THE NEW CRUSE
THE NEW CRUSE
2 Kings 2:19-22; Acts 1:13-22; Mark 9:49,50
JT It was thought that we might look at those features of christianity that are designated as new, going to the types for one — the new cruse, then the new bottles of the gospels, the new man of the epistles, and the new Jerusalem of Revelation. The proposal is that the four readings might be taken up under those four heads.
It was also thought that as the promise to the overcomer in Philadelphia involves what is new, our subject would yield in the way of qualifying us to take up that promise. The Lord said that He would write upon the overcomer in Philadelphia the name of His God, the name of the city of His God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven, from my God, and then, My new name. If we are to be overcomers, we should be prepared for what is new, we should be characterised by what is new, for I apprehend that what the Lord promises to an overcomer would indicate the feature of the testimony that God takes up in his day.
RB What thought had you as to the type in that connection?
JT I was thinking particularly of the element of preservation among the saints. The divine terms that were living and vital at the beginning have lost their power and significance in those who are lacking in the element of preservation. Take any term in the Acts or the epistles, full of life and sap at the beginning — one finds that each has degenerated in the public use. They have lost their original pungency and sap; this can be seen in the use of the word ‘church’, or even the word ‘christian’. I think the Lord would remind us of this, lest in our mouths these things should become degenerate and be spoken of lightly. His thought is that they should retain their freshness. That is what is specially before me. There is much that might be said as to the type, but I think that is a practical feature that enters into it.
RB Do you connect that thought with the salt?
JT Quite. Of course we may consider the cruse by itself, but I would connect it with the salt, for the salt is inseparable; I mean, the salt is not to be separated from the vessel. The salt is to be put into it; the cruse was for the purpose of containing it.
PL The returning captives in Ezra’s day brought back salt, without prescribing how much.
JT There was plenty of it. That shows, I think, the place salt should have in recovery, because there is so much corruption. But the idea of the vessel is very important and most interesting, because God has brought His people back, not only as vessels severally, but to the idea of one vessel in which things are preserved.
EJMcB Was your idea that at the very outset these christian terms had a living meaning to all the brethren, and, if our restoration is in power, they will have a living meaning to us, such as the assembly and the body?
JT Quite. I believe that the vessel in which the preservative element appears is involved in the fellowship, and I thought we might see the nature of the vessel in Acts 1 — what it was; then the Holy Spirit coming into it, you have the preserving element.
GJE You said the cruse was prepared for the reception of the salt?
JT Yes. It was probably an open vessel, out of which the salt could be easily obtained. It is a [p. 137] different word, I think, from that used for some other cruses, but I thought the vessel should be such that the salt is available. But the salt itself has to be preserved. If it become savourless it is worse than useless. But the idea of the vessel, I think, is of first-rate importance, and Acts 1 gives its component parts as the Lord formed it. This latter thought should be carefully noted.
HFN Has the first reference in Scripture to the thought of new — the type of the new meat-offering in Leviticus — any bearing on this?
JT I think it has. It would refer to the new company. Perhaps that is what you had in mind.
HFN Yes.
JT The two wave loaves, I suppose, would refer to the same thing as the cruse refers to — the saints as seen in the early chapters of Acts.
RSS There seems to have been salt contained in this vessel and also oil in a vessel in chapter 4. What would you say was the distinction?
JT Oil in a vessel comes in in 2 Kings. There in chapter 4 you have it as the means of livelihood. It would be the Holy Spirit as a means by which one discharges one’s obligations and lives. I thought it would be the same thing, only looked at in a different way.
RSS In connection with the salt, it is the thought of preservation.
JT That is the thought. First the healing of the waters — a pure source of influence brought in — but the thought carried through into the New Testament involves preservation, as we see in many passages.
Ques You spoke of the component parts. What was in your mind?
JT The names given. First those who saw the Lord ascend came to Jerusalem and went to the [p. 138] upper room. That was new — religiously, that was new. I used the expression ‘component parts’ in regard of the company seen in Acts 1. They had seen the Lord go up, and then they came back to the upper room where were abiding the apostles and the Lord’s mother and His brethren. These are new; religiously the position is wholly new, and I think it is well to observe that in regard of the vessel, the cruse — the company together there who had been formed by Christ. The upper room bears on it.
DLH Are you speaking in contrast to the temple and the existing order of things religiously?
JT Yes; what existed at Jerusalem. The end of the gospel of Luke would show that the disciples went into the temple and continued on in what was old externally, but this treatise begins with what is new, hence you have emphasis laid on the word ‘assemble’. The Lord assembled with them, it says, and furthermore, the apostle that was to take the place of Judas was to be one who had “assembled with us all the time in which the Lord Jesus came in and went out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day in which he was taken up”. It was there the great new features came out.
DLH I should like to get clearly defined what was in your mind in speaking about the new element. Is it something that was wholly new in contrast with the existing order of things which practically was being set aside in the Lord being in the midst of His own assembly?
JT That is exactly what I thought, and I believe it will commend itself to you.
Ques Would the thought of the Lord being with them after His resurrection be an addition to what was before them prior to His death? As you were saying, He had assembled with them and had given them a distinct commandment that they should tarry there. They were not only waiting but [p. 139] expectant.
JT It was from the time of the baptism of John until He was taken up; all is included. The component parts of the cruse — of the vessel — were formed in that environment. He came in and went out among them from the baptism of John until He was received up. In resurrection, as it says here, He presented Himself living after He had suffered, with many proofs, and “being assembled with them”. There would be the confirmation in Him thus as in the midst, of all that had come out before His death.
EJMcB Does the thought of the field of blood show the necessity for this cruse — the character of things when Judas went out and he died in the midst of the field? Does that show the public position in contrast to this upper room?
JT The case of Judas would express the very opposite of preservation — the very opposite of salt. His bowels gushed out. A very dreadful thing, pointing doubtless to what is around us in a spiritual sense.
FHB Do you understand the salt represents the preservative element, or does it represent more?
JT I expect you know better than I, but I apprehend that physically life is the greatest preservative. As soon as life disappears from a tree or an animal decay sets in.
FHB Yes; so that the maintenance of the terms without life would be of no value at all.
JT That is what I thought. Judas was formerly called a devil by the Lord. The corrupting element was there from the outset.
HH What the Lord Jesus had brought in could not be continued in Judas. It would be continued in the new cruse.
JT In John 6: 67, 68 the Lord says, “Will ye also go away?” Simon Peter says to Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast words of life eternal;” that is to say, it was not a question of what was written,
[p. 140] but what the Lord had. In Him the words were living.
HFN Being written is not the preservative idea. The preservative idea is in the things being held in the person. “Thou hast words of life eternal”. As you were saying regarding Philadelphia, “I will write upon him;” the saints are to be the record.
JT That is it — persons. So that Peter in his answer to the Lord expresses the vitality that was there. He apprehended the thing. This is in John’s gospel, where you would expect it. It was not a question of what was written; it was a question of what was in the Person. “Thou hast words”, and so he says, “We have believed and known that thou art the holy one of God”.
EJMcB Then do I understand that you connect the thought of the words with salt?
JT Exactly. They were held livingly in the Lord.
EJMcB And your exercise is not so much the salt as the cruse that would contain it?
JT Well, I thought of both. Peter says, “We have believed and known that thou art the holy one of God”. It was experience he gave expression to. And then the Lord says, “Have not I chosen you the twelve? and of you one is a devil” — the very opposite of Peter, as expressed in his words.
WJH So before the cruse is put together, so to speak, what Judas represents had to be eliminated, not only personally, but in the consciences of the others. So that each one of them said, “Is it I?” That would exclude from their hearts that which Judas stood for.
JT Very good, and I think that what comes out in Acts 1 is that the Holy Spirit, in bringing in the vessel in its component parts, does not let Judas pass, but brings in the facts relative to his death to show the end of that man — the field [p. 141] of blood.
WJH And so, too, Peter says, “he was numbered amongst us”, in that way taking home to themselves that they had links once with that element. Do you not think we have to maintain that? Denials of what was true in the things of God must be excluded practically, if the new features are to be maintained.
JT Quite. So that Matthew and Mark tell us they were eating when the Lord said “one of you shall betray me”. Judas was there with them, and hence the emphasis is laid on “one of you”.
PL The moment Judas goes out it was night, and the Lord speaks of a new commandment in John’s gospel.
ESH In 2 Timothy 2: 22 we depart from iniquity, and “pursue righteousness, faith, love, peace, with those that call upon the Lord out of a pure heart”. Is that the new cruse? And then, life is emphasised there. Is that the salt?
JT I think that is good. That epistle begins with life. Things are emphasised as being “in Christ” there, meaning they are secured, and so Timothy is charged to “Keep, by the Holy Spirit which dwells in us, the good deposit” (2 Timothy 1: 14). You must keep it; if you do not salt it, it will become corrupt. Things are preserved in a living way as kept by the Holy Spirit.
RB Referring to the allusion you made to Philadelphia — “I will write upon him ... my new name”, etc. — these are not fresh elements; they are those that were at the beginning.
JT Quite. We have not anything that did not exist at the beginning. All we have was at the beginning, only I think the Lord would emphasise the thing at the end, so that the overcomer at the end should possess it. He reserves it for Philadelphia. There is nothing in any other promise just like what He says to the overcomer at Philadelphia; it is what is related to Himself. It supposes that He had [p. 142] acquired His place in the affections of His people, that they had come to understand that things were new, that christianity was really new, and that all that is involved in Him coming out of death in resurrection is new.
JJ I suppose the Judas or corrupting element is seen in what follows in Laodicea. The salt had to be used there.
JT Yes; Jezebel, the great corruptress, is in christendom; it is where Christ has been betrayed; not only denied, but betrayed.
FSM Would the action of Elisha in going forth to the source of the waters and putting the salt in there suggest what you are saying, that we have to face the question of going right back to their spring? Would you enlarge on that a little? It seems very much the key.
JT It is, and what is to be observed is that the Holy Spirit says the healed state continued. The waters remained in that state — they were “healed to this day”. The situation was pleasant. I suppose the allusion would be to the Jewish position at Jerusalem. The situation was good, but the waters were naught and the land was barren. There was nothing for God nor men, and I think the new vessel comes in at Jerusalem. The Lord emphasises in Luke that the disciple s were to be there, to remain in the city; that is, the new thing, the new vessel, was brought in there. It was a wonderful thing that God should consider the position. It was a position that was right and desirable, and He would give it another opportunity. So that the vessel was there — the new cruse, and the salt put into it, and the new source, as you might say, of the stream of influence, for God came in in the Spirit. That was how matters stood according to Acts 2.
JS In that way it was an open vessel and so it would be available to those in the place.
JT That was it. “We hear them speaking in our own tongues the great things of God”. The things were there in freshness.
JS The principle of the new cruse and salt therein would apply to a local company in a city.
JT Quite, you want to see to that; as has been suggested things are dealt with at their source and their freshness continues.
Ques You said something about the preservation of the salt. Has that any reference to the aspect of salt in connection with its savour and seasoning in Mark 9: 49, 50?
JT The first thing you have there is, “every one shall be salted with fire” — a most sweeping corrective of what is corrupt, for fire is the most drastic thing in dealing with what is corrupt, but if there is something of God there, it will stand — it will stand the fire. Every one of us has to take that into account, and it is a most solemn thing that “every one shall be salted with fire”. You cannot escape it, for God is too much concerned about the component parts of the vessel, that there should be any corruption allowed. Hence the sweeping process, “every one shall be salted with fire”. That is a general thing. He will not have any evil left. Instead of the deluge, it is fire. And then, “every sacrifice shall be salted with salt;” the sacrifice is to be preserved. The fire will consume everything that is corrupt; the salt preserves what is good.
HH Do you get the principle of it in Joel 2: 30? — “I will shew wonders in heavens and on the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke”. Morally they are the last days now. There is the giving of the Spirit, but there are the other elements brought in.
JT Just so. You see how the enemy’s effort from the outset of recovery has been to corrupt, but we have this word: “every one shall be salted with fire”, for God will not tolerate the corrupt element. And then it is, “every sacrifice”, that is to say, every one who has offered himself, which, I suppose, would apply to every believer, for we are not of much account unless we are offered as a sacrifice. The great result of Romans is that you offer your body a living sacrifice. I suppose that is where the salt lies. “If Christ be in you, the body is dead on account of sin, but the Spirit life on account of righteousness” (Romans 8: 10). There is the salt — the preservative element.
HH That is the elementary feature of what is priestly; you present your own body a living sacrifice.
JT Exactly, and it is living. “Every sacrifice shall be salted with salt”, for God will not accept anything else. “With all thine offerings thou shalt offer salt” (Leviticus 2: 13).
HFN Would that be seen in Mark himself? The apostle said, “He is serviceable to me for ministry” (2 Timothy 4: 11). I was thinking of what you were saying about being salted with fire and then salted with salt, and whether it did not work out in Mark’s own personal experience, so that he is the great witness to recovery.
JT Quite; he speaks of the young man with the linen cloth, and then the young man with a long white garment. Romans, I think, works out the idea of priesthood initially — from the very beginning of the believer’s history. He delights in the law of God after the inward man. He begins to find the value of the law and to fulfil its righteous requirements. Then you get, “if Christ be in you, the body is dead”. There the corrupt element has ceased to act so far as sin is concerned. Sin is the corrupt element. The woman of Samaria was corrupt to the very core, but she discerned by the Lord’s remarks that her body was to be a vessel, that He could take what had been so corrupt and use it. It says, she “left her water-pot”. She had come out of the city with a water-pot [p. 145] to draw water, but the point was that she herself was to be the vessel, and she discerned this. So she left her water-pot and went her way into the city and went to the men. She is no longer exposed to their corrupting influence, she is able to speak to them about Christ; in principle, the Christ was in her instead of her life of sin, which was death morally. The point was the Christ; she herself raised it with Him, saying, “I know that Messias is coming”, and He says, “I who speak to thee am he”. His very words were living; they spoke of living water, and in principle Christ was in her, and so her body was no more the vehicle of sin.
HH What you have been saying would include the sovereignty side. I mean, the gospel of John enlarges on that.
JT Well, quite. The thing is to get hold of the idea of the vessel, that which is salted with salt. In Romans the believer as in this corrupt world is to present his body a living sacrifice. “If Christ be in you, the body is dead on account of sin”. It is no longer the vehicle for sin, so you present your body a living sacrifice salted, and thus you have, I believe, a component part of the vessel that God can use to preserve things. If each of us is governed by the light of Romans, our bodies are available, free from the element of corruption. Thus we are prepared for what is collective: “we, being many, are one body in Christ”.
JJ Do you think the Lord had that in view in securing Bartimaeus and Zacchaeus at this very spot where these waters were healed? Do you think He was after these vessels?
JT That is a good suggestion.
WCG In Romans 12 you get the many who are after the pattern. Would that not be the cruse?
JT I thought that is where the vessel is first seen in Romans; “one body in Christ”. We are [p. 146] not one body by any fleshly, mutual accommodation, but as “in Christ”. Thus you have the vessel free from corruption, and so available for the preservation of divine things.
EJMcB Then do you think that the present exercise produced by the ways of God with us, even to fiery trial, is to enable Him to secure a vessel that can be salted?
JT Yes, I should think so. “Every one shall be salted with fire”. There is no escape from that; it will come one way or another; so the thought of salting with fire enters into the vessel. That is what comes out in Corinthians. The corrupting element was present, as we know, and the apostle speaks of “a new lump”, by purging out “the old leaven”, and then he goes on to speak about our bodies. One would especially like to make that clear, because without the idea of Romans and Corinthians in their bearing on our bodies, we cannot arrive at the divine thought as to the cruse. Romans and Corinthians deal with our bodies, so it says, “glorify now then God in your body”. “Do ye not know that your bodies are members of Christ?” (1 Corinthians 6: 20, 15). They were exposed to corruption there and we are, so he emphasises the importance of keeping the body pure. When the new cruse was first introduced, as seen in Acts 1, it had been formed under the influence of Christ here, and the coming of the Spirit brought in the preservative power. But of course for the full divine thought of the cruse it supposes being built up not only in Paul’s ministry but also as entering into the reality of John 20. We come to have our part in it by learning in a real and vital way the truth as set forth in Romans and Corinthians.
GJE So sacrifice means sacrifice, and sacrifice salted with salt is a component part of this new cruse.
JT That is what I was thinking.
Ques You indicated the cruse was fellowship.
Had you in mind, “called into the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord?” (1 Corinthians 1: 9).
JT Quite. In the Corinthian epistles there is the fellowship of God’s Son, the fellowship of His death and the fellowship of the Spirit. The principles governing fellowship are to preserve us from corruption.
Rem It follows on Romans.
PL Would you link it up with the covenant of salt referred to in 2 Chronicles 13: 5?
JT I think there you have the same thought. It is a covenant that does not decay. God sees to that. The kingdom was secured to David for ever.
JBC-l The sons of the prophets in Kings would present a contrast to a new cruse with salt put therein. You spoke earlier as to the line of overcoming, and that would mean being in the power of what has been from the beginning. I was feeling, while you were speaking, that in these sons of the prophets there seems to have been a lack of power of overcoming, and a very meagre sense of what they were anointed to be the vessels of. Their history, as the Spirit of God gives it in Kings, seems to indicate they had not the power of blessing present with them. So I thought the power of overcoming is indicated in the ministry of Elisha, and in bringing in the cruse and the salt he heals the waters and brings in fruitfulness for God. Do you suggest it is possible for us to be formally attached to what has been from the beginning but not attached to it in a living way, as those who are overcoming?
JT Exactly. The sons of the prophets were their heirs, and they should have retained the thing that their fathers maintained. Samuel introduces the great prophetic ministry; others followed, but Elijah comes in abruptly, and fire marked his ministry. It was the testimony to the power of God to deal with corruption. The altar was built and the fire comes [p. 148] down and licks up everything — the offering, and the stones and the water; everything is licked up by the fire, alluding, I apprehend, to the power of God to deal with corruption, because it was corruption that was there in Jezebel. Now, these sons of the prophets should have reflected this and other prophetic features, but, as you say, they were defective indeed. They would set aside the leading truth for the moment. Though they recognised the Holy Spirit formally — the spirit of Elijah resting on Elisha — yet they were always at a distance in relation to what was spiritual. What was spiritual went on between Elijah and Elisha, which is very suggestive, but these sons of the prophets are at a distance. When the crucial time comes, they recognise the spirit of Elijah on Elisha, but they deny the ascension, and if you have not got the ascension, you have not got the new thing, for the new thing must involve that. The book opens with one man falling and another man going up into heaven. The leading feature of the new thing was involved in Elijah being received up into heaven. The new thing was a man going up into heaven by a whirlwind, and this is what the sons of the prophets deny. They deny it in a most effective way. So powerful was their influence, that it affected even Elisha. They bow down to Elisha, but speak of fifty strong men who should go to seek Elijah. This was nothing new; it was in keeping with the king of Israel, as we see in chapter 1.
GWW Do you suggest that when corruption begins to do its work, the sense of the importance of ascension gets lost in the soul, and salt would preserve one from losing that sense? Corruption had already taken place with the sons of the prophets.
JT Exactly. So in Revelation the men on the earth are ready to acknowledge the God of the heavens. He is that, but He is the God of the earth as well. Men are giving up all thought of heaven as [p. 149] regards themselves. Earth-dwelling, as marking those whose calling is heavenly, is resented. The hour of trial which comes on all the world shall be the portion of earth-dwellers.
GWW Is not one great important principle in preservation that the soul is held in the apprehension of what is involved in the name of Christ?
JT Quite. His “new name”. That is seen in Philadelphia, hence the Lord says, “I also will keep thee 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: 10). If we give up the heavenly, we shall dwell on the earth and become corrupt.
JJ It was the men of the city who told Elisha of the water. Do you connect that with the reconciliation of the world owing to this new vessel being here?
JT It would come out in those who are serious about things. These men of the city were not the same as the sons of the prophets. They were not denying the ascension; they were not denying anything. They were consciously in need. They presented a very different picture from the sons of the prophets. They knew the situation and desired to have it remedied.
ESH You referred just now to life being the great preservative. I was wondering whether the words of the Lord in John 17: 11, “Holy Father, keep them in thy name which thou hast given me”, would be the introduction of family life on the line of preservation.
JT Quite so. “Keep them in thy name” implies what is incorruptible.
HFN Would you say a little further word in regard of the thought of ascension? One feels it is the great distinctive truth of christianity.
JT It is a very striking thing that the sons of the prophets should be the ones to set that aside.
[p. 150] It is a solemn question to all young people amongst the saints, because, unless the element of preservation is maintained in them, they will find themselves in a like position, denying the truth for the time — the special truth for the moment, whatever that might be, particularly what is heavenly; whereas heaven is our distinctive place — all our blessings are there.
EJMcB Is not that true in regard of resurrection? It can be taken account of as an action of God in regard of Christ, as the expression of His power, but ascension is the platform from which He is going to fill everything, and apart from that nothing is filled.
JT I do not think you could have christianity apart from ascension. Everything depends on Christ’s going on high. Some years ago there was a theme amongst us as to the basis on which the assembly stood, whether on that of resurrection or ascension, and I think the Lord made it perfectly plain that it stands on the basis of ascension — including His death and resurrection, of course.
EJMcB Hence the importance of the “large upper room”.
JT Just so. I believe the word for ‘upper’ here (Acts 1) is stronger as to elevation than in the gospels.
ER There could be no coming of the Holy Spirit apart from ascension.
JT No. Everything begins with heaven, but in what is set up on the earth in the future, you do not get the element of ascension. I believe John 12-the scene in Bethany — is a figure of what will be set up in the future; that is on the basis of resurrection, but John 20 is, “I ascend”.
Ques Would you say that what is exclusively church property is bound up with Christ going up — with ascension?
JT [p. 151] Quite, so in 1 Timothy 3: 16 it says, “received up in glory”.
Rem The distinction between Elisha and the sons of the prophets was that Elisha saw him go up, and the same fact is emphasised in the beginning of Acts, in regard of the disciples.
JT That is right, and they come back into the upper room.
WJH The name of the ascended Man is maintained in that upper room.
JT Quite, also the Father’s name: “my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God”. That I thought is what underlies the promise to the overcomer in Philadelphia — the Father’s name and Christ’s new name.
GWW The maintenance of all that is the great preservative from corruption.
JT Indeed; understanding John’s gospel, the overcomer in Philadelphia appreciates the Lord’s promise to him.
Ques Do you think there is some special form of corruption which assails the assembly at every stage of its history down here, and we have to fall back on the salting with fire to preserve us in relation to the new cruse?
JT Quite; and so the component parts of the cruse, I think, involve that our bodies are kept right. “If Christ be in you, the body is dead on account of sin, but the Spirit life on account of righteousness”. It is that that enters into the idea of the vessel or the cruse. It is a new one. The teaching of Romans prepares us to have part in the assembly, in which things are preserved for God, corresponding with Acts 1.
WJH It would appear that that is what the disciples felt in regard of their prayer as to the one that was to take the place of Judas. They referred to God as the One who knew the hearts of all.
JT [p. 152] And so Peter when referring to the gift of the Spirit to the gentiles, says, “the heart-knowing God”. Then you see how the psalms are brought in — the Old Testament; Acts 1. What is so striking about the witness of the Spirit in Hebrews, when things had begun to decay, is the idea of life emphasised in ministry to the Jews. Things had begun to decay and the Old Testament would be held in the letter. So it says, “even as says the Holy Spirit, To-day if ye will hear his voice” (Hebrews 3: 7), meaning that the Old Testament is a present living voice. It is not that they are simply written. The Spirit says it. It is a present living thing, and that is really how the Old Testament should be held. And so again in Hebrews 10: 15, where you have the witness of the Spirit, it is the Old Testament brought in livingly as a present witness in the Spirit in regard of the new covenant. “The Holy Spirit also bears us witness”.
HH You appreciate all the Lord’s interests in regard of the Old Testament, but you can only do it intelligently in the appreciation of the new cruse, of that which is formed in the full light of Christ as the ascended Man.
RSS The Lord said to the Jews, “Ye search the scriptures, for ye think that in them ye have life eternal, and they it is which bear witness concerning me” (John 5: 39). Is it not true that very early in the church’s history corruptive influences began to work? As far as the record goes, it was in the sin of Ananias and Sapphira coveting a place amongst their brethren, and then again, the murmuring on the part of the Grecians because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. These were corrupting influences.
If we do not follow righteousness, faith, love and peace with them that call upon the Lord out of a pure heart, decay and corruption are going on. It is very essential that we should judge everything of a contrary [p. 153] nature, anything that would bring in a corruptive element in the assembly.
GWW Where there is deliberate going on with what is corrupt, recognising a corrupt principle and going on with it, one has no longer a pure heart. The salt is not there.
RSS Then as to the murmuring, the Grecians were murmuring because their widows were neglected. It was a national thing and therefore corrupt.
JBC-l Do you make any difference between the thought of the Lord ascending and being received up?
JT I think there is a difference. One is John’s presentation and involves His Person — that He was a divine Person. The other is Luke — that He was received up — or carried up, as it reads — which would be His humanity, pointing to heaven’s appreciation of Him as Man.
JBC-l I was just turning over in my mind whether both these thoughts were not bound up with what you have been suggesting as to the position of the assembly. I thought possibly the Lord being received up accorded with the assembly being here in testimony and responsibility, and the other more connected with what she has in the way of privilege and so of heavenly power. But I am really inquiring.
JT I think that is right. John is pre-eminently the gospel that gives our position from the standpoint of counsel and privilege; the word ‘assembled’ (chapter 20: 19) should not be there. It is not that side at all. It is a question of persons in their relation to the Lord and in their relation to the Father, so we read, “where the disciples were”. It is the family in its heavenly and eternal setting.
EJMcB I gather one great exercise that comes before us in this subject is the actual necessity of being here in the body in a way that is suitable to God.
JT I think that is one of the most important [p. 154] things we can take account of. John’s gospel leads up to the position of the saints viewed from the standpoint of divine counsel. They are in family relationship with the Father and the Son. Chapter 20 is thus light as to the mind of God regarding us. The breathing into the disciples effectuates the state in us suitable to this, and lays the basis for Paul’s ministry. There is thus what is wholly new, and the vessel, as a collective feature, is secured in the breathing into the saints of the Holy Spirit, and developed in Paul’s ministry. Thus there is that in which divine things are preserved livingly. What Christ was here is maintained in the assembly. It was truly a new cruse with salt in it.