THE ASSEMBLY IN RELATION TO DIVINE ADMINISTRATION (3)
THE ASSEMBLY IN RELATION TO DIVINE ADMINISTRATION (3)
JT We have noted in chapter 13 how the Lord took up the position of sitting when He spoke the parable of the sower, suggestive, I think, of the deliberation with which the testimony was rendered at the beginning; then in chapter 14 how He carried on His administration. Chapter 13 brings in the multitude, and in that connection we referred to the Song of Solomon, in which it is said, “Solomon had a vineyard at Baal-hamon”, (Song of Songs 8:11) signifying “master of a multitude”. Chapters 14, 15 and 16 show how He regulates the multitude, with a view to the saints being here in the assembly. It was pointed out that the administration in chapter 14 stands connected with the ministry of the apostles, the number twelve appearing there, and that the administration in chapter 15 is rather connected with the Holy Spirit, so we get seven full baskets of fragments.
EJMcB I thought what helped us greatly this morning was the importance that you attached to the position of the Lord at the beginning of chapter 13; the quiet spirit of deliberation in regard to the sowing. Also, I thought we had a great deal of help in regard of the conditions favourable to feeding, getting the multitude into a restful condition.
JT They were made by the Lord to recline on the grass.
EJMcB What is the main thought in your mind in this chapter?
JT We arrive formally and definitely at the assembly here as that which had been in the Lord’s mind in all this instruction, He calls it here “my assembly”, and in chapter 18 “the assembly”.
[p. 372] In chapter 18 He assumed that it should be a court of appeal as we speak, one could appeal to it as having authority from Him, but here it is “my assembly”.
RWG This is the first mention of the assembly in the New Testament. Why does it come out first in the gospel of Matthew, and only there?
JT Because Matthew has administration in view in his gospel. It was pointed out this morning that the Lord being presented by Matthew as Son of David and Son of Abraham had in view that He was to be the great Administrator for God.
RWG It is remarkable that it is in what we would call a Jewish gospel that the assembly appears first.
JT Yes, it is to show that the Jewish system is formally superseded by the assembly.
RD What was in your mind in pointing out that He says “my assembly” in this chapter?
JT It is that which He will have to the end; it does not break down.
RD You mean it is not the public thing here so much as what is His own building, and vital?
JT Yes, what is spiritual; He has that. The addresses to the assemblies in Revelation show that He has not the public thing; it has given way.
EJMcB This would be the answer to His giving thanks to the Father.
JT I think so, The Father operated here; He had already revealed certain things to babes, but what these things were is not specified; here the revelation is formally declared.
ENH Does “my assembly” bring in the thought of what the Father gives Him as a recompense for His loss of Israel, for the joy of His own heart?
JT No doubt, if you take up the type of Rebecca, but it is presented here as “my assembly”, and “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”; so that it is from the side of His own work or [p. 373] building.
EM Why does He ask His disciples saying, “Whom say ye that I am”?
JT In order to bring out this. It was important if He were going to build, that it should be brought out in this way what the Father had done. He was about to announce the great fact that He was going to build, but He would bring to light first where the foundation was. The foundation was the Father’s work. The Father had already revealed things to babes, but it does not say what the things were; no doubt they were things that He had already spoken of in His public ministry; but the revelation made to Peter is not exactly what the Lord had spoken of to them.
RD So that He takes account of something that is now in Peter’s soul.
JT That is right, and the putting of this question brought that out.
EM Would it be going too far to say that it brought out what the Father had effected.
JT It would lead to deep searching of heart as to what apprehension each one had of Christ.
Rem They would if they were believers, apprehend that He was the Messiah.
JT There was much to indicate that He was that, of course, but He was about to bring out what the Father had effected.
JV Is “my assembly” in contrast to “the assembly”?
JT I think in chapter 18 it stands in contrast to the Jewish Sanhedrim. Here the Lord never had anything, Messiah was cut off and had nothing; His rights as Son of David and Son of Abraham were not coming to Him for the moment, hence there is this thing that He Himself would build, the foundation of which originated with the Father. It takes us back to chapter 11, in which He speaks of the Father revealing. In that chapter He says the Father had [p. 374] revealed these things unto babes, but they were there for the wise and prudent, because they referred to all. But this referred to what the Father would do; it was therefore a wholly new thing, something that the Lord Himself has, His peculiar portion.
RWG How does verse 18 come in? He adds, “And I also, I say unto thee”. The Father’s work was manifestly there, and then He adds, “I also I say unto thee”.
RD Is it that the Father laid the foundation, and now the Lord is going to build on the foundation?
JT The “also” means something additional to what the Father had done. The Father had revealed to Peter that He was the Christ, the Son of the living God and now the Lord says, as it were, ‘What I say is Thou art Peter’. It is His own assembly, it is His part. “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work” (John 5:17) fits in here.
ENH Does the name given to Peter indicate the material of which the structure is built?
JT Quite. It does not say, ‘Thy name is Peter’, but “Thou art Peter”.
HH What is the material that Christ builds with?
JT That which is the result of the revelation; what a believer is in the light and apprehension of the Lord as “the Christ, the Son of the living God”. One who apprehends Him in that way is not going to turn to man to do anything, nor is he going to rely on what decays, and perishes, and disappears. He relies on what is living.
SL It was Peter’s apprehension of Christ as Son of the living God that constituted the foundation on which the structure rested.
JT The Christ, the Son of the living God is the foundation or the rock, but it is a subjective idea; Christ as apprehended in the souls of the saints. Chapter 14:33 testifies to the fact that He [p. 375] was already known objectively as Son of God by His works.
RD So that it is important to see that it is the Father’s doing; it is a subjective work.
JT We have to apprehend that in which the foundation is laid, and the foundation itself. The revelation to Peter laid the foundation, so that it was the Father’s doing. The Lord had already been recognised as the Son of God according to chapter 14, so that it is not what came out in His ministry that is in view, but the revelation of the Father made to Peter’s soul.
JM It is what is wholly new. Is it not important for us to have the truth of the assembly in this way in our souls, for it is of Christ’s building?
JT “My assembly” remains; it is what is His own.
Rem There is a building in and a building up.
JT He gives a name to Peter’s confession, and He gives a name to Peter because he made it; then the confession itself is called the foundation or rock.
Ques I suppose you would not say there was much building in Peter’s case?
JT The thing did not take form in a concrete way until the Holy Spirit came down.
EM In the working out, would it not involve quickening?
TMG “To whom coming, as unto a living stone”. (1 Peter 2:4).
JT The fact that we come shows that there is life; there is power to move.
HH That raises an interesting question; it links it up with Peter’s epistle; perhaps you would say a word on that.
JT The epistle shows that the saints, as desiring the pure mental milk of the word, grow up to salvation. The epistle supposes growth in us, that we become free of all worldly influences. “If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious”. (1 Peter 2:3). You apprehend Him outside the present order of things, and join Him there.
HH That is rather analogous to the previous chapters that we have been considering a little.
JT The teaching of the previous chapters shows how a believer is led on to be clear of the world. In this chapter it says of the Lord that “he left them and departed”. Evidently there was a distinct move there, and a break, but the weakness of the disciples, as ever, comes into evidence, they had forgotten something; there were the discrepancies that marked failure, and it led to confusion in their minds as to what He was saying.
HH What is the thought of having forgotten to take bread?
JT I suppose they themselves were the bread, and it was a question of their being unleavened. The figure of bread, as we get it in 1 Corinthians 5, enabled the Lord to speak of what we are so exposed to.
RD How is that a hindrance to our apprehending the new thing?
JT Leaven is such an insidious thing. The Lord introducing it here would mean that the saints would always be exposed to that hindrance to entering into the truth of the assembly. Leaven is a terrible thing, whatever form it may take; it tends to inflation. Inflation is a sure hindrance to the working out of the truth of the assembly. Our section in this gospel begins with this; “I am meek and lowly in heart”.
Rem The Corinthians were puffed up?
JT Yes; leaven comes in in so many ways. Here He speaks only of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
WK It is important to get a general idea of what [p. 377] leaven is.
JT The leaven of Herod would be political, that of the Pharisees religious pretension; the leaven of the Sadducees is more the mind of man working in the things of God.
GWW Do you think there was an advance as Peter moved on in his soul, from the thought of Cephas, the name the Lord gave him in the first of John, to the name Peter that He now gives him? He was there presented to Peter as Messiah; now that was over, and He was taking another position outside of all that, and Peter had to move in his soul. Is not that the move that really saves one from this leaven?
JT I think that the way leaven is introduced here and in 1 Corinthians 5 helps us to apprehend how it works to interfere with the truth of the assembly. You cannot have the assembly developed where there is leaven, whatever kind of leaven it may be. Christ our passover, coupled with the unleavened bread, indicates how the saints are to be held free of leaven.
GWW To apprehend Christ as the Son of the living God and in the new position which He has taken, must keep the soul free of inflation.
EJMcB You could not very well inflate a stone.
JT We have to bind on humility. Peter says, bind it on; it brings us into correspondence with Christ. Paul speaks of the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth, so that leaven would mean insincerity and falsehood, hence the importance of being sincere and true in our relations one with another.
RB In regard to the confession, the Lord recognised in Peter that which the Father had wrought, which was akin to Himself, and it was in connection with that that He said, “Upon this rock I will build my assembly”.
JT The confession rendered Peter a stone.
[p. 378] The coming of the Holy Spirit consequent upon redemption made Peter that in a practical way.
GWW Do you think that in effect what it comes to is that the revelation of the Father laid the foundation, but that Peter had to take account of himself as being of the order of Christ? Is not that important when He says, “I also, I say unto thee, thou art Peter”? It is as if the Lord said, ‘You have to take account of yourself as being of My order’.
JT Quite.
SL There is a difficulty in some minds, namely, as to whether Peter’s apprehension produces the rock. Peter had to apprehend, as I understand it, that he was of the order of Christ.
JT Well, he had to apprehend both things. What the Lord said was intended to enlighten Peter; he had to apprehend the Rock, and what he himself was as well. “This” refers to the confession. It is what Peter confessed; it is not what the Lord had set out in His ministry.
SL It is what Peter confessed, not his confession. It was Peter’s apprehension of Christ that indicated that he was of the same order as Christ.
JT There are two things in the Lord’s words: “Thou art Peter”, that is what he was because of the confession, but then He says further, “And on this rock”: that is what he had confessed. I think we have to distinguish, to take account of the Rock by itself. The Rock is not a creation or a work. It is Christ Himself, but as apprehended by the Father’s revelation in Peter. Peter’s confession proves a work of God in him.
EJMcB Then you would agree with the statement that if you want to look at the Rock in its generic force, you think of Christ personally?
JT Quite right. It is the truth of Christ’s Person come in that way. The truth of His Person [p. 379] revealed by the Father, and the confession consequent upon that makes Peter a stone.
SL I have no difficulty about that; that covers the ground and I quite accept it.
JT Therefore the Lord names him first, then you have the Rock on which the material is to be erected; but then the confession itself does not refer to Peter, but to Christ; therefore the Rock is what he confessed.
EJMcB A little earlier in the meeting you made a statement as to the difference between the foundation and the Father’s work with Peter in relation to the foundation.
JT That has to be distinguished.
JM So that his confession indicates that he knows Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the living God, as a new Centre outside of this world altogether.
JT That is right. Now there is the material. Peter is the material.
JM This was the Father’s revelation to Peter.
SMcC The Christ the Son of the living God is the foundation.
JT It is the foundation, because it has come in in that way; that is, by the Father’s revelation. For us the foundation is already laid; that is the principle of it, and each Christian has to come into the light of it. Peter’s confession is light; it is for you and for me, and as we come into it, we are of the same material as Peter. “The Christ, the Son of the living God”, is the foundation; He has come in in that way. These things refer to Israel too, but there is no such structure in Israel as this, nevertheless Nathanael confessed the Lord as Son of God, he said, “Rabbi, thou art the Son of God”, and he represented the Jews. That was a confession too, but there was no intimation that anything should be built on it. Here it is not only what came out in Christ’s ministry, but what came out in this special way so as to make room for Christ’s building.
RWG Would it be right to connect 1 Corinthians 3 with this? The apostle had laid the foundation, and every man was to take heed how he built thereon.
JT This is the Father’s doing. What Paul laid at Corinth had reference to the public thing; it does not say, ‘Other foundation can no man lay than Christ the Son of the living God’ but “than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (verse 11); the order of man that the gospels present is in new. It was to set aside the order of man they were glorying in at Corinth. Paul says, “I have laid the foundation”, and no doubt refers to the result of his work, and ministry in Corinth.
EM Would you say that when the Lord says, “Blessed art thou Simon Bar-jona”, it shows the value He set on what He saw there?
JT Surely; there is nothing like this anywhere else. Paul’s work is not this; his work refers to the public structure on which others might build, and build bad material, too, alas!
RWG This then is the sovereign side, and the other the responsible side.
TMG What Paul built in was in the souls of the Corinthians, however.
Ques Do you distinguish between the foundation and what is laid on it? What is laid on it is akin to the rock.
JT The Rock is the Son of God, a divine Person in manhood.
EJMcB I think the point is important because the question was raised, and one had to face it, as to the Rock being the totality of the work of God in the saints. It raised a difficulty in one’s mind, as one could not quite adjust it in connection with this chapter.
GWW Did the confession indicate that [p. 381] Peter was the right material, or did it make him the material?
JT The revelation and confession go together; the latter proved that Peter was a stone, but it is a feature of the stone. The apprehension and confession of the wonderful fact that the Man before him was “the Christ, the Son of the living God” made him a stone; he was illuminated by the revelation. When he became true to his confession, what kind of a man was he? He was entirely free from this world. See him preaching in the Acts; he is entirely free; he says to the man at the gate of the temple, “Silver and gold have I none, but such as I have give I thee ... rise up and walk”. (Acts 3:6). In his soul he had no dependence on anything save on Christ. The whole fabric of Christendom is a negation of this. The idea of Peter as a stone, is the negation of the whole religious world around us, it is all a denial of what Peter represents. The important point for us is to keep to this and thus we prove ourselves to be living stones.
Ques What is the difference between this and the treasure we have in earthen vessels? (2 Corinthians 4).
JT There the apostle was referring to the ministry he had received. The foundation refers necessarily to the apprehension Peter had of the Lord; otherwise the peculiarity of this passage would be unintelligible. Think of the change it made in Peter! Even as a believing man he would have Jewish hopes, whereas when he came into the good of this fully, he would relinquish all these and make everything of what is involved in the revelation made to him of the Father.
Rem Nothing could overthrow that.
JT Nothing. So that if we are not already on that line in our souls, we should be exercised to come to [p. 382] it.
JM A soul that knows Christ in this way will not turn to man or things here.
JT “The Christ” does everything, so we would look to Him for everything; then being “the Son of the living God”, He is incorruptible, He surmounts death. I think that is what we arrive at when we come into the good of these things.
EM His assembly is viewed here as answering entirely to Him; the gates of hell cannot prevail against it.
JT When we reach this we desire to hold ourselves as available for Christ. If I speak about the assembly, what am I thinking about? I am thinking about the saints; then am I available to Christ as of His assembly?
GWW The mere fact of Christ being such as He is here said to be is one thing, the apprehension of Him in that way in the soul is another; the latter could not be without an effect being produced in the soul. It involves a work in the soul.
RD One should be exercised about having the Lord in this way before our eyes and hearts. It is the greatness of the Builder we should have before us here.
JT If we are to stand for the Lord, that is the thing to aim at. The question is: Am I a Peter? Am I in accord with Christ as confessed here?
RD We could not speak of the assembly in this way as a structure against which the gates of hades could not prevail unless in the light of the Builder.
JMcG In God’s sight every true believer belongs to this.
JT Yes, everyone who has the Spirit, only there is the thought of coming to Christ as the Living Stone. Christ does everything for God, and for us, and being the Son of the living God, what He does cannot be affected by death. The question is, Am [p. 383] I in the apprehension of this revelation? If I am, I move. I cannot settle here in connection with anything that man does, I want to be in that which subsists beyond death. “To whom coming, as unto a living stone ... ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house”. (1 Peter 2:4,5). We have to take it as it stands in Scripture.
PSP It is an evidence of the Father’s work in the soul today when one comes to the apprehension of Christ as the Son of the living God?
JT The revelation has already been made; once revealed, it remains for all; we come into the light of it, and this latter would be the work of the Spirit now. On the day of Pentecost, Peter was in spiritual power, he had gone through exercise in connection with his denying the Lord, and had come to the end of the flesh. I think that in order to apprehend what Peter signifies, we have to study the history of Peter.
JPG I suppose that Peter leaving the ship in Matthew 14 illustrates his joining the Lord.
JT I think there is an indication there that he was a stone. He broke down in it, but he had a certain faith that enabled him to step out and join the Lord.
Ques “All of one”. Is that on this line?
JT In a way, I think. It is the generic idea; they all come from the one stock.
TMG Peter speaks of all flesh being as grass. Peter came to that himself.
JT Yes he did. The matter is a very serious one because it is a question of whether I am relying on anything that man can do or be, or resting on anything that death can touch. We have to move away from our moorings to come to Christ’s assembly. If we are not here entirely for Christ, we are not in the good of [p. 384] His assembly.
Ques Is the building what Christ builds in the soul?
JT You are the stone; it is not something in you, it is yourself.
RD Is there not a very great dignity belonging to this assembly, Christ’s assembly?
JT It is marvellous to think that we belong to that which is invulnerable; Satan cannot touch it, nor can death. But how can that be true if I am moored to natural things, or rest in what man may be or can do?
RD Is the thought that Christ’s wisdom is to reside there for administration, the assembly being for counsel and deliberation?
JT I think so; it is that in which counsel is taken. The assembly is for counsel; deliberation and resource mark it.
GWW One fears whether we are quite clear in our souls as to Christ having taken a definite position outside of flesh and blood, and while we have to move in a flesh and blood condition of things, yet all these things lie outside that region altogether.
JT That is what I have been saying. One has to move away from all natural moorings.
Ques I wanted to ask in connection with the word of Peter, “to whom coming”; is not that to be characteristic?
JT You mean that one is marked by that. Yes, it is not something done once for all like conversion; it is not “having come”, but “to whom coming”.