SPIRITUALITY

^[p. 387] SPIRITUALITY

1 Corinthians 11:23 - 26; 1 Corinthians 15:4 - 9

JT I had in mind the subject of spirituality. The authority of the Lord and the subjection that it requires stand related to the Lord’s supper. Chapter 11 introduces headship in the sense of the relationship of God to Christ, of Christ to the man, and of the man to the woman. Then we have instruction with regard to the Lord’s supper. The apostle uses the title “Lord’s supper” — the dominical supper — in keeping with Luke’s account, in which we are told that, when the hour was come, the Lord placed Himself at table with the twelve apostles, as if to guard the institution by the authority which the apostles should represent. That is peculiar to Luke. He uses the word ‘apostles’ in that setting, as if to remind us that subjection is necessary there above all. Then we have in this epistle the subject of the Spirit, love, and ministry, followed by that remarkable passage in chapter 15 which speaks of the appearings of the Lord — six different appearings. It would imply spirituality, flowing from spiritual impressions. I thought the Lord would help us just to look at these chapters from that standpoint.

JMcM Is your thought that the recognition of the Lord in that way would be necessary to have the spiritual manifestations?

JT Well, that is the order. Subjection is imperative. The assembly is said to be “subjected to Christ”, Ephesians 5:24 and the principle of subjection is worked out in this setting. There is no room for the Spirit without it, nor can there be the activity of love unless there is assembly order, which depends on subjection.

FWB Why did the apostle introduce in 1 Corinthians 11, God being the head of Christ, and Christ the head of the man?

JT ^[p. 388] Well, having in view what we have just remarked, the setting in which the Lord’s supper appears. It prepares us in our everyday relations for the assembly. If we are not subject in these relations, we shall not be in the assembly. It is a question of the order of God in the creation. Christ, having become Man, is Head of every man, as it says. It descends from God through Christ to every man. Of course God was Head of every man before, for man must have his direction from God; that is where Eve failed. Adam got direct dominion from God; God gave him that place in creation, and he was head to his wife, but she disregarded this as the serpent approached her, and hence the confusion. This is in view in the stress laid on the woman’s responsibility here.

WAS Would it be right to speak of it as delegated authority?

JT Well, it is descending authority, it is more graded — moral superiority. Delegated authority is more official. This applies to Adam, but the basis of it is moral fitness. The man’s headship here refers back to the creation. Adam was created so as to be head to the creation, and the test was as to how he should name the lower creatures. He qualified in that God did not alter any of the names that Adam gave, showing that he had acted in the wisdom that was in keeping with God. That shows Adam was a qualified head then. But Eve disregarded that wisdom in Adam and listened to the lower creature instead of to her superior, and so the order was broken up. Now that Christ has come in, headship in man is taken up again in relation with God. He is the wisdom of God; what He does is what God does. Eve gave names to her children; that shows the dislocation that had come in.

ELM If things had remained normal and the breakdown had not occurred at Corinth, would there ^[p. 389] have arisen the necessity of emphasising the lordship of Christ at the Supper, or would the headship of Christ have been in evidence right away?

JT I do not think the setting of the Supper is exactly in relation to headship. Headship grows out of it. We are here in this world, and we come together owning the Lord. The apostles being named implies that the authority of the Lord is in evidence.

ELM Would headship be more connected with what is spiritual?

JT It is coming into the apprehension of Christ in a spiritual way. It is developed in Colossians and Ephesians. In instituting His supper the Lord placed Himself at table, and the twelve apostles with Him. There could never rightly be any question as to what the Lord did or said then with such witnesses. They would not only be witnesses of what took place then, during His absence, but would have power to enforce what they knew to be His mind in regard to the Supper.

ELM You would not connect then the thought of headship with the Supper?

JT It makes way for headship, as I said.

ETS When you speak of subjection — subjection to whom?

JT Subjection to Christ. The assembly is subjected to Christ; that is the mind of God for it.

JP Would you distinguish between subjection and submission?

JT Well, in a way it is a question of the meaning of the words. Subjection is more a state; submission, I suppose, would imply that our wills had been active. We come into a state of subjection; as, for instance, Mary of Bethany; she sat at His feet and listened to what He was saying; that would indicate a state of subjection. She would get the good of what the Lord was saying, whereas Martha needed to be made to submit; she was not subject when she first received ^[p. 390] the Lord into her house; Luke 10. The apostle was “legitimately subject to Christ”. 1 Corinthians 9:21. This is a state or attitude of mind.

HL What did you mean when you spoke of subjection in connection with the Supper?

JT That we come together in the recognition of the Lord’s authority over us. This would be enforced during the time of His absence by that which the twelve apostles represent. They were representative of His authority. There is that element needed. So that the early converts continued stedfastly in the apostles teaching; not simply the teaching of certain doctrines, but the apostles’ teaching and fellowship. It is their teaching and fellowship.

HL Thus the question arises, as to whether we have accepted the adjustment of the previous chapters before we come to the Supper?

JT I am sure that is so, especially the order that God has established, which applies to us in every relationship that God is the Head of Christ. Christ the Head of man, and man the head of the woman. That has a very wide, bearing, and teaches us subjection at every point. The circumstances at the institution of the supper remind us that the element of authority is there to enforce it. If that element is not there, there is no setting for the Lord’s supper.

FWB What do you mean by the element being there?

JT What enforces and maintains subjection to Christ, the element of the representation of Christ in moral authority, in whomsoever it may be. You could not have the assembly without that. It is not a question of a person, but of a thing. It is a question of what the Lord gave: He gave His bondmen “the authority”, Mark 13:34 There is no room for self-will, but we submit ourselves to one another in the fear of ^[p. 391] God?

JT Well, that would be the way it works out. He has given to His bondmen the authority.

FWB Do you mean He has left that authority here in the assembly?

JT Yes; He has left it here, given it.

Rem You do not look upon authority as in His hands.

JT It says in Mark 13 that He gave to His bondmen the authority. Of course it is in His hands, but the Lord’s supper contemplates that He is absent.

ELM Would the upper room furnished answer to what you have just mentioned?

JT Well, the Lord said, “Ye shall say to the master of the house, The teacher says to thee, Where is the guest-chamber” Luke 22:11. The master was not there, but His authority was there. That is the principle. “He will show you a large upper room furnished”. Luke 22:12. There is One whose word has weight. The thing was there — that is, the authority — in those two whom the Lord sent; He had sent two Himself.

HL Should it be a matter of exercise with each of us to discern that authority?

JT You cannot have the assembly; without it. There are those who go on with a form of meeting, but that element is not there. In view of conditions in this world, you cannot go on without it.

FWB I would like a little more help about this authority. In John’s gospel He says, “Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted to them”. John 20:23. There is the authority there.

JT Well, that is the same thing in another form; it has to do with forgiveness there.

JP You would not say we have apostolic authority now?

JT It is “the authority” in Mark 13; the article is there, showing that His authority is here. He has “given to his bondmen the authority”, Mark 13:34 in view of His going away.

^[p. 392] JP Would not the fear of Christ regulate everything and characterise everything?

JT But we need more than that; we need something that is authoritative. We want the element of authority. Those who go on in imitation have not got this.

HL Would that be a different thing from moral power?

JT Moral power underlies it. The figure in Mark is a man going away, but he leaves his house in order. Going away, you want your house to run on as though you were present. In Mark the authority is there, while the Lord is away.

FWB The servants can act in the name of their master?

JT Authority is there; the servants have it.

KLM That principle is found where saints are truly gathered in assembly.

JT It is.

WAS The authority in the assembly cannot be resisted?

JT Not with impunity.

TT In Luke 7 the centurion says, “I am a man under authority”. Luke 7:8. Is that this principle?

JT Yes, the authority was there.

KTS Then it is not assumption to speak of there being still authority in the assembly?

JT Not at all. You may as well give up all that God has revived unless you hold to that. There is power to deal with lawlessness.

Ques What about the Holy Spirit?

JT The Holy Spirit is here in that relation, but it is to His bondmen that the Lord has given the authority. It could not be effective without the Holy Spirit. On the other hand, according to Matthew the Lord Himself is with His people as acting for Him; nevertheless; what is done is their act.

JP The bondman is one who is truly ^[p. 393] subject.

It is only one who is subject who can exercise authority.

JT But it is more than being subject; there is authority there. Of course you could not see it in one who was not subject.

FWB Why do you connect this authority here with the Supper?

JT Because it is in that setting we get it. He says, “I have received of the Lord” — not ‘Jesus’, or ‘Christ’. The Corinthians were abusing it, not acting rightly in coming together, so the apostle is now saying that he received it from the Lord, because that is what they needed to be reminded of.

TT Is that principle in the Lord’s word to Philadelphia; He speaks of Himself as having the key of David in a day of brokenness, and then He sets before them an opened door which no one can shut?

JT Well, just so; it is in His hands; He is using it on their behalf. What we are speaking of, however, is connected more with the “little power” Revelation 3:8 that Philadelphia had.

FWB How does this work out in a local company, when you cannot exactly find the assembly?

JT You realise it as you come together in the Lord’s name. For instance, if you are dealing with sin, you come together in the Lord’s name and realise that there is authority there. You hold to the principle in your mind that there is such a thing — that is authority — and the Lord supports you in it.

ELM That would be good for a day of the greatest weakness outwardly; you hold it in the faith of your soul, without assuming to be anything. The authority of the Lord would be a living thing.

JT It would, because it is in a representative way. It is in those whom He has left; He has gone away, and the house is not to be in disorder in His absence, and thus He has given them the authority.

^[p. 394] And so in coming together to break bread there is the recognition of what has been received from the Lord, from the One who has given the authority to us.

ELM I suppose both responsibility and discipline, in principle, would flow from that.

FWB Would the contrary to that — not recognising the Lord’s authority lead to looseness?

JT It would. That is what is going on in counterfeit things around us; authority is not there.

TT The exercise of will in the assembly is a very solemn matter: it is opposition to the Lord Himself.

JT It is indeed. That is what they were doing here. In their behaviour as coming together, they were disregarding all this, therefore they were guilty in respect of the body and blood of the Lord.

JP Would you get the authority set out in what the Lord said to the disciples in Luke 22:26: “Let the greater among you be as the younger, and the leader as he that serves”? The One who had all authority was the greatest servant.

JT No doubt but there is that which has power against evil; you feel it is there to keep evil in check. Our own wills are kept in check.

JP Among the gentiles, “they that exercise authority over them are called benefactors; but ye shall not be thus”. Luke 22:25,26. There would be the entire absence of assumption, I thought.

JT Yes. The point is, the thing we are speaking of is authority that acts against the will of the flesh. It is there as a principle which the Lord supports. When Sennacherib comes up against Jerusalem, there is nothing outwardly that can stand against him. His general derided what there was, but there is a principle there that cannot be overcome. “The virgin, the daughter of Zion hath despised thee, and laughed thee to scorn; the daughter of Jerusalem hath shaken her head at thee”, ^[p. 395] Isaiah 37:22.

HJ You reach back to God in that way.

JT Yes. This was in answer to Hezekiah’s prayer.

KLM In Matthew 16 the nature of the assembly is that the gates of hades shall not prevail against it. It is an impregnable position.

TT The apostle Paul received it from above from the Lord on this principle of authority. He said earlier, “Are we stronger than he?” 1 Corinthians 10:22.

JT That is just what he is saying. It is not that he has received it from the Head, or the Son of God, or Christ; it is from the Lord: — from the One in authority.

KTS Is not that a comfort to those who get out of the systems? They find there is that which is nowhere else.

JT Those who returned, having seen the Lord go up, came to the upper room — Peter and James and John, Andrew, Philip and Thomas and the others were staying there; in them there was the guarantee for the rights of Christ to be maintained. They would not brook anything contrary to that.

JP Do you mean they made it their home?

JT Well, their living associations were there; but there was the local thought — they were staying. You cannot have the assembly composed of people who keep moving about. The initial idea is that we are staying there.

JTS Does it suggest that the Supper can only rightly be taken where the authority of the Lord is recognised and owned?

JT That is it exactly; Hence it is here to break down all irregularity. He points out to them that these irregular things were going on, and that they affected the Lord; the body and blood of the Lord. How serious that is! He begins the subject by saying (verse 17); “But in prescribing to you on this that which I now enter on, I do not praise, namely, that ye come together, not for the better, but for the worse”. 1 Corinthians 11:17.

^[p. 396] They would have to do with the Lord in regard to that.

ELM Is not what you have touched on the crux of every assembly difficulty that has ever been? The authority of the Lord invaded in some form or other.

JT Exactly. That is what came up twenty-one years ago — the Lord was not allowed to adjust a matter in His own domain. The Lord has worked out much since then from the principle that was refused, but which He maintained. I believe He has been helping us ever since, working out from the principle of local responsibility in connection with the Lord’s supper — local privilege and order, what belongs to the locality.

JMcM Would that authority maintain the rights of Christ as Son over His own house?

JT It would maintain the rights of Christ; that is the point. The Lord, as it says in Mark, was as a man going out of the country; it contemplates the Lord away, but as Son over the house is another thing. Hebrews does not contemplate Him away; there it is said He is over the house — that is, in a spiritual sense. We contemplate the Lord as having left things here, and also as having left the means of taking care of them during His absence.

JP Is there any difference between Christ’s house and the house of God? “The master of the house” Mark 13:35 — He is not master in God’s house, but Son, or great Priest.

JT It is a figure in Mark 13, but it establishes the principle we are speaking of, that the Lord leaves His affairs here in the hands of others. He has furnished them, so that things are carried on as if He were here.

JP He has left His own house in charge of His ^[p. 397] servants.

JT But the house is a figure in the end of Mark, showing that the Lord has left His interests here, and now we are responsible while He is away. He has furnished us with all that is necessary. Properly it is God’s house in Hebrews 3. Christ is over it as Son.

Rem Is it not important that it says, “For I have received of the Lord”, 1 Corinthians 11:23?

JT And that was after the Lord had gone away, showing His mind was still the same. What the twelve were cognisant of is also delivered to Paul. What he had delivered is again gone over here, but it says he received it of the Lord.

JC Where was this authority during the dark days?

JT Well, it was there, but had not been taken up. Now there has been a revival. Attention is called to what is here, and through God’s grace some have accepted responsibility as to it, but it has not changed at all.

ELM It would be getting back to first principles — not to something new in our day?

JT Yes, that is the thought, so that in John’s gospel, when the Lord is surrounded, He went back to the place where John baptised at the first (John 10:40 - 42), that is to say, to bring out first principles. “Many believed on him there” — that is like the present day.

TT How does this authority work out in local meetings?

JT It is always present where the saints are gathered in relation to Christ; that is, as “in assembly”. But while the Lord supports His people as acting for Him, the authority is given in view of His absence.

JMcM It is not in a way delegated to two or three brethren in a ‘care meeting’?

JT Every one is responsible as to the Lord’s interests really. But as to actual power, it is a ^[p. 398] question of what one is. It is seen in whom it is seen. Thus the authority the Lord gave to His bondmen can be maintained only by moral power.

Ques One feels the need of the recognition of this authority in a day like this. Do you think there is any possibility of seeking to use this authority of one’s own self-will?

JT Yes; but then it would lose its character. It would not really be this authority then. The authority that the Lord gave is to be regarded by itself; its maintenance depends on spiritual formation in the saints, indeed on the Spirit Himself.

Ques I wondered if there was such a thing as seeking to make use of the expression in a self-willed way?

JT Rome has done this; assuming it, the greatest persecution against the people of God has been perpetrated. On the other hand, in John’s epistle you have it in a woman — in “the elect lady” 2 John 1; she could use it. In fact, any christian can use it; the thing is there for us. 2 Timothy shows how it applies at the present time. It is used in a moral way, not an official way.

JP I suppose we must beware of Diotrephes?

JT He was casting out of the assembly; but that would be the abuse of the authority, which is full-blown in Rome.

JTS Does this suggest the authority alluded to in the addresses to the various assemblies?

JT That is the ground of the exhortations by the Lord: “I have against thee that thou permittest the woman Jezebel ...”. Revelation 2:20. Why did they suffer the evil? The Lord had given authority to deal with it. There is no reason why we should not act against sin and keep it in check.

JB The authority was given to the bondservants. Does it not follow that only those who are ^[p. 399] true bondservants are qualified to act for Him in that way?

JT The authority is given to them, but that would include all of us.

ELM You are a bondservant, in principle, if you are baptised; that is the ground you take. Is your point not so much the question of moral fitness of the saints in exercising it, but the thing itself in principle as here?

JT That is the first thing to get hold of — the thing is here. It is sure to show itself in those who have judged what is contrary in themselves. If I am ruling my own spirit, I am greater than he that taketh a city. This will show itself; it cannot be denied.

ELM Is that emphasised in chapter 14? The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.

JT The prophets have power to rule themselves. If I rule my own spirit, the brethren soon begin to recognise that I have moral weight; and I act intelligently.

TT At the dispute in Jerusalem Peter rose up, and the power was seen in him.

JT Yes; you see how it came out in Acts 15.

FWB There was a time when people were afraid to join themselves because of it.

JT The early christians manifested the work of God in them in that they continued in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship. There was no room for any independent teachers; it was a question of the apostles — those who represented the Lord.

HL That is how the testimony is secured.

JT Even if the apostles were taken away, the authority remained.

JMcM Would that secure the presence of the Lord, and the manifestations?

JT Yes. Now we might see how in chapter 15 subjection culminates in spirituality. The apostle ^[p. 400] brings in the six different appearings, to show us how the subjection that is indicated culminates in spirituality.

FWB What is spirituality?

JT Spirituality is expressed in Christ risen, in that He moves about among the saints outside the realm of material things. As risen, the Lord was outside of this creation; He was not limited by it. When He came into manhood He accepted the limitations governing the position, but as risen from the dead He is altogether outside of them.

ELM Would that be the proper sphere of headship?

JT That is where it is, and I believe that these six appearings of the Lord are to accelerate spirituality, to show the way of it, in order that that feature should go on right to the end. Man cannot understand it — I mean man in the flesh. It is altogether outside his range.

WAS There are no limitations to God’s activities in that sphere?

JT No; the domain of resurrection is a wide domain. It is in Christ risen. The apostle had already delivered these things to them (verse 3), but he goes back to them. We read, He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve, then to five hundred brethren at once; then to James, to all the apostles, and finally to Paul. He had told them that before, and now he brings it in again. He would bring in this feature — the appearing of the risen Man. He showed Himself alive, it says in the beginning of Acts, by many proofs. There are six distinct appearings mentioned here, each of which has its own meaning. The first is that the material of the assembly is spiritual. Cephas means a stone. That person who is known as ‘a stone’, the Lord appears to him. In Luke 24 He appeared to Simon; that is man in responsibility here. Here it is not Simon, but Cephas — his ^[p. 401] spiritual name.

JMcM The thing is to be impressed with the appearing.

JT These appearings are in connection with a spiritual order of things, and we can touch that order through Christ by the Spirit now. The world could not interfere with Him now. It sees Him no more; He is outside its range. “Judas, not the Iscariote, says to him, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself to us and not to the world?” John 14:22. He would well understand this after these appearings.

HL “If one died for all, then were all dead”. 2 Corinthians 5:14. Is that the way we come into this?

JT That is exactly right. Even though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we Him no more.

FWB Is there a kind of order in these appearings?

JT I think there is. Cephas is a stone, the material; that person is to be impressed with what Christ is in a spiritual way. Then the twelve represent the administrative element — not the apostles here, but the twelve, the numeral conveying the thought of the Lord. The number being so divisible assumes the presence of love in them. The Lord can manipulate them as He pleases — send them one by one, two by two, or three by three, and so on. He can divide them up for His administration to the best advantage according to His wisdom. I have no doubt that is how we shall be in the millennium. It is a solid thing or substance the Lord has in His hands that will be used through the universe for the service of His love: We shall be divided up by the Lord in His wisdom, so that the influence of the heavenly city will be everywhere.

It is a solid, not an abstract thing. The Lord has His people in that way under His hand for the distribution of divine things in this world; these twelve have that in view. Then the next is to more ^[p. 402] than five hundred brethren at once. The apostle kept trace of them; he knew them. Some of them had, fallen asleep, but most remained unto the present day; the apostle speaks as if he knew every one of them. I am sure, if Paul went to a meeting, he would inquire, Is there one of these five hundred here?

JP They were important men; he knew where they were.

JT I am sure he did.

FWB What does the thought of brethren convey to your mind?

JT The family. Therefore, you have the material in Cephas, administration in the twelve, then the family — five hundred — a goodly representation of the many brethren of whom Christ is first-born.

JC What enabled these brethren to see the Lord?

JT They were able to see Him. Do you not think, if the Lord came in here now, you would see Him?

Rem The world did not see Him; but you were saying if the apostle went to any place, he would inquire for these five hundred?

JT He would like to see any one of them. We have no record of a repetition of it. This is one particular occurrence he alludes to, and he says, “Of whom the most remain until now, but some also have fallen asleep”.

ELM Whilst these are historical incidents, the thing in the principle of it remains available to us.

JT That is the thing, I judge. We might say, if there are those today who have any like experience they are sure to be impressive, to exert a peculiar influence. That is what the apostle undoubtedly had in mind in referring to them. They were witnesses of an appearing of Christ to brethren. Think of a man like him, so much being always on his mind, remembering these five hundred! It shows how interesting they were to him.

TT ^[p. 403] It is encouraging that it is above five hundred, suggesting there is an opening into such a privilege for many of us.

JR Anyone who has had a spiritual manifestation is sure to exert a peculiar influence. The Lord would have an object in view in appearing to five hundred brethren.

ELM Would this not be of vital importance to each one, as a secret between our souls and the Lord, and we should not be content to go on without it?

JT Quite.

JMcM We have never connected chapter 15 with the Lord’s supper — that is passing on from the Lord’s supper, the truth of the bread and the cup, to a resurrection order of things.

JT It follows on it after the intervening subjects; it is the spiritual side.

WAS Is it the mount of Olives?

JT It would refer to it. Then the next after the five hundred is James — one man. That would be the man whom the Lord would have under His hand for a crisis. The Lord intended that man to have personal influence.

JP Peter tells them to go and tell James.

JT There is no doubt that this was the James whom everyone knew. The Lord appeared to him by himself.

Ques Would you say that these spiritual manifestations are open to those who recognise the Lord’s authority here, and who see that it is adhered to?

JT It makes room, I believe, for Him to come in spiritually.

HL Is there provision in that for the maintenance of the testimony?

JT That is what I think. Then you have all the apostles. That would be a confirmation of the selection of Matthias. “All” suggests that there is nothing outside of that. Everything that suggests ^[p. 404] authority is there. The authority would be tempered by the Lord appearing.

ELM It would eliminate the spirit of Diotrephes.

JT We have to look around and see if there is anyone whom the Lord has impressed personally — one that He has under His hand for some use.

FWB Paul brings himself in at the last.

JT “Last of all”, as if he was a kind of last man, and the last is always first. He is the last in the list at Antioch, and he speaks of himself as less than the least of all saints. He is really the first, because he has the greatest conception of things, without pushing himself at all. He is first, too, in the mind of God and in the affections of the saints.

HJW That man in examining himself goes down the ladder instead of up. First, he regards himself as the least of the apostles, then as less than the least of all saints, and at the end the chief of sinners.

JE Is not the Lord’s name our authority during His absence?

JT But there is the element of authority, that is, the power to keep things in check.

ETS If that is not present in a meeting, what is to be done?

JT There seems nothing to do but to turn to the Lord. The Lord will surely come in for us, if it is interfered with. A sure guarantee for the authority is mutual feeling; the responsibility attaches to every one.

WAS Would the bondman in Mark 13 answer to the angel in Revelation?

JT Pretty much. If I am not a bondman of Christ, what am I?

JMcM You would not accept of any one brother the statement that ‘I am responsible for what goes on in this meeting’?

JT That is presumption. Responsibility is in the ‘angel’, who includes all in principle. The ^[p. 405] responsibility is in every believer; therefore it attaches to me. All are responsible. If anyone says he is not, he is not fit to be in fellowship. I am concerned about everything that happens, whether I am a brother or a sister. The unfailing principle is, everyone is responsible. If I am judging myself, I have moral weight, even if it is a sister. There is a power against evil.

JP To be practical, is not the first thing to recognise the principle, and the next thing to seek to know the mind of the Lord? That would bring us down on our knees. There have been cases where there has been a deadlock. The only way to get out of it is to go down before the Lord.

JT Each one has to inquire whether he is in the way. Christianity was never intended to be a one man affair (of course I am not referring to Christ, who is Head of the assembly). It is a mutual thing; everyone is brought in, especially in regard to responsibility. Everyone is responsible to the Lord, and that makes room for the Spirit, and shuts out clericalism. Sometimes you hear that a brother is the exercised brother in the district; but is he? When the Lord went to Bethany, Martha met Him and He did not belittle her in any way. The Lord will not pass over any one in the meeting; He regards every one of us. Martha met Him, and He remained in the place where she met Him; Mary had to come there; Martha was important in her place to the Lord as Mary was. In John, room is made for every bit of the work of God. Nicodemus is owned.

ELM Is there any outstanding feature in Paul?

JT I think the assembly, as seen in his ministry, would be in the Lord’s mind as appearing to him. He had the ministry of the assembly, and the Lord would impress him in that relation. We know how the Lord’s words to him on that occasion included the assembly: “Why persecutest thou me?” Acts 22:7, Acts 26:14.