THE ASSEMBLY IN LOCALITIES
[p. 320] THE ASSEMBLY IN LOCALITIES
John 12: 1 - 3; Matthew 26: 6 - 13
I have been thinking, dear brethren, of the idea of locality. The divine way in the economy of the assembly is to develop it in localities. Bethany represents the idea, I believe, expressly, both in John and in Matthew, and indeed elsewhere, but particularly in these two evangelists; John occupies us with Bethany throughout chapter 11 and into chapter 12.
The subject begins with Bethany, saying that Lazarus was of it and that it was the village of Mary and her sister Martha. It thus stands out in the chapter as the village of certain ones thus named and loved of Christ. Nothing can be more interesting than the subject of the love of Christ, especially as it is connected with persons whose names are given and whose locality is given. So that John the evangelist enlarges on these three in connection with the place. He also refers to another, a nameless one whom Jesus loved, not in relation to his town. Others are connected with their towns, such as Nathanael and Philip and Andrew in this gospel. But John, the nameless loved one (we say it is John, but Scripture does not; it is an inference) is of great interest. But the fact that his name is not given is that we should not be occupied with him but with the thing, that is to say that there was such a person as that, such a person that was loved of Christ, that He could actually love a person individually.
That is how John alludes to himself; and he stands over against one who professed to be a lover of Christ, namely, Peter. As if John were to put two pictures in front of you and ask you which you preferred. He would say, ‘Here is a man who says he loves Christ, and there is one whom Christ loves’. These two are [p. 321] interesting pictures. I need not ask you which you prefer, or which is the more attractive. The more attractive of those two pictures is the one which presents the man whom Jesus loved. I say, ‘I would like to see that man; I would like to look at that man’. You say, ‘Why?’ Because he must have been a very lovable man. Not that the Lord Jesus does not love unlovable persons in the abstract, and works with us until He makes us lovely. If He loved Mary, He loved Martha. But Martha was not nearly so lovable or lovely. In the abstract she was the same as Mary. The Lord knew what He could make out of her. He would work until He made her lovable. That presents the disciple whom Jesus loved as a most attractive picture. I should like to meet him.
You would see something about him that distinguished him from all the others, for we must never forget that while the Lord can love in the abstract, He can love in the concrete. He has a perfect idea of what is lovable; what is lovable in His mind is perfectly so. We must accredit the Lord with that keenness of appreciation of the perfect, of the lovable. So that John must have been a remarkable type of disciple. I see Peter. Well, he has been saying that he loves the Lord and the Lord challenges him as to this, as you will remember, saying, “lovest thou me more than these?” John 21: 15. Not, ‘lovest thou Me?’ but, “lovest thou me more than these?” There cannot be a doubt, beloved friends, in regard to the lovable one that there was as much love at least in him for Christ as there was in Peter. He is not saying it. But the Lord knew. He did not challenge John about his love. In fact when Peter says, “Lord, and what of this man?” the Lord says, “If I will that he abide until I come, what is that to thee?” As much as to say, ‘You have no need of anxiety about him; if I love him, you need have no anxiety about him’. What was the lovable one doing at that time? He was following. That was what he was doing — the best evidence of his love. “If any one serve me, let him follow me”, John 12: 26. That was the test of true devotedness in service. He followed. That was what John was doing. Peter need not inquire as to that. The Lord says, “If I will that he abide until I come, what is that to thee? Follow thou me”, John 21: 22.
Those are the two pictures hung up in John’s gospel, the one who professes love and the one loved. I need not suggest which you would prefer to be. I wish to be among those that are loved, the disciple whom Jesus loved. No name is given, no township is given, simply that there was such a person as that and that he had certain privileges. He was in Jesus’ bosom (John 13: 23). The bosom is not to be leaned on. It is a soft, restful place, an inlet. It is not support; John was in Jesus’ bosom while at table. Then he leaned on His breast. That is what the loved one did. There was reciprocation of affection. He was free, he could take the advantage that He gave, the bosom and the breast. They are different words. The one is an inlet, the other strength, the frame-work of the breast. But the loved one understood both, he was in the one and leaned on the other.
When we come to this section, it is persons in the town. That is to say, in Michigan City, that is the town, the town of Lazarus, Lazarus of the town, and the town of Martha and Mary; the town of special interest to Christ, not only the persons, but the town because of the persons. That underlies the assembly in the place. That is what is in view in the chapter. And so in order to make room for the beginning of chapter 12 it is said that the Lord went down to a city called Ephraim, near the desert, not Bethany. Bethany was not in the wilderness. But He was rejected. The leaders of the Jews were taking counsel [p. 323] how they might kill Him; it was a terrible situation there in Jerusalem. And He goes to a town called Ephraim, which means fruitfulness, as you will remember. And He sojourned there with His disciples. That is to say, He indicates that He, as rejected by this world, would go near the wilderness, unto a town that was there and sojourn there with His disciples — suggesting that although rejected by His brethren after the flesh, there would be fruitfulness, great increase; Ephraim refers to that.
The beginning of chapter 12 is in order to bring out what Bethany was in His mind, what was in Bethany for His eye, for Him. I hope to show from Matthew what there was there in a public way. The two things run together, what we are under the Lord’s eye and for the Lord’s heart and what we are under man’s eye. And so here you will observe the Lord six days before the passover came to Bethany, where was the dead man Lazarus. That is to say, the Lord thought of one in that town who had no part in it politically, socially or even commercially. He was not a leader in it. Whether he worked with his hands is another matter, whether he provided for his sisters is another matter, but he was not alive and not a part of the place publicly, he was “the dead man Lazarus”. ‘Lazarus, do you not vote?’ ‘No, I do not vote’. ‘Why not?’ ‘Well’, he says, ‘I belong to that world and the resurrection’. That world. Could anybody deny it? When the Sadducees came to the Lord and questioned Him as to the resurrection. He says, “... they who are counted worthy to have part in that world, and the resurrection”, Luke 20: 35. That world. What world did He speak of? Not this; that world, and the resurrection. Lazarus was one of those. Nobody could deny it in the place.
‘You see I do not vote’, he says. And the very best reason that he could give was that he did not belong to this world. He was dead. “So also ye,
[p. 324] reckon yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus”, Romans 6: 11. That is that world. You see, Zoan, as we have often remarked, is the representation of this world; Hebron, of that world. And that world was built before this world. So that that world was no afterthought with God. It was in His mind before this one ever existed, about seven years, a complete period of time, before this world. In Isaiah 19 it says, “The princes of Zoan are become foolish”, politicians, statesmen, the princes of this world. Paul speaks of the hidden wisdom of God, “which none of the princes of this age knew”, they did not know it.
So the Lord came to the man that belonged to that world, and was counted worthy of that world and the resurrection, the dead Lazarus. He had raised him, too. That is another thing, “... whom Jesus raised from among the dead”. He came Himself, as if He would say, ‘I respect this place because of this man. He gives character to it in My mind’. It was “where was the dead man Lazarus”. And the Lord is fully justified in His choice because there they made Him a supper. They were of that world. This world does not make Him a supper, they counsel to kill Him. But those of that world and the resurrection entertained Him at supper. And Lazarus was one of those. It was not the Lord and Lazarus only, but those. That world is a very large conception and they made Him a supper. Lazarus was one of those who sat at table with Him. So there is a company in a town dead outwardly, but inwardly risen with Christ by faith, as it says, “ye have been also raised with him through faith of the working of God who raised him from among the dead”, Colossians 2: 12. We are to live in our souls in relation to Christ. The town of Michigan City knows nothing about that, but the Lord knows about that. He thinks of you in that light and comes in that connection and is not disappointed.
[p. 325] I hope He is not. This is in order that He should not be. If He elects to come in that connection, He finds something. I proceed no further there.
Matthew presents the assembly here as representative of Christ. So that if anything is to be settled, it is to be told to the assembly. There is that here in the place that represents the Lord in that light. It is a public thing. Corinthians speaks of the Jew, the gentile and the assembly of God. That is not Bethany. It is not a question of being risen with Christ, but here under man’s eye; according to what we were before, but now changed, only the public history remaining. It could not be blotted out, it remains. Hence what you find is not that He came to Bethany, but being in Bethany — why is not stated; but being there, He was in a certain house. Whose house? Simon’s house. Who was Simon? A leper. He was not a risen man, not a dead man even. He is a man of the place, known in the place. In spite of the fact that he is a leper, the Lord Jesus is in his house. He knew his secret history, whatever the public knew about him. Like another Simon, “The Lord is indeed risen and has appeared to Simon”, Luke 24: 34. That Simon had just denied Him. The Lord knew Simon’s heart. Whatever the denial, the oaths and the curses, there had been the tears of repentance, and the Lord knew that. That is all that is stated. “And he went forth without, and wept bitterly”, Matthew 26: 75. The historical fact remained that he denied the Lord. It is known to us two thousand years later. It has been known ever since. He denied the Lord.
Simon the leper here had a loathsome disease at one time. It had ceased to work. He is not a leper now, or the Lord would not be there. He is not literally a leper, so it is his history, what he is publicly. He is a cleansed leper, but a leper. As Paul himself says, “I am the chief of sinners”, “I am”, not ‘I was’. It is his public history. Everybody knew he persecuted the church. But he was not doing it now. He was loved of Christ. Simon the leper is not a leper now really. But his reputation was there. So we have to accept these things. In accepting them we gain, you see. “Jesus ... in Simon the leper’s house”. It does not say that He came because Simon was there. He came to Bethany where Lazarus was. It does not say that He came here where Simon the leper was. ‘Why’ is not the point. He is there. He may come to localities to rebuke. He is seen walking in the midst of the golden candlesticks with feet like fine brass. If He comes where things are not right, He would rebuke. But being there He is in the house of this man. He accepts what is there. Who was Simon? A leper. No doubt he was a true disciple of the Lord. He was in his house. One might have gone in and said, ‘You do not know what kind of a man this is. Do you not know this man is a leper?’ As they said elsewhere, “This man receives sinners and eats with them”, Luke 15: 2. Did He not know? Certainly He knew. But He knew more. He knew the secret history; whatever the public character may be. He is occupied with the secret history, as Simon Peter later said, “thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I am attached to thee”, John 21: 17. The Lord knew what was going on in his heart. The Lord is not concerned about your public history now. It is a question of being right inwardly, so that being in the house of Simon the leper is not the leading thought. The leading thought is Bethany and the woman, not Simon the leper. He is not specially designated like Lazarus. He is not Simon of Bethany. Lazarus is Lazarus, he is designated as of Bethany. Simon the leper is there and the Lord accepts what is there. It was in that house, being in Bethany in Simon the leper’s house; being in Bethany is the leading thought. He has something for the locality. Being in it, He accepts the house open to Him. He can go in there. He makes His own provision; as in the gospel of Luke He says to Zacchaeus, “today I must remain in thy house” (Luke 19: 5), and that in the teeth of the feelings of the crowd around Him. They rebuked the Lord for going into such a house because Zacchaeus was a tax-gatherer. The Lord knew what was in his house. “I must remain in thy house”. “Today salvation is come to this house”. And He vindicated His host. He says, “... he also is a son of Abraham”. The Lord went not by outward appearance. He looks on the heart.
Now He was in the house of Simon the leper and being there a woman came. It is the public position. That is what I had in mind particularly, beloved, to speak about, “That also which this woman has done”; it is a public thing. “Wheresoever these glad tidings may be preached in the whole world”, He says, “that also which this woman has done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her”. What did she do? She came in. She is called a woman, not Mary. It may have been Mary; in fact, I suppose it was Mary of Bethany. But it is in the public position, not in spiritual lovableness, that is not the point. The point is the public see a woman doing something. They do not need to know her name. It is a woman that is doing it. She came. It was her doing, she came in and she had an alabaster box of very precious ointment, and she poured it. There was no niggardliness about it, no making a show, like Ananias and Sapphira. There was liberality in what she was doing. It cost her something. She poured it on His head — a public act. What am I publicly? What my past history may have been is all dealt with in the death of Christ. He touched the leper. How? By dying. He identified Himself with the leper, and cleansed [p. 328] him, and now He can be in his house. You see my history publicly is dealt with, whatever people think about me, I have a good conscience towards God, I am righteous, I am clean, clean every whit, whatever the public may think about me. And the Lord brooks their feelings. And He was in that house and a woman came in. It is a woman who is doing it, and as I said, she pours this ointment lavishly upon His head. That is to say she is virtually saying that she loved, regardless of the clerical principle. She is not afraid to say that, ‘This blessed Man here is my conception of a servant of God’. She pours it upon His head. ‘And He does not agree with all this hierarchical system at all’. You see what a testimony is in that. The disciples, as it reads here, were incensed because of this. It was lavish waste. That was their judgment. We have got to brook all that, beloved; to be true to Christ we are acting intelligently, faithfully, affectionately. It is a testimony. It seems very little. Certainly reproach attaches to the house of a leper. But she is doing this there and the Lord defends her. He says, “Wheresoever these glad tidings may be preached in the whole world, that also which this woman has done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her”.
Now you see, dear brethren, the two sides: what we are under the Lord’s eye, as in Colossians, and what we are under man’s eye, as in Corinthians. The two things go together. In the first we have a visit from the Lord, we entertain Him, so to speak. And there the worshipper is named, Mary. Because she is known inwardly, not her name outwardly. She is known within. Mary came with a pound, a measured amount. It does not mean that she only had that pound. But she measured the amount, brought it and anointed His feet, not His head. It is not for the public in John; it is private; it is intelligent recognition that those feet were carrying Him to the [p. 329] grave. His feet were wiped with her hair; and the house was filled. It is all inside, a private thing. The house was filled with the odour of the ointment.
But here in Matthew it is what this woman has done that is to be mentioned wherever the gospel is preached, the public thing, what goes with the glad tidings, devotedness to Christ and recognition of Him as representing the idea of service, because it is His head, I suppose an allusion to what the Lord was in infinite intelligence. She anointed His head. But He says, “my body”. “... In pouring out this ointment on my body ...”. That is to say, the Lord is thinking of the vessel. He was a vessel here doing the will of God. She had in her mind the idea of a vessel. And what can we be, dear brethren, publicly in this world for God save as vessels here for the will of God? I must carry that into every position in life. I am in the town, in my business, for the will of God. Of Him it was said, “Lo, I come (in the roll of the book it is written of me) to do, O God, thy will”, Hebrews 10: 7. In the volume of the book; I suppose it is the greatest of all books; in the heading of the roll or the volume of the book, “it is written of me”. There are many books mentioned in the Scriptures, such as the book of Jasher. The great theme of this book is, “Lo, I come ... to do, O God, thy will”. It is morally the greatest of books; a divine Person takes His place among men for the will of God. Hence the first word in this gospel is ‘book’: “Book of the generation of Jesus Christ”. The other book tells us the motives of His heart to carry out the will of God. This one is the generation of Jesus Christ. “Book of the generation of Jesus Christ”. The will of God was so brought out here in His generation. Abraham was for the will of God. Beginning with Abraham there were forty-two generations in which men were for the will of God. He is going to die. This woman says, ‘I see it, a vessel for the will of God’. She had anointed His body. He does not say, ‘My head’, but “my body”, a vessel for the will of God. The Lord said, “Wheresoever these glad tidings may be preached in the whole world, that also which this woman has done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her”. It means if I am converted I am to be a vessel for the will of God. If not, what is my conversion worth? Romans works it out. I am to present my body a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is my intelligent service. That was her service. She was intelligent. She knew what she was doing. She anointed His head, a vessel for the will of God publicly. In this town, as in any locality, the assembly is composed of vessels here for the will of God. That is the setting of Bethany in this gospel.
So that the two things run together, what we are as before God, risen with Christ, sitting at table, intelligent, the house filled, and then as those who publicly are lepers with no reputation. The Lord is pleased to be with us. He accepts whatever there is, being in the house of Simon the leper. The point is Bethany. He accepts what is in the town. Being in that house He is anointed publicly. The thing is to be publicly mentioned wherever the gospel is announced. If there is a body, there is a vessel here for the will of God. We present our bodies holy, acceptable, which is our intelligent service. May God grant it to us for Christ’s sake.