THE ASSEMBLIES OF GOD
[p. 115] THE ASSEMBLIES OF GOD
1 Corinthians 11:16; 1 Corinthians 14:33; Galatians 1:1,2; Revelation 2:1
JT What is in mind is to show how the administrative service of the assembly is in subdivision in localities; but that in the subdivisions, there is catholicity; that is, uniformity in procedure and custom. “The assemblies of God” is a very dignified term. “We have no such custom”, the apostle says, verse 16; that is, contention is not allowed in the assemblies of God. Then in chapter 14 it is said that God is not a God of disorder but of peace, “as in all the assemblies of the saints”, verse 33. In Galatians we learn that the assemblies in a district may be affected together by an evil principle or doctrine; that is, the influence of it may extend to a district, but not universally. Finally, the Lord, in view of the failure of the assemblies, asserts this principle of local responsibility as being He “who walks in the midst of the seven golden lamps”, Revelation 2:1. He visits them and speaks to each of them, and there is a different word for each one.
WB-w Is Acts 9 the first place in which “assemblies” are mentioned; that is the plural? “The assemblies then throughout the whole of Judaea and Galilee and Samaria had peace”, Acts 9:31. They are unified and all walking in the power of that. It seems that after Saul of Tarsus was converted “the assemblies”, in the plural, come into view.
JT That is right; one had that in mind. The thought came in under Paul’s ministry; he was not yet recognised as a minister of the gospel, but it is very significant that the word ‘assemblies’ appears in this connection first. It was a single idea at Jerusalem earlier, but we get it later in the Acts several times, in the plural; and elsewhere, too, besides the passages read. It speaks of the Thessalonians being imitators of the
[p. 116] assemblies in Judaea; but Peter in the end of the chapter in the Acts that you alluded to, went to all quarters, no longer confining himself to the central position. And then we have Aeneas directed to make his bed for himself, which is the principle in mind in the local gathering.
CJE In the first scripture you referred to, is the contentious person the opposite of a subject person?
JT Quite so. You read of a contentious king in the Old Testament, Hosea 5:13, note. It is also said, “It is better to dwell in a corner of the housetop, than with a contentious woman, and a house in common”, Proverbs 25:24. The allusion would be to a state of contention in the assemblies: it is better to be alone in the corner of a housetop than to be in that — a very pronounced way of condemning contention. So that the apostle announces here, “we” — emphatic — “have no such custom”. That is, he would disallow it himself and so would those with him, and the assemblies of God are of the same mind. And the next passage read confirms this: “For God is not a God of disorder but of peace, as in all the assemblies of the saints”, 1 Corinthians 14:33. It is the way in which God makes Himself known in the assemblies. When the Lord came into the first one, He said, “Peace”, as if that were to mark it. That was the inauguration, and it was to mark the assembly in its subdivisions.
AR Have you in mind that the assemblies of God are to take character from God Himself as belonging to Him?
JT That is the lesson, I think. The first part is in that dignified word — “the assemblies of God”. We have the “assemblies of the saints”, but “the assemblies of God” is a characteristic word in view of dignity and representation.
CAM I suppose that designation in itself would put them on a different footing from any other assemblage in the world. The word would be understood, in [p. 117] a way, in Greece, but the political assemblies there would hardly be free from contentions.
JT Mars’ hill, where they came together to hear the news, would be marked by that. “What would this chatterer say?” is their query in Acts 17:18. And anything Paul said they would question.
CAM You mean legislation is put through on that principle.
JT Yes. There is a very significant term in England - “The King’s Opposition”. In the House of Commons the party not in power has that designation. It is legalised opposition, whereas in the assembly of God there is no such thought.
FHL That seems to be in view here, because it says, “But if any one think to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor the assemblies of God”, 1 Corinthians 11:16; as if contention is the work of the active natural mind.
JT Yes; there would be the thought in my mind that I will question what this one says, and what that one says, There used to be a great deal of that in earlier days amongst the brethren, but, thank God, there is not much of it now. God has helped us as to unity.
AR Why does he say, “we have no such custom, nor the assemblies of God”, as if he is speaking about himself and others, and then about the assemblies of God?
JT I think it is to stress that his custom is not different from that of the assemblies of God. He did not admit of such a custom. If he had to contend for the truth, he had to; but he did not admit that it was a right thing for any one to have a different opinion. Of course many assert that it is right, and say, This is my opinion, or, That is my mind; and we must leave it and agree to differ. But Paul did not want that at all; the we is to show that he did not. Why should I have a [p. 118] different mind? If we are the temple of God, we need not differ; we may arrive at one mind. So in Philippians we are told that we are to be not only of the same love, but of the same mind: “that ye may think the same thing, having the same love, joined in soul, thinking one thing”, Philippians 2:2.
WR-n Being “perfectly united in the same mind and in the same opinion”, 1 Corinthians 1:10.
ANW You referred to the imitation on the part of the Thessalonians. Would you say a little more about that? It is, “imitators of the assemblies of God which are in Judaea in Christ Jesus”. Is that a matter of imitating assembly procedure?
JT I should say so. It is disregarding national feeling. National feeling is a very baneful thing amongst the brethren; that is, we ought to be able to judge right or wrong, whatever nation is guilty of the wrong. To say wrong is right is immoral, no matter who is guilty of the wrong. So I think the fact that the Thessalonian saints were able to imitate the assemblies of God in Judaea in Christ Jesus meant they were free from national feeling and recognised the early ministry. The meetings in Judaea would be the product, largely, of the twelve apostles (Peter particularly being accredited of God), and they are said to be “in Christ Jesus”. They are the assemblies of God in Christ Jesus — a very exalted term in every way — and the Thessalonians are commended for imitating them; showing that the work of God enables us to link on with what is of God in every locality, provided it has the moral superiority that is worth imitation. We do not say we will not learn from brethren at a distance, or in another country; we are to be ready to learn from others if there is something of God to be learned.
WB-w Suppose some new procedure starts in one locality and certain ones go with it, how do we determine whether it is right or [p. 119] wrong?
JT By the Scriptures. The Thessalonians evidently determined that things were right in Judaea at that time. According to the epistle to the Hebrews, they would hardly copy them later. The assemblies in Judaea must have lost ground from the way the writer speaks of them; in fact, they were neglecting the assembling of themselves together. They must have retrograded. Persons taught of God would not have imitated them then. Of course, the way of finding out what is right and wrong lies in the Spirit, Scripture being the standard. We have the Spirit of God and He guides us into all the truth. We do not say the assemblies of Judaea were right because they were there, but evidently they were going on with God, because they were “the assemblies of God in Christ Jesus”. The very designation shows they were right. The assembly at Thessalonica is said to be in God the Father; this shows a beautiful link between them and those in Judaea.
WB-w These questions of whether a woman should wear long hair and whether she should be covered seem to be points that might bring in the contention.
JT Quite so. It is remarkable how much contention they have occasioned; but the apostle has in mind that we should not contend about them; we should wait on God and obtain His mind.
AAT There has been a good deal of contention about baptism.
JT Yes. We should not contend. Scripture says, “And a bondman of the Lord ought not to contend”, 2 Timothy 2:24. On the other hand, we are told to contend “earnestly for the faith”, Jude 3: that is, contending for the truth in a godly way is quite admissible; but contending characteristically is wrong; as a person saying, I have a different view and am holding to it. Of course, baptism is being used very much for that sort of thing, and I am sure because of that we should [p. 120] avoid contention about it, but God would help us to bring the truth to bear on souls.
CAM What you said about the Spirit and its bearing on this, is very important. Where a thing is beclouded in the eyes of any of us as to right and wrong, would it not be a just thing to say that our view must in some way conflict with the cross of Christ, as in chapter 1; or with the Spirit, as in chapter 2 of this epistle?
JT Disunion is the first thing the apostle speaks of in the way of exhortation: “Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all say the same thing, and that there be not among you divisions; but that ye be perfectly united in the same mind and in the same opinion. For it has been shewn to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of the house of Chloe, that there are strifes among you ... . I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas”. The “I” is emphatic right through, as much as to say. That is my judgment; I am of Paul; who can question my right? That is the first real difficulty the apostle mentions. And as was said, he brings in the cross immediately in chapter 1 (1 Corinthians 1); and in chapter 2, the Spirit (1 Corinthians 2). So that these two great thoughts would militate against the idea of strife and contention.
AR While in the main there is unity in regard to the truth, there is sometimes failure in the working out of right principles. Why is that?
JT That is true. There is not much contention about the truth in a general way, but sometimes great contention privately as to the application of it; and I believe what dims our vision is that personalities are involved. We think of the persons rather than of the principles governing the matter.
AR That is what I was wondering. A matter may come up for adjudication, and one will say, I am for Paul; and another, I am for Apollos; whereas really you are not to be for either.
[p. 121] JT No, you want the truth unhampered by party bias.
FHL The apostle says, “Be my imitators, even as I also am of Christ”, 1 Corinthians 11:1.
JT Yes, “my imitators”. That would be as to his conduct. Usually when a matter arises among us, what blinds us is the persons involved. What Paul is combating here is schools of opinion.
Ques Is that why he says there are ten thousand instructors but not many fathers?
JT Quite so; think of the number of schools of opinion you would have if you had ten thousand instructors! It is remarkable that he uses such a large number; it is prophetic, so many instructors governing the history of christendom. They are developed in the seminaries; the fathers are not turned out in seminaries, but through experience with God. That is a family thought. The order of the truth as brought out in Corinth is intended to overthrow the partisan spirit there: the cross, in chapter 1 (1 Corinthians 1); the Spirit, in chapter 2 (1 Corinthians 2); and the temple, in chapter 3 (1 Corinthians 3).
FSC Is 1 Corinthians 3:16, “ye are temple of God”, a collective thought?
JT Yes; it involves the presence of the Holy Spirit in a collective sense. That is what is meant by the temple. The Spirit of God dwells in the saints collectively.
ANW Perhaps we have to hold the matter of leadership a little more guardedly than we have done.
JT The most distinguished leader ought to be able to sit down among the brethren and be one of them; that is needed for the temple to function. The brethren, the saints, are the temple in virtue of the fact that the Holy Spirit dwells in them; it is no theoretic matter. Normally, the Spirit has a place amongst the brethren. We must let Him have place, because if we make much of party leaders, He will not have [p. 122] any place.
JTJr Does it mean that though there might not be a distinctive gift in the local meeting, the temple would make way for the Spirit to bring in God’s mind?
JT Yes; God uses whom He will. The gifts are used in the temple; they belong to it. That shows the error of appointing any one in the assembly; it is a question of what a man is, of what is there; the Holy Spirit will use whom He will. Of course, the later chapters, 12, 13, and 14, help us on that line. The thing is to be together as brethren, because the idea of brethren must precede the idea of gift.
WB-w How does that work in a general way? For instance, brothers are invited to serve here and there.
JT It is a question of what a man is, of what there is when we sit down together. The Holy Spirit will use whom He will. If a brother is invited to a place to serve the brethren (the word invite means that room is made for him in the town), that is quite in order and scriptural; and love will make room for brothers resident in other parts. But in readings day in and day out, week in and week out, it is a question of the temple and of the Spirit dwelling. There is no warrant for setting up a brother in a prominent way. The Spirit will use whom He will; and in that way true leadership comes to light. It is not by appointment, it is because of what a man is. God has set certain in the assembly — apostles, prophets, teachers, 1 Corinthians 12:28. It is ‘set for himself’, see note.
ETB If we recognise a gift, is that different from appointing somebody?
JT Very different; it is a question of what a brother is as furnished of God. Normally, the saints discern this. One has often said that what is called the canon of Scripture, that is, the books that have been recognised as inspired, has been determined by the saints on the principle of the temple. In the temple, as recognising the Spirit, we know what is of God. Every one taught of God today can see that the books in the Bible we have in [p. 123] our hands are inspired. The Apocrypha is not, although the king James’ translators retained it, but not as inspired. The Roman Catholic system recognises it as Scripture, but the Holy Spirit amongst the saints gives a true judgment. “He shall guide you into all the truth”, John 16:13. Thus they recognise what is of God. If we realise that the Spirit of God dwells in us, we shall discern what is of God as it is presented to us. And so it is that normally the brethren soon discern a gift, and he finds his place. We do not appoint him, it is what he is, and the Holy Spirit will use him.
AAT Does a gift function in administrative matters? If you want a judgment about a matter, do you ask a gift?
JT There is the gift of government, and there is ‘the word of wisdom’, and ‘the word of knowledge’. All these are by the Spirit, and as existing, they should be available where needed. They are set in the assembly, they have their part in the temple, the Spirit uses them and the saints will make room for them. Thus we can arrive at a true judgment. You can reach the mind of God.
JTJr It is not like the Supreme Court of this country where the judges have their own opinions, and are often not unanimous. In the assembly the Spirit would always lead to unity.
JT That is the principle that is urged from the outset. In the epistles, unity is required throughout, so that we do not assume to have different opinions. Abstractly we are of one mind. We ought to assume that in our minds and to make the most of what a brother says, Gradually, if present, the gift of wisdom will come to light, or whatever other gift is needed, such as the gift of government.
AR Would not 1 Kings help us in regard to what you are speaking about? The sanctuary was called the oracle, the ark being there (1 Kings 8). The oracle was permeated with the mind of [p. 124] God.
JT Quite so. That is what came out in Numbers 7. Moses would go in to speak to God; but it says, “And when Moses went into the tent of meeting to speak with Him, then he heard the voice speaking to him from off the mercy-seat which was upon the ark of testimony, from between the two cherubim”, Numbers 7:89. That is, it is authoritative; and I believe the passage indicates to us how Moses got all his communications. Compare Exodus 25:21,22.
AD The writer to the Hebrews says, “Remember your leaders who have spoken to you the word of God”, Hebrews 13:7. That would show that their ministry is from the oracle.
JT So that we are enjoined by Peter, “If any one speak — as oracles of God”, that is, what you are saying is right. Not that we are infallible, but still in principle you have tested the thing out and what you say is right. That is the ground you take; you are not guessing. In principle you know what you say is right. That is the idea in all these meetings.
JTJr It speaks of the oracles of God being entrusted to Israel. Is that thought carried forward now — they are entrusted to the assembly?
JT Yes; it is very important to notice that. We have the cross and the Spirit in chapters 1 and 2; and then the Spirit, not by Himself, but in the temple, in chapter 3; that is, He speaks in the temple. That is one line of thought in our subject. We find in chapter 14 what God is: He is the God, not of disorder, but of peace, as in all the assemblies of the saints. That is what He is in the assemblies of the saints. So that if you get a meeting that is not marked by the peace of God, God has not His place there.
WB-w “If any one thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him recognise the things that I write to you, that it is the Lord’s commandment”, 1 Corinthians 14:37. I suppose the epistles to the Corinthians would [p. 125] support the idea of what is authoritative. There are plenty of commandments of the Lord in these epistles. Paul spoke the truth about the matter.
JT It is the test of spirituality: “If any one thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him recognise ... . the Lord’s commandment”.
WB-w Certain questions came up on chapter 7, such as marriage, but the commandment of the Lord is there.
JT Quite so; you can visualise how matters stood at Corinth when this letter was read; what these leaders would say. Paul wrote, If they are spiritual, they will recognise that what I am saying is the mind of God. They were thus tested by it.
AR What he was saying was coming from the oracle really.
CAM Do you not think we are liable in a natural sort of way to feel that this is optional? I have a right to think whatever I like. Statutes and ordinances and commandments are directed against such disorder.
JT From the very youngest of us, brothers and sisters, we should never assume to be on a different line from the brethren. Abstractly, the ground to take is that you want to be with them, not only physically, but in heart and mind. Of course, difficulties will arise, and all must be according to Scripture, but I refer to the attitude of mind in individuals in a gathering, that such an attitude would ensure peace. No one is to be independent or contentious. God is the God of peace in all the assemblies of the saints — a very remarkable thing; that is what He is amongst us, and so peace should be looked for. It seems as if God would accredit the saints in using the word in that way. Instead of saying, “in all His assemblies”, he says He is the God of peace in all the assemblies of the saints. How delightful it is even in a meeting like this that God is characteristically in it as the God of peace. Not simply that He ordains peace, but [p. 126] that He is amongst the brethren as the God of peace.
FSC Going back to chapter 3, it says, “If any one corrupt the temple of God, him shall God destroy”, 1 Corinthians 3:17. Does that apply to more than the flesh?
JT It does. Corrupt and destroy are from the same original word: the man is destroyed. God employs the word against a man: “If any one destroy” — that would be a man, an instrument of the devil, who was not a christian at all; and there were such at Corinth. They are Satan’s emissaries, false apostles; the apostle was aiming at them.
AR Job says, “I had heard of thee by the hearing of the ear, but now mine eye seeth thee: wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes”, Job 42:5,6. Is that how ministry affects persons, so that we see God in the ministry?
JT God is doing it; prophecy brings God in. It is a triumph in an assembly that God is there in the way of conviction, but then, He is also there in peace. All this gives you a sense in your soul that He cares for you.
JTJr Being amongst you would be the local thought, that as the result of the prophetic ministry God is there.
JT Yes. In all the assemblies of the saints He is the God of peace, but He is that amongst you; that is, the local assembly at Corinth. How changed the convicted man was! It was a miracle really, and he reports “that God is indeed amongst you”.
WB-w If you had come to Corinth you might have had to listen to one of those false apostles giving a word there. What attitude would you assume in that case?
JT If you were with God you would be very much concerned that you might not come under the influence of that; because, according to chapter 12, a man might get up and speak by an evil spirit. How awful that would be! But it is clear there was power in the assembly [p. 127] at Corinth. God was there. Prophecy is the evidence of this, as 1 Corinthians 14:24,25 shows.
Ques Would the power of God exhibited with Samuel when Saul went to him at Naioth, be something like this?
JT Exactly; that illustrates what is before us here. They were prophesying: they were not simply a school of prophets, they were doing the work under Samuel’s presidency; and when the messengers of Saul came, that is what they saw, and they prophesied too. Then Saul himself came and he also prophesied, showing what power there was, typically, under the influence of Christ. God was there; the prophesying was in progress, Samuel standing as president over the prophets. It is said, “the Spirit of God came upon the messengers of Saul, and they also prophesied”. 1 Samuel 19:20 So that ministry does not merely soothe the mind, it affects the moral conditions of the saints.
JT It does. The man is judged of all; that would mean that all are listening to the prophesying, and they see a man convicted. Every one is in the matter, and they judge him; the whole assembly is in transparency. A remarkable scene is contemplated there. The same thing is true of 1 Samuel 19 to which we have been referring.
ES Might the presence of God amongst us be emphasised in a threefold way: the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, mentioned in the last verse of the second epistle?
JT Quite so; so that we have in the two epistles, communion in three ways: the first is the communion of the Son of God; then the communion of His death in the Lord’s supper; and then the communion of the Holy Spirit. All are from the same original word meaning fellowship.
Well now, Galatians shows that a whole district may [p. 128] be affected by some wrong doctrine; not only the local company, but the assemblies of Galatia. This epistle is written to “the assemblies of Galatia”. An epistle was written to Colosse and one to Laodicea, two assemblies that were near each other in the province of Asia. There would have been a similar condition among the different assemblies in Galatia, because one epistle was written to them in common; but Colosse and Laodicea are more distinguished than the Galatian assemblies, because an epistle was written to each of them. The one written to Colosse was to be read, or caused to be read, in the assembly at Laodicea; and the one to Laodicea to be read in Colosse. That is remarkable, pointing, I think, to a better state of things, but still to the need of watchfulness in these two assemblies. There is only one letter written to all the assemblies of Galatia, because they were all affected evidently by the same evil. They were all affected by bad doctrine, evidently by an emissary of the devil who preached another gospel — something imported. It was not the conditions of the city, like at Corinth, affecting the saints, but of doctrine taught in a whole district by certain persons.
CAM Referring again to Colosse and Laodicea, the assemblies there being dignified as you say, it would maintain the idea of nearby assemblies without exactly grouping them, as in the district of Galatia?
JT Yes; take those in this district where we are gathered: are they all likely to be affected by the same evil? If they are, their state is rather low. Now Colosse and Laodicea were apparently on a better level than the assemblies of Galatia, for the apostle entrusts a letter to each of them. The Colossians were not in his thoughts exactly as the Laodiceans were; but still, they were near each other, and he would like both to hear what he wrote to each. He is very urgent about this, as we see in the last chapter of the epistle to the Colossians, “And when the letter has been read among you, cause that it be [p. 129] read also in the assembly of Laodiceans, and that ye also read that from Laodicea”, Colossians 4:16. There are two letters: if both assemblies were affected by the same thing, there would be only one.
CAM Do you not think that in that way they would be ordinarily a support to one another? But where they are all under the same evil domination, they cannot help one another.
JT They cannot; they draw together as affected by the evil.
AR You can meet a local condition more easily than you can a general condition.
JT That is why this passage should be noted, because he addresses them all: “Paul, apostle, not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ, and God the Father who raised him from among the dead, and all the brethren with me, to the assemblies of Galatia”, Galatians 1:1. It was a matter of very great importance, and he included all the brethren with him in what he was going to say. It is very urgent, and he goes on to say, “I wonder that ye thus quickly change, from him that called you in Christ’s grace, to a different gospel, which is not another one; but there are some that trouble you, and desire to pervert the glad tidings of the Christ”. That is to say, they were a fickle sort of people, the gatherings were easily influenced. That is very poor; we thus expose ourselves as being in a low state. Each gathering ought to learn to stand on its own feet. So Paul and Barnabas chose them elders in each assembly; each assembly should be provided for, and maintain its local status.
JHE Paul gives his credentials that he might be heard: what he says is not from men nor through man. He gives his credentials at the outset as to his authority, and the brethren were with him in it.
JT “And all the brethren with me”, as if that added to what he was going to say. So he says, “Grace [p. 130] to you, and peace, from God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins, so that he should deliver us out of the present evil world, according to the will of our God and Father; to whom be glory to the ages of ages”, Galatians 1:3 - 5. This conveys the idea of deliverance from worldly influences, and then he deals with the persons that were damaging them; but he calls attention first to the fact that they changed quickly. There must have been shallowness.
FSC Does not evil in any assembly affect the whole assembly?
JT Well, it does in the principle of it; only you can see how it works locally and extends to a district, for Galatia was a district.
AR If we had gone to Galatia earlier, we should have found that they spoke highly of Paul; he says, You would have taken out your eyes for me. But not long after he had gone, they were turning around to some one else who was saying something entirely different. They were following men.
JT That is what he says: “I wonder that ye thus quickly change”; it was the quickness of their change from what the apostle had taught — clearly in the power of the Spirit — to something that was very poor and sinister.
CAM This was not characteristic of the Philippians. The apostle says to them, “even as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much rather in my absence”, Philippians 2:12. Apparently those saints behaved in his absence as they did in his presence.
JT He said to them, “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling”, Philippians 2:12. You may have difficulties in working a thing out, and you may make blunders, but work it out with fear and trembling, “for it is God who works in you both the willing and the working according to his good pleasure”, Philippians 2:13.
[p. 131] That is a great thought in a local gathering, that God has His pleasure in it.
CAM Is that not an important matter, that if God does not get something out of whatever we pass through, it has not accomplished its end?
JT I think He has great pleasure in the gatherings of the saints, seeing them work things out. It may take years for a gathering to find its feet, but still God is with it in the working: “for it is God who works in you”.
EB Do you think it is a mistake to try to influence the judgment of the local assembly?
JT Well, yes; but even if you are not local, you can bring principles to bear on the saints, and so minister the needed truth as opportunity is given. Ministry is often in persons that move about, so that when we come to the last scripture the Lord walks in the midst of the seven golden lamps. While He may visit each, the service is universal; He is not local to any of them. He walks about amongst them; and, in truth, that is very largely through persons He has that He can use in a universal way. These are important. God has set certain in the assembly: first, apostles, etc. — not in local assemblies, but in the assembly. That means that the gifts are universal. I believe He walks in the midst of the assemblies by the Spirit; He uses this one and that one to visit the brethren and lay down principles for them — lay down the truth. They are not to decide local issues, but if they have principles, they are to impart them. That often happens. The visiting brother, if wise, will recognise the exercises of the gathering he visits, and moving with them, serve as the Lord enables him.
EB Is it right to say that a brother that has gift is interfering?
JT He would not be doing so if he keeps simply to principles, but if he attempts to influence the brethren [p. 132] beyond these, he would be. We have to distinguish between persons being dealt with, and the principles that govern the action. These principles may be set out by any one. The Lord walks in the midst of the seven golden lamps, and principles may be set out as governing any matter, by any one whom the Lord may use. But the local people are to deal with the issue; hence the apostle says, “Remove the wicked person from amongst yourselves”, 1 Corinthians 5:13. That is what they were to do. Yourselves includes only those who were local.
CAM So that Titus going to Crete would be an example, I suppose, of what you are saying. The apostle instructed him in general as to what was to be done, but he could hardly single out the persons that needed discipline.
JT Yes. The apostle says as to the man in 1 Corinthians 5, being such: “to deliver him, I say, being such” 1 Corinthians 5:5; that is, it was for them to see that he was such; that he was a wicked person. Paul had heard that this man was there, and he pointed out the evil thing — very bad — but they were to remove him. The apostle had a certainty about it, but they were to confirm that; “being such” implies that it was for them to say.
CAM It is remarkable how all these things are set out by the apostle himself, confirming what was said as to those who move about in ministry.
JT Paul would set out the principle. At the end of Acts 15 it is said he went about confirming the assemblies; he went about doing that. And in chapter 14 we were told that he and Barnabas, carrying on the same service, chose them elders in each assembly, meaning that it should be so furnished that it could act for itself. The elders would be local, affording such help as their office implies; eldership is not gift, it is experience, moral qualification.
AR So in moving about from one locality to another,
[p. 133] the apostle respected what was in each. I suppose in anything local you must respect what is there.
JT Yes: when he goes to Derbe where Timothy was, he found that Timothy had a good report of the brethren; he recognised what was there.
HPf How can a district clear itself of any evil that may be pervading it?
JT That would be by each assembly clearing itself. The letter addressed to all of them together would mean that they are all affected by the same evil, which is a very discrediting thought; that they are so low down as to fall like stalks of wheat when a strong wind passes over a field. In recovery, they would each have to arrive at right principles for themselves, and judge the evil under the power of which they had come. I do not think they would unite in answering Paul, but each assembly would get to God in self-judgment. It is an assembly recognised as here in Revelation, one of the assemblies. Their individuality is never lost sight of although they may be addressed as a group.
WB-w Each assembly would have to act to clear itself.
JT That is what we may learn in chapters 2 and 3 of Revelation. “To the angel of the assembly in Ephesus write: These things says he that holds the seven stars in his right hand, who walks in the midst of the seven golden lamps: I know thy works and thy labour, and thine endurance, and that thou canst not bear evil men; and thou hast tried them who say that themselves are apostles and are not, and hast found them liars; and endurest, and has borne for my name’s sake, and hast not wearied: but I have against thee”, Revelation 2:1 - 4. That assembly is recognised by the Lord, and we shall see that each of the seven assemblies differs from the others; they are not alike. They are not like the Galatian assemblies, all under the power of the same thing. Each has a distinctive quality to commend, and also distinctive [p. 134] evils except Smyrna and Philadelphia. So that the Lord has in mind the whole assembly, and He is pointing out that each gathering is recognised, and He knows it. He walks about to see, and says, “I know”, and He deals with each one on its own footing.
AR In calling attention to the evil in the locality, He leaves the locality to deal with the evil.
JT That is what He says: “But I have against thee, that thou has left thy first love. Remember therefore whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works: but if not, I am coming to thee, and I will remove thy lamp out of its place, except thou shalt repent”, Revelation 2:4,5. They had the Nicolaitanes there, too, but they hated their works; they were like Himself in that. He says, I also hate them. But still, there was that which they had to judge and they were to do the first works. He says, “Remember therefore whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works”.
CAM I think it is very important to see that the adjustment is incumbent upon every one, inasmuch as the speaking goes on to the overcomer; every one in the local assembly is to be exercised about the thing. If it were in the ecclesiastical world, they would address this letter to the bishop, with no scriptural idea at all.
JT Yes; each of those dignitaries might think the angel was himself. But the truth is, the angel represents the whole gathering. So the Lord in His remarks to these assemblies identifies the angel with the whole company.
JTJr Would the condition of the assemblies among us be pretty much like that of all the assemblies here addressed, with the exception of Smyrna and Philadelphia? You referred to Smyrna and Philadelphia as having nothing evil that the Lord calls attention to; would the others represent the state of the assemblies generally today?
JT I think so. The numeral seven, of course,
[p. 135] symbolises what is complete; it refers to the whole of the saints at any time, perhaps the whole of the saints in the whole dispensation after the failure, so that the angel is really a collective thought.
ANW In Thyatira the Lord addresses a special few in the assembly. Is that similar to the way the apostle writes to Corinth? He writes to certain ones in it, even though addressing it to the assembly.
JT Just so; he had certain ones in mind. The assembly, of course, is formally addressed in those letters to Corinth and Ephesus; but here it is “the angel”, which represents the whole company, I believe. Besides addressing the angel in Thyatira, He says, “But to you I say, the rest who are in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, who have not known the depths of Satan, as they say, I do not cast upon you any other burden”, Revelation 2:24. He includes all the assembly in His general address, but He singles out a remnant in that company, addressing them as the rest.
WB-w Do you have in mind in this reading to help us in attacking a pervading evil locally and also generally?
JT I think that each assembly standing on its own footing would be a check on evil, so that it does not spread like an epidemic. You look into a matter and say, I do not think that is right. It is done in another gathering, and you look into the matter, and you decide what is right and what is wrong; you are a check on the movement. The Galatians were not. But according to what the Lord says to Ephesus, there was refusal there of certain evils; the Nicolaitanes were hated, and false apostles were found liars. The trouble there was that they had left their first love. There was, nevertheless, sufficient faithfulness to refuse general errors.
WB-w When Paul wrote to Galatia, there was a constructive side to it, too, the truth of sonship being revived.
JT [p. 136] That is what he uses to recover them. Let us suppose that one meeting in the province of Galatia is right; it would check this evil. But apparently there was not; they were all evidently swayed by the one thing.
JTJr The allusions to the Old Testament in Pergamos and Thyatira would show how ample testimony has been given to the saints in meeting the evils that arose in the periods indicated.
JT Ample testimony was afforded. The Lord has greatly helped His people in looking into the Old Testament Scriptures in our Bible readings. The time was when many brethren would disallow the books of the Old Testament as far as considering them in a course of readings was concerned; but in recent years the Lord has greatly blessed the reading of them. They were written for our learning.