there is no excuse if there is only one brother, if you have godly sisters. They can act in the Lord’s name.
JT Quite so. We have experienced that many times.
AI All this is to enhance the ground of our gathering.
JT Quite so. The abstract idea too, and how it applies to persons who have the Holy Spirit, as the Lord said of Him, “He dwelleth with you and shall be in you”, John 14: 17. He is the power by which we do all these things and exercise all matters of discipline.
TM Would you help us with regard to the difference between 1 Corinthians and 2 Timothy, in regard to the statements, “Remove the wicked person from amongst yourselves”, and that in 2 Timothy as to “withdraw from iniquity”, and purging ourselves from vessels to dishonour?
JT Well, putting away involves public power, whereas withdrawing is an acknowledgment that you cannot act in the same sense in power. We are [p. 184] in a day of small things, and we have owned that we are, and that we are not possessed of the power that they had in apostolic times. The apostle says in 1 Corinthians 5, “with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ”. “For I as absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged as present, to deliver in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ”. Notice this, he is doing it himself, “to deliver in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ (ye and my spirit being gathered together, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ)”. He is not doing it by himself, individually, he is doing it with them, but it is in this way that he speaks: “Ye and my spirit being gathered together, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, him that has so wrought this: to deliver him, I say, being such, to Satan for destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus”. That is the ground or basis on which things were carried out at the beginning, but the word in 2 Timothy indicates the ground or basis on which we have to act now, in the absence of public power; we are to withdraw from iniquity, but at the same time the foundation of God stands today.
JB Would you say it is the same in principle?
JT I would. It is the same in principle, only the weakness is acknowledged.
TM You mean that in withdrawing we are not claiming assembly status, as it was at Corinth. The designation “the assembly of God which is at Corinth” means they had that status and were thus owned of God, which meant public power to deal with evil.
JT We choose our language, and speak according to facts, and hence we are consistent in saying, we withdraw. There is no power to force people out if they do not walk in the truth, and therefore, we withdraw from [p. 185] them.
AM-r Have you the thought in Jeremiah 15, “if thou take forth the precious from the vile, thou shalt be as my mouth”?
JT That is a very good scripture. “If thou take forth the precious from the vile, thou shalt be as my mouth”. That is a service that the brethren render, of course.
WS Is loyalty to Christ especially called for in remnant days?
JT Just so, as expressed in the word in 1 Chronicles 12, “Thine are we, David, and on thy side, thou son of Jesse”. In Moses’ time, to which we have already alluded, it says, “Who is on the Lord’s side? Let him come unto me”; Exodus 32.
JM What is the thought of withdrawing in 2 Thessalonians? “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” (2 Thessalonians 3:6).
JT That is plain enough so far, only it does not go so far as the instructions in 1 Corinthians or 2 Timothy. If you look at the margin you will see that the word withdraw means to shrink from. The word in the original only occurs there and in 2 Corinthians 8: 20. It is not the same as withdrawing in 2 Timothy 2. These are important distinctions, because the man in question there in Thessalonica is not as you might say wicked as the man in 1 Corinthians 5. Paul goes on to say, “For ye know yourselves how ye ought to imitate us, because we have not walked disorderly among you; nor have we eaten bread from any one without cost; but in toil and hardship working night and day not to be chargeable to any one of you; not that we have not the right, but that we might give ourselves as an example to you, in order to your imitating us. For also when we were with you we enjoined you this,
[p. 186] that if any man does not like to work, neither let him eat. For we hear that there are some walking among you disorderly, not working at all, but busybodies. Now such we enjoin and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ, that working quietly they eat their own bread”. That is evidently not as serious as the wickedness at Corinth. It is a matter of a brother failing to work.
JM He would still be breaking bread.
JT Yes, quite so.
JM-r Is the withdrawal in 2 Timothy individual, and in 2 Thessalonians collective?
JT I would say that 2 Timothy means that we withdraw severally, although we are walking together in it; yet the withdrawal is for each one to come to. The passage read in 2 Thessalonians could refer to what is collective. “We enjoin you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that ye withdraw”; ‘ye’ implies what is collective; that is, the body of the brethren would withdraw from the brother like this until he judged himself; he would then work and eat his own bread, and not live on others. He is not to be regarded as an enemy. That indicates that it is a gradation of sin.
Rem The action would have an admonishing effect according to verse 15.
JT Quite so.
TM You might help us with regard to the grading of sin in Scripture.
JT Well, you have it here. This man is not of the same grade as the man in Corinth, and therefore they were not to put him away, but to shrink from him, avoid him, give him to understand his conduct is not just.
JB Would you say that this walking disorderly might mean more than not working?
JT Well, it might. The brethren are to use their judgment about things. There is the order of [p. 187] the assembly, and according to it discipline and rule are to be maintained.
RP Is there a further difference in the turning away from one in Romans 16: 17?
JT Yes, I think that is more serious. The apostle says, “But I beseech you, brethren, to consider those who create divisions and occasions of falling, contrary to the doctrine which ye have learnt, and turn away from them. For such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting”. That shows that it is more serious than what is spoken of in 2 Thessalonians, and almost as serious as what is at Corinth, because they are causing discord among the brethren.
TH Do we need an assembly meeting for dealing with evil?
JT I would say that in obeying the injunction to turn away from such men as those mentioned in Romans 16: 17, and 2 Timothy 3: 5, the assembly should be brought into the matter and united action taken.