READINGS ON THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS
[p. 46] READINGS ON THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS
Why did we take up Galatians before Corinthians? Corinthians comes before Galatians in Scripture.
Not in Scripture, it comes first in man’s arrangement of Scripture. The books of the Bible are not arranged divinely. Morally perhaps, Galatians comes before Corinthians. The defection in Galatia was more serious than at Corinth. Romans looks at things normally. Hebrews, Galatians, and Corinthians come in to correct a tendency to departure from first principles.
Would you say that the Corinthians had departed from the foundation?
Are they corrected on the truth of Romans?
Righteousness is not prominent in Corinthians as in Romans. I think that in 1 Corinthians the first man is put out by holiness rather than by righteousness. This chapter is a salient point. I suggest that we take up the first seven chapters.
Will you give two or three sections of the epistle?
The first two chapters are introductory. The principle of the epistle is to correct the lowest things by the highest. He refers to the wisdom and deep things of God as a corrective to mischief at work at Corinth. The principles in chapters 1 and 2 are Christ crucified and the Holy Spirit. I think in chapter 3 the fundamental principle is holiness. “The temple of God is holy, which temple ye are”, 1 Corinthians 3:17. The next important section is chapters 8-10, which brings in the question of fellowship, as to which some were compromising the assembly. In chapters 11-14 the point is the order of the assembly come together, in which there was grave disorder. In chapter 15 an [p. 47] error in doctrine is taken up; the resurrection was in question. To correct that, he begins to touch the deep things of God in the last Adam and the second Man. I think it is very much like holding a bait before them. In chapter 2 he had given them to know that he has something very wonderful to unfold, but then they were not in a condition to receive it.
In the first six chapters does he answer questions they had put to him?
No, not entirely. In chapter 7 he answers certain points in regard to which they had written to him, but I do not know that it is what they had written to him about in the other chapters.
Does not the fact that the apostle addresses the churches of Galatia in the way he does, e.g., omitting the usual salutation and greetings, indicate that the departure was greater there than at Corinth, and that if they continued on that principle they could no longer be recognised as assemblies of God at all? They were giving up christianity.
The apostle addresses them abruptly; he is stirred to the depths. In Corinth they had forgotten that they were God’s assembly, they were acting as though the meeting was their own. It was the assembly where God should have been known in holiness.
You might say that doctrinal principles were involved in the error at Galatia, and in Corinth ecclesiastical.
Holiness rather than righteousness is insisted on. Clearly that is the point in chapter 3: “The temple of God is holy”, “The Spirit of God dwelleth in you”, 1 Corinthians 3:17,16; and again in chapter 6 the body of the believer is the temple of the Holy Spirit.
Why does it couple with the Corinthians, “All that in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ”, 1 Corinthians 1:2?
For the reason that fellowship is a prominent point in the epistle; it involves everybody, it is not simply local fellowship. Bethesda, for instance, knows nothing [p. 48] but a local fellowship. The fellowship of the church of God is universal, but fellowship will come out in the second section.
I suppose the truth of chapter 1:30 would meet the whole case at Corinth? It was specially a point with them to glory in man.
It is in view of Christ Jesus, who is made of God unto us wisdom and righteousness, sanctification and redemption, that no one should glory in men but in the Lord. The contrast is with the first man. The first chapter is that God has completely cleared the ground for Himself in Christ crucified. By Him God has cleared the ground in view of the coming of the Spirit and the communication of the deep things of God. That is seen in the first two chapters. The ground completely cleared in the cross of Christ so that the Spirit might bring to light the whole range of the wisdom of God, but then there comes in this difficulty, that the spiritual man only can enter into it, and the Corinthians were carnal.
Did you say the deep things of God are touched in chapter 15?
Yes, but not developed; he gives them, as it were, a taste. It is not until the second epistle that the apostle is able to enter fully on the deep things. The first epistle insists on the death of Christ, the second on the glory of Christ. When you come to the last Adam and the second Man, as in chapter 15, you are coming very near to the wisdom of God.
And I suppose when he speaks about the Spirit, too? Everything was in the Spirit. I think the wonderful thing is, that God should have been able to clear the ground so that the Spirit should be given to unfold the deep things of God; clearly there is no room for the wisdom of man. The wisdom of man never affected the practice of a man. Take Bacon, he was a man of most extraordinary mind, but he was a man exceedingly corrupt. The same thing was true with [p. 49] the Greek philosophers. You may see it in Romans 2. It is said of Bacon that he was the wisest, wittiest, and greatest thinker the country ever produced, yet he would take bribes as a judge. When the deep things of God are known they greatly affect a man’s practice.
I suppose the Corinthians had never accepted the word of the cross, and therefore could not be addressed as spiritual?
I think they were glorying in the external effects of the presence of the Spirit and using the gifts to make much of man. They were missing the deep things of God, their state prevented their getting the good of them, and the apostle could not unfold such to them. When you come to the counsel of God, the mind of man cannot enter into it, a man cannot in divine things go beyond his spiritual state. Many of us when we first came into fellowship studied Scripture much, but we did not get any great hold of the deep things of God. The mind was in advance of the spiritual state, but they cannot be really known apart from state. That is what comes out in chapter 2.
Will you say a word as to the difference between a spiritual man and a carnal man?
A man is characterised by what he has got, a spiritual man is characterised by the Spirit. He would not use his body for himself, but as a vessel of the Holy Spirit. There are two things evident in a spiritual man: one is, that he has a sense of the love of God, and the other, that he is self-judged; in that way he is perfect, a full-grown believer.
Were the Corinthians always in a carnal state or had they gone back?
My impression is that they had never gone on. They were wishing to enjoy the millennium before the time. Paul shows them the things that will characterise the millennium. The three important things that will characterise the millennium are the temple of God,
[p. 50] the Christ, and the victory over death, and the Corinthians had them all in a spiritual sense.
In the first five verses of chapter 2 we have the state at Corinth that gave character to Paul’s ministry — caused it to be such as it was.
Yes, he went to Corinth in a way he went nowhere else. I think he found there what he found nowhere else — tremendous activity of mind.
Whom does the last word of chapter 2 refer to? “We have the mind of Christ” (1 Corinthians 2:16), is it apostolic or christian?
I have thought of it as being christian. Yes, I think it is.
They were not corresponding to it.
They were not spiritual; you could not speak of them quite as having the mind of Christ unless they were spiritual, though you may say it belonged to them.
The mind of Christ here means the thinking faculty, does it not? It is not as we speak sometimes of having the mind of Christ, meaning we know His will for us?
Yes, it is the thinking faculty. The ‘we’ often refers to what is proper to christians, it is what is normal, but all christians are not so.
Is it different from that expression, “Ye have an unction from the Holy One”, 1 John 2:20?
I do not think it is very different. Anointing is not only having the Spirit but the Spirit characterises the man. “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me”, Luke 4:18. That is the way the Lord had it. So it is with the christian, it is characteristic. It is a great comfort that we do not teach people, but that it is God who teaches them. The passage in John has reference to the babes who were in danger of being seduced. His object is to throw them upon the Spirit of God instead of upon men.
Is it capacity?
The capacity is in the Spirit, but it was useless [p. 51] unless they were characterised by the Spirit. I think the anointing is characteristic. It is like the oil poured on the head of Aaron, it all came down even to the skirts of his garments. Unless the characteristic is there, the capacity is not available. Aaron carried the scent of the holy oil wherever he went.
A man walking in the Spirit is a spiritual man?
Yes, if a christian is happy in the full light of divine love, self-judged, and therefore not allowing the flesh, see what rapid progress he will make in divine things. There is nothing I am so afraid of as activity of mind in divine things. I was not always so but I am now; you cannot touch the things of God to really understand them, beyond your spiritual state.
It is a great mistake to confound earnestness of purpose with spirituality?
Well, it is, but the Lord helps a man that is earnest. Why do we have all this in the first two chapters before we come to the temple in chapter 3?
It is to whet the appetite, I think, to show that he has wonderful things for them if they are prepared to receive them, and also that man’s wisdom has no place in the discerning of them. Before the Spirit came there was no room to bring in these things; the first man was still there, but God had now cleared the ground. Christ crucified was to the Jew a stumbling-block, and to the Greek foolishness, but to us He is the wisdom of God and, the power of God.
I thought it was said yesterday that the way to get an unspiritual man into a spiritual state was to bring in the purpose of God?
This cannot be gainsaid as to dealing with assemblies. The three epistles, viz., to the Galatians, 1 Corinthians, and Hebrews, are corrective, and the counsel of God is introduced in each. On the other hand there was that which hindered and grieved the Spirit and had to be judged. The Corinthians had to judge themselves in many things: they were not up to the holiness proper to God’s temple; they were defective in regard to fellowship; some were compromising the church through their want of understanding of fellowship; they were very defective in conduct in the assembly itself, and in doctrine; all that had to be corrected.
It seems to me you attach more importance to spirituality than to earnestness?
But then can you not have spiritual earnestness?
Surely a spiritual man is a devoted man.
I think in a spiritual man the effect of the Spirit’s power is to make him obscure; he is not inclined to show off the effects of the Spirit’s power, he would forget himself. Take the strongest case of all — the Lord Himself — the fact of His being full of the Spirit was to make Him obscure. He did not care to show Himself to the world. His pathway was activity in obscurity. He was unknown and yet well-known. His brethren complained of His not showing Himself to the world.
Does not earnestness suppose opposition in the man? You could not apply that to the Lord.
Earnestness does not necessarily bring in the idea of what is contrary. The Philippians were a good instance of earnestness. God works more in us than by us. He will work by you if He works in you. If you go to the epistle to the Ephesians you will find “Strengthened with might by his Spirit, in the inner man”, Ephesians 3:16. Then in chapter 6, you come out strong in the Lord, and in the power of His might. He works by you; the one is the consequence of the other. We should be more anxious that God should work in us, the other will surely follow.
You would expect to see earnestness in a spiritual man?
I connect earnestness with man. There is a word I prefer, it is what Paul used as to himself, viz., purpose. I like to see a man with purpose. When you come to divine things you get deeply sensible of your [p. 53] own weakness, and are afraid of natural energy. Being led by the Spirit produces that feeling, you are made to feel your own weakness so that you are afraid of yourself, but then with the consciousness of weakness comes strength.
Paul said he was with them in weakness and fear.
Yes, because put a thing as clearly as ever you may, only God’s Spirit can really affect people. “My strength is made perfect in weakness” (2 Corinthians 12:9) — he was conscious in the midst of weakness that there was the Lord’s strength, but he never lost the sense of his weakness.
It was more as a vessel of testimony, I suppose, that he had that feeling?
Fancy a man with hesitation of speech addressing all sorts of people! He would feel weak, that was Paul. A man taking up science would not feel weak in the same way. He would feel master, in a sense, of his subject, but when you come to divine things, if you are not sustained by the Spirit you will break down.
The Corinthians were using the manifestations of the Spirit to make the first man prominent.
A spiritual man will perceive the mind of God, but the more he knows, the less he feels he knows. He feels he cannot do justice to his subject. Scientific people have only touched the fringe of the things they are studying, and yet they seem to be inflated with the greatness of their knowledge; but did you ever feel you did justice to your subject? People come and say sometimes, ‘We have had a good word’, but I have felt ashamed of myself. A man who lectures knows a great deal better than anyone else whether he has got on, he knows when he is supported by the Lord. You may keep up a pretty good front before your audience, but you do not keep up a good front before yourself.
But then there have been times when I have felt I did badly and others have said they got helped.
[p. 54] I should not believe them as to my doing. You know when you are supported and when you are not, when you go on talking to keep up appearances.
Do you think under such circumstances that one ought to stop?
Yes, if one had the courage for it; but the fact is we have not always the moral courage to do this. When we come to handle divine things we must be conscious of our weakness. The Lord may let me feel my weakness, but if He gives me His support that is all I want.
Do you not think as one goes on the sense of the Lord’s support increases?
Yes.
Is not the sense of weakness necessary for the work of the Spirit in us?
No doubt it precedes; you cannot help feeling how weak you are, you say ‘Who is sufficient for these things?’ The apostle says that then you get the competency that is of God.
Liberty in speaking is not necessarily power?
No. I do not think the apostle ever expected to be sufficient in himself, the Lord alone was sufficient.
The Lord claims in John 8:25, that He was altogether what He spoke to them. His word and what He was were alike. In that He was perfectly alone.
There was the fulness of the Spirit in Him.
You were saying the ‘perfect’ man was one in whom the love of God was shed abroad and who was self-judged. Is that what we get in Philippians 3, let us “as many as be perfect”, etc.?
It is the apprehension of the proper or normal christian state and place. I think if you are in the proper christian place you are in the light of the love of God to you, and this produces self-judgment. Such are said to be perfect.
Is it Christ your object?
[p. 55] It is rather the place to which it has been the purpose of God to bring you. I do not think ‘perfect’ means anything beyond proper, normal christian condition. That is the force, in chapter 2, of “We speak wisdom among the perfect”, 1 Corinthians 2:6. The Corinthians were very little in the light of God. There is a reproach in chapter 15:
“Some have not the knowledge of God”, 1 Corinthians 15:34. The consequence was that there was a great deal of flesh, the apostle could not speak to them as to spiritual. Spiritual and perfect are pretty much the same thing.
What is the force of “All things” (verse 15)?
The whole range of divine counsels.
Will you say something about the building now?
Did you say the temple was the leading thought of God’s purpose in this epistle?
Yes, properly it belongs to the millennium; to the kingdom, not to the wilderness, the tabernacle belongs to the wilderness. So, too, “the Christ” (chapter 12), when you come to that it is His body; again, in chapter 15, we have not the rapture but the victory over death, because it does not go beyond what is effected on earth. Then we have “Thanks be to God which giveth us the victory”, 1 Corinthians 15:57. Everything is in anticipation thus of the millennium. You really have now the great ecclesiastical marks of the kingdom.
The temple belongs to the established order of things?
Yes, the temple was first connected with Solomon’s reign.
Take such expressions as “quickened together with him”, “raised us up together”, etc. They are anticipatory, and present what will actually take place when Christ comes. Every man quickened in his own order, and we shall then be made to sit in heavenly places. It is all good for faith now.
Will you say a word with regard to the meaning of the temple?
Growing to a holy temple is future, is it not?
[p. 56] The difference between the house and the temple is that the temple is continuous, but the house is not. The temple is not built and the house is. It is not exactly that you are the temple, but you are God’s temple — it is characteristic. I think he brings it in for the enforcement of holiness. God was there as light, and if God be there you must have holiness. So even with the individual the Spirit dwells in you, therefore you must be holy. The Lord called the temple of old, “My Father’s house”. In its nature the temple is continuous, though as a matter of fact God was no longer in the material building. The temple was superseded by Christ’s body. The Lord could say, “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up”, John 2:19.
What did you say was the difference between the temple and the house?
I think the mass of professed christians form the house, but it is not the same thought with regard to the temple. There was the naos and the enclosures of the temple; it is the naos here. I do not think the temple brings in the idea of profession as the house does. I doubt if temple goes beyond living stones. The temple does not come under judgment, the house does. The temple may be corrupted, but God purges it. It is an awful thing to corrupt the temple, because you are corrupting saints and it brings judgment upon the corrupter. Saints are corrupted by evil principles. Supposing you get people taking up some evil doctrine, such as non-eternity of punishment, or anything that makes them worldly, they are demoralised by it.
Is not the house more where God is in relation with men?
I think that is so. The scripture which gives me the best idea of the house is 1 Timothy 2, where the men and women are to be in suitability where God approaches men; the house is where He has set [p. 57] Himself to approach men. The testimony is there and the apostle went forth from the house. “Mine house shall be called an house of prayer of all people” (Isaiah 56:7), is the same idea, it is where God is in relation with men. The temple of God is God’s shrine, where He may be approached to be worshipped.
Is the holy temple only living stones?
Yes, I do not think you can bring profession into the naos.
Would “wood, hay, and stubble”, have no reference to the unconverted?
I think not. A good foundation, it seems to me, had been laid in people’s souls, and others came along building up, say, a sacramental system, not of the character of the foundation. That is what is referred to, judaising on a good foundation. That is what I understand by “wood, hay, stubble”. Colossians 2 would touch the same thing.
Is there a difference between this and Ephesians 2:21? And what is the difference between that and verse 22?
It shows that ultimately the temple will come out a holy temple, but in addition to that he brings in the thought of the habitation of God through the Spirit, what saints were as the effect of the apostle’s ministry, builded together Jew and Gentile.
Do you limit chapter 3:10 to the work done at Corinth, or is it general?
To the work at Corinth. The apostle’s work was done in souls, though of course he was an inspired instrument; the foundation was really what he had laid in souls. It is not the thought of the foundation of the local assembly at Corinth, though that was the effect of it. You lay a foundation in souls. I think Paul was really troubled about the Corinthians. He speaks of them as being real saints, but he puts them on the ground of profession. In chapter 1 they are viewed as sanctified in Christ Jesus and called saints.
[p. 58] Does the building refer to the structure (Matthew 16) or to work in souls-in the souls of the saints?
Although human instruments were used the work was of God, it is referred to God’s hand. Ye are God’s husbandry, God’s building, 1 Corinthians 3:9. ‘Journeymen’ is the thought in verse 9, not joint workers with God or God’s fellow-workmen, but fellow-workmen under God. He enforces the responsibility of the builder, but he wanted to lead the saints away from man and his work to God’s building. God might employ men but it was really His building.
Is it not an illustration taken from putting stones together; why does he use it if it refers to work in souls?
You do not generally build with “wood, hay, and stubble”.
Is not the outward assembly the result of the building in souls?
Having come to Corinth and laid a good foundation, somebody follows and builds upon it heterogeneous material and spoils the work; that was just what the apostle had to contend with. We can little enter into how it must have affected the heart of the apostle.
“The day shall declare it” (1 Corinthians 3:13), when will that be?
The day when everything shall be made manifest. The day shall be revealed in fire, it must be a day of testing if revealed by fire. Persecution might come along and a good many people fall off.
I should like to refer to Ephesians 2, “Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets”. What is that?
They are looked at there in a different light. Here the apostle is referring to his own individual labour. The other is a general idea, the church is built upon the apostles and prophets because their doctrine is identified with themselves.
You have given us the first thought about the temple, what is the second?
[p. 59] The working out of it is this, that man has to go out completely; the holiness is exclusive of man as man, and there must be consistency with the holiness collectively and individually. There is another thing comes out in chapter 7: that the relationships which God established down here are not inconsistent with holiness.
Psalm 27 speaks of enquiring in God’s temple.
Here it is the first principle that is pressed on account of their state; you cannot get on a step if you do not recognise the first principle of God dwelling in His temple, that is holiness. Holiness involves all the rest. It is the first thing, if you have to say to God you must have to do with holiness. I think the application of righteousness is more individual; holiness refers to the saints collectively, holiness characterises the temple or assembly.
Righteousness, of course, comes in when there is positive evil, but I think righteousness refers to us more individually; individually we are justified, individually we walk in self-judgment. When we have: “I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me” (Leviticus 10:3), that is, to us, collective.
Is righteousness in reference to our conduct?
God reveals His righteousness and we are justified, and we become the servants of righteousness.
“The day shall declare it” (1 Corinthians 3:13) — is that the judgment — seat of Christ, or is it some day of fiery persecution which would test them?
I think there is that in the subject which reaches on to the future but refers also to God’s governmental ways.
In 1 John 2:28 the apostle says: “Abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed”. Is that the same thought of the work perishing or abiding in that day?
We labour under this difficulty that we look back 1800 years, but the apostles did not look forward to [p. 60] this, they did not contemplate a christianity of 1800 years. You take the Thessalonians, the apostle speaks to them as though the Lord was coming in their lifetime; he speaks of the living and remaining as though all was very near. In 1 Peter a fiery trial is spoken of which was to try saints. Persecution became necessary to stay the progress of evil while the Lord tarried.
Now far does this section go?
To the end of chapter 7. If you recognise the holiness of God’s temple you can then get the true measure of a man: the principle of God’s holiness is so exclusive that it leaves no room for man, and you do not think of man above what is written. If we had a due sense of the Spirit’s being here we should not make much of man, we should not seek to act upon man; the best service you can render me is not to make much of me. It is not a question of our being in the presence of one another, but in the presence of the Spirit of God.
It is all viewed in the light of a coming day; does he not look forward to it?
It is all as in the presence of the Spirit of God, and the apostle strictly is referring to the local assembly at Corinth.
When it says, “Not to think of men above that which is written” (1 Corinthians 4:6), does it refer to what the apostle has written in chapter 3?
I do not think the gifts were meant to make anything of the man, and the Corinthians were using them in this way. You are not to let your thoughts of men, even though gifted, go above what is written; that is, I think, the impression which Scripture gives you of men.
What sort of impression is that?
The sooner that man gets out of sight the better. Men have a relative importance in the world, in the providence of God. We are not on one common level. What I say as to myself is, that in this world, I shall [p. 61] never be a great man; I have not the qualities for it. But there are men qualified to be great in this world, but in the presence of the Spirit of God, that is nothing. I quite give a man his place, I feel I cannot help doing so in a way, but in the presence of the Spirit of God, all that is nothing. God is no respecter of men. A christian is not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think soberly according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith. In the presence of the Spirit of God it is a question of a man’s holiness, how far he answers to the Spirit of God.
It is all of God in that line of things.
We see the recognition of the flesh in the Old Testament. Daniel was a capable man, a man fit to be third ruler in the empire, and so too, Joseph, in Egypt, but now when you come to the Spirit of God and the temple, a man’s measure is his holiness.
According to what is written, we can see that man is thoroughly exposed in Scripture.
I have thought sometimes that as regards the question of administration, Paul thought Peter greater than himself. He says, “I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle” (1 Corinthians 15:9), but when you come to his testimony and the Spirit of God, he says, “Whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me”, Galatians 2:6.
Peter, too, evidently thought Paul a greater man than himself.
At any rate it is interesting to see what each thought of the other.
The apostles were nothing, they were not seeking a place of prominence in the world, but they were a spectacle. In the latter part of our chapter (4) you can see they did not seek a place of power and greatness.
You see the travesty of it all in the head of the church being a great spiritual peer in the kingdom. Paul really leads you to a place of obscurity, he was [p. 62] himself as the offscouring of the world. He sees the Corinthians on another line and seeks to lead them into his ways. I cannot conceive anything more monstrous than that a man should assume to be anything in the presence of the revelation of God. If a man were consciously in the presence of the Spirit of God he could not think much of himself or seek a place here.
“The kingdom of God is not in word, but in power”, 1 Corinthians 4:20. Why does he go on now to the kingdom?
Because if you have the temple you must have the kingdom.
Is it viewed as present or anticipative?
It is present in a peculiar form but it is also anticipative. It is in the power of God, spiritual power. Now, we have it by the Holy Spirit. It is not meat and drink but power. It was J.N.D.’s great spiritual power, not his learning and knowledge, that gave him the place he had; the thing that affected me most was to hear him pray, and now it is his hymns that I enjoy most.
Was it found in the way that his doctrine and life corresponded?
Yes, “the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power”, 1 Corinthians 4:20. Paul could say: “Be ye imitators of me”, 1 Corinthians 11:1. Follow me in obscurity rather than in seeking prominence amongst others.
What an extraordinary thing christianity is today What a travesty of the truth even in Protestantism!
Do we not get the germ of it all here?
The germ of every evil is seen in the Corinthians. The beginning of the departure was that they lost the sense of the presence of the Spirit, for they had not maintained holiness; that is where I should think every evil began. The moment the Spirit’s power is lost sight of, man’s power comes in. There is a sort of principle of order in man in the kosmos, so they established the best order they could. When the church lost the power of the Spirit, it was characterised [p. 63] by what characterised the city it was in; the same principle holds good now.
In chapter 5 the apostle insists on their recognising holiness; they had to purge out the old leaven. In chapter 6 it is the believer’s body which is the temple of the Holy Spirit; this involves holiness individually. Chapter 7 shows that God’s ordering down here was not inconsistent with holiness.
Is chapter 5 directions for an assembly meeting?
I do not call it an assembly meeting, it is an alarm, it is the trumpet-blowing.
That was for the assembling of the congregation. It is in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.
It was not the assembly normally, that is what I mean. The apostle’s eye saw everything; he saw what they did not see. I do not think they understood that the conduct of an individual compromised the very existence of the assembly. The man was to be put away from among them.
Not from the table?
It is very simple; if the man is disqualified for fellowship, we put him away. What I see in Bethesda is that they have no fellowship beyond the local assembly. We have a case now amongst us where the fellowship is broken up locally, but I do not see that the brethren there are as individuals out of fellowship with us generally. They have not broken fellowship with us generally.
If one came you would not make him sit outside?
No, but I should not force my judgment upon others. Of course, you must know the person, for we could not receive a letter of commendation, but if anyone were unhappy about it, I should not press it. Consideration is a great thing nowadays. Supposing a godly person in church or chapel coming to us to break bread, we have to take care as to his association. Associations are so bad in churches and chapels now that receiving persons is very difficult.
[p. 64] Suppose such a person goes back to his church or chapel?
He is just as much amenable to the discipline of the assembly as anyone else. We have to be careful not to become sectarian, not to have two orders of fellowship-christian fellowship and some other fellowship.
We have to be clear as to associations.
That is where holiness comes in. People are contaminated by associations, and until they are purged they never will understand it.
A person has been excluded from us simply because he went back to a chapel a second time; it was yielded to on the ground of conscience, but I felt it was wrong.
Well, you must respect another’s conscience. There is a danger of doing violence in this way. I do not like people playing fast and loose. In breaking the one loaf they own the unity.
Often there is an effort to make a sect of us; “We will come to you if you will come to us”. It is not honest to let people come and break bread without telling them what it means. They ought to be shown what it means. Sometimes they shrink from it when they understand it.
Do you not think that after all if a person breaks bread once he has done right for once, as a wise brother said? Our responsibility is to let them in, their responsibility is to stay in.
But then they often seek to make their own conditions.
In chapter 6 the point is personal holiness, their bodies were temples of the Holy Spirit, and yet they were going to law and that before the unbelievers. The way the apostle meets all that is by the Spirit of God, the body of the believer is God’s temple, the Spirit of God dwells in the believer. Your bodies are members of Christ, the body is His property, you have no title to appropriate your own body to your own use; your members are to be at the disposal of Christ.
[p. 65] It is entirely in a moral sense. It is a very different thing from our being members of Christ’s body. It says our bodies are members of Christ.
He is only insisting on the absolute title of Christ over your body. He that is joined to the Lord is one Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:17), that has nothing to do with Christ’s body. It is taken from marriage. They twain shall be one flesh. So he that is joined to the Lord is not one flesh, but “one Spirit”, the oneness lies much deeper.