WHERE CHRIST'S NAME IS ABHORRED AND WHERE HE IS CHERISHED
WHERE CHRIST’S NAME IS ABHORRED AND WHERE HE IS CHERISHED
JT I thought it would be well to see the effect of the testimony, as rendered by the apostles, on the leaders of the world; and then I think another important point in the chapter is that Christians now have that which they regard as their own company, which is marked off from the world.
FL I think that principle is one of the greatest value, perhaps of greater value in the last days than at any other time.
JT That is, Christians have that which they regard as their own.
FL Yes; their own company.
JT One may be justified in dividing the chapter into two distinct parts: the earlier part indicating the sphere in which the name of Christ is abhorred, and the other that in which Christ and His interests are cherished.
FL It seems to me that one very important reason why this should be of value to us now is, that there has grown up a kind of neutral ground and neutral state of mind; a circle where the name of Christ is not exactly abhorred, and yet it is not the home of the saints; so that it becomes of great value to go back to this in order that we do not drift into the camp that is outside, and that we keep true to our own company.
JT One safeguard for us is to be true to the testimony. That may be putting things on low ground, because it is making the believer’s safety of more importance than the testimony, but it is true that as faithful to the testimony we are protected. We shall find that the influence of the world will be against us in the measure in which we are true to the testimony of Christ. The rank and file of men as a rule are not [p. 99] exactly hostile to God; not that there is anything in nature that appreciates God, but the rank and file of the people listened to the apostles, and many believed. What is important to note is that the testimony of what was being accomplished in the name of the Nazarene stirred up the animosity of the leaders. Verse 5 says, “And it came to pass on the morrow, that their rulers, and elders, and scribes, and Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem. And when they had set them in the midst, they asked”.
The whole circle of the leaders and their relatives were in commotion, because they evidently felt that this that was being done compromised and endangered their position. Therefore I think the importance of making clear that what is of God now for men is administered in this One who, in man’s account, is nothing — the Nazarene. Yet everything of God now is in His name. Then comes the importance of what was effected through Him. They preached through Jesus the resurrection. Not that He was risen simply, but that the resurrection came in through Jesus. That is, in a sense, the leading feature of the testimony; the power of God on behalf of man has come in through the One whom the leaders despised.
FL And so there was the introduction of a completely new order of things.
JT That is what the resurrection means.
FL So they had discernment of a certain kind. They saw the doom of their line if this were to gain ground.
JT Just so; as they had said in John 11:48: All men would believe on Him, and the Romans would come and take away both their place and nation.
FL One can understand the extraordinary energy and consuming zeal in a man like Saul of Tarsus who was a leader amongst men. At the outset of his life [p. 100] everything that he stood for and valued, was imperilled if this new thing was to gain ground.
JT These men evidently felt that the ground was slipping from under their feet. They were the leaders of the people.
WCR You find in Acts 19 the hostility of the world, to the testimony of Paul, in Demetrius the silversmith and others. They saw their craft was in danger.
JT Just so; and the truth of the resurrection is so sweeping that it involves the total displacement of the man that exists literally.
FL I think that is an interesting point our brother mentions. Here we get the undermining of Judaism, and at Ephesus it was the undermining of the world of arts and idolatry. The testimony of the risen Man at the right hand of God was undermining every principle.
JT So that it is helpful in that connection to examine the book of Joshua, because it corresponds with the testimony of the apostles. The book of Joshua, I think, gives us the leading features of the world, the strength of the world system: the political centre, and the centre of literature: the city of the giant and the city of the book. Both were taken possession of by Caleb. That is, the energy of the Spirit in the testimony of the apostles overthrew all these great centres by which men are held. The politics of the world, and the literature and culture of the world were set aside. These are things by which Satan holds men, and the testimony of the apostles overthrew them. That is to say, it overthrew them for those who believed. So that in the Christian company there was not one single element of the world system remaining. All were overthrown.
Rem It was in connection with the healing of this lame man that all this was brought about.
JT Yes. He was the standing witness to [p. 101] the power wielded in the name of Jesus and the leaders say, “we cannot deny it”.
ANW What character of enmity do you see in Herod at the birth of Christ?
JT I think Herod’s hatred was the antichristian hatred. I think he stands for the antichrist in that respect, because it was a question of the King. The testimony of the wise men was, that there was a King born: “Where is he that is born King of the Jews?” Matthew 2:2. Now if a King was born to the Jews, Herod was superseded. So that virtually his hostility was to the King.
FL They are both united here in the prayer of the Christian company - Herod and Pontius Pilate - not that Herod, indeed, but his son. He was the anti-christian element, and Pilate represented the empire.
JT I think the earlier part of this chapter shows the sphere in which the testimony is rendered; and, moreover, it gives an idea of what is presented; that is to say, the resurrection. The power of God is presented in the name of Jesus. Things on God’s part are brought to pass by Jesus.
GAT Did he have a reason for putting in Jesus of Nazareth here; verse 10?
JT Yes; and so all through these chapters. “Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?” John 1:46. It was a term of reproach, and God accepts the term but He shows that however little men may have thought of His Son, it was in that name that things were being done here upon earth. Not through the priests and elders, but in that Man’s name; so the point Peter makes is, “neither is there salvation in any other”. “There is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved” Acts 4:12. — a most sweeping statement. Christians have been accustomed for twenty centuries to honour Christ, but in those days Christ was regarded popularly as an [p. 102] impostor, and of little or no account, so far as the world saw; so that it was a most sweeping statement to make, that salvation was in no other name under heaven. That meant that the priests’ names went for nothing. These men had names; but now it was evident that in God’s account their names and offices went for nothing. If their position meant anything, it meant that they were there on God’s behalf. They were the high priests and now if God was acting in another name, their offices went for nothing.
GAT The lame man was a proof of what was being done. Does that speak to us at all?
JT I have often thought that there ought to be a witness to the testimony of the gospel. Would you not say that?
FL I think so most fully. I think it is a most important point to bear in mind and one should be careful in regard to the testimony of the gospel to see what there is supporting it, and if there is nothing, cry to God about it. It seems evident here that the point was the energy and vitality in the man, in the standing and leaping and walking and praising.
AH Do you mean, if you do not see any fruits?
FL I was not thinking of that, but rather the question of what God has wrought as being the support and evidence in connection with the testimony that is being given.
JT Yes. Peter’s testimony here is supported by the man. The man was an evidence of God’s power.
GAT Is it not right that he stuck to them? He kept their company, he did not join himself to anybody else.
JT But the faithfulness of Peter is very remarkable, and the way in which he makes it so clear that there is not any other; because the question here is not of what Christ is personally, but of what He is officially. They were officials, and therefore they could well understand the force of what [p. 103] he was saying.
JNH His name Jesus would attach to Him officially.
JT He is not here, He is in heaven but His name is under heaven.
ANW What were these people the builders of?
JT It is a question of the ground they occupied. As a matter of fact they were not building anything for God. But God gives them credit for building, and He presents Christ to them as a stone. It seems to me to be wonderful condescension on the part of God to present His Son to the builders in that way for their acceptance or rejection, but He did it, and they rejected Him; that is, they were at issue with God, because God had a different mind from theirs in regard to the stone. His mind was so different that God gave Him the most conspicuous place in the building, showing this intrinsic worth of the stone in God’s account.
FL I would like to emphasise that by reading this: “to whom coming a living stone, cast away indeed as worthless by men” - a very strong expression — “but with God, precious ... To you therefore who believe is the preciousness”. 1 Peter 2:4,5; 1 Peter 2:7. I think the issue is drawn there in very strong lines.
JT That is a very strong expression, “cast away as worthless by men”. Here he is dealing with the leaders of Israel, and gives them full credit as being builders, but as builders they were poor judges of stone.
GAT Pilate was not sure what to do with Christ.
JT The priests had no hesitation. They said, “Away with him”. John 19:15. So that this section of the chapter is important. We were seeking this morning to dwell on the testimony, and this scripture helps us to see the features of the testimony. The things that the apostles presented were, resurrection as having come in through Christ, and that salvation was in His [p. 104] name here upon earth. There was active power for good in the name of Christ here.
RSS The question was asked this morning as to what the important features were in connection with the establishment of the church, in the first instance, to which now, in a day of failure, we have to go back. What should engage our attention the most? I think you mentioned in that connection the commandments of the Lord.
JT And then I think as recognising His authority in that way, the next thing would be unity amongst us; for any unity that does not recognise the authority of Christ is evidently spurious. Therefore the commandments of Christ are of so much importance. I think the object of the enemy at the present time is not so much to scatter God’s people; his object is rather to corrupt them. That is, to set aside the authority of Christ amongst them. The maintaining of unity at the cost of the authority of Christ would serve Satan’s ends.
WLP Would you say Christ’s words are the same as Christ’s commandments?
JT Not quite. Christ’s commandments are specific. You value His words because they are His. It is not exactly what the words may be, but rather that they are His words. You keep His words.
RSS As expressing His mind rather than His distinct commandments. Commandment carries with it the thought of obedience.
JT Yes, it is specific whereas word may not be a commandment, but a communication or revelation. For instance, Mary sat at the Lord’s feet and heard His word. It is not a question of the things that He said. The point is rather, that she was listening to that Person.
FL The word of the Lord would include all that He has spoken, all that He has opened up of the counsels of God; while a commandment would be illustrated in this: “A new commandment I give unto you that ye love one another as I have loved you” John 15:12.
JT Yes; and the commandments were intended to regulate us in His absence. In giving a commandment the thought is largely that you are not there yourself, and the commandment is to take your place. One that kept Christ’s word would gladly recognise His commandment, but the commandments precede the word in the history of our souls. You must submit to Christ’s authority.
B Would the one speak of authority and the other of affection?
JT Yes, more that. The Lord would open up His heart to us; that is His word.
JNH In view of this question that we are discussing, where would you place, “this do in remembrance of me”? Luke 22:19.
JT That is scarcely a commandment, but more a request. Commandments are specific and there are no modifications There is no release from the obligation the Lord’s commandments lay upon us.
RSS But the Lord’s expressed desire that we should break bread in remembrance of Him does not involve obligation in the same sense.
FL I think where it is a question of a wish or a known desire on the part of one we love, it takes the force of a command, but it is not the same thing as a specific commandment.
AAT What are some of His specific commandments?
JT I take the whole of 1 Corinthians as conveying to us the commandments of the Lord.
WHF Have you the two thoughts in John 14:21 & John 14:23, “He that hath my commandments and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me”, and “If a man love me he will keep my words”?
JT Yes. In that chapter He speaks of sending [p. 106] the Comforter on the ground of their loving Him and keeping His commandments. He contemplates the whole company of the saints as loving Him; but as He proceeds in the passage I think He takes into account the history of the assembly: some would not love Him and therefore they would break His commandments, and so to keep His commandments in those days would be the proof of love; hence, “He that hath my commandments and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me”, John 14:21.
RSS Is that the reason why, in that part of the chapter, he speaks of the individual — he?
JT Yes. In a day like ours our love for Christ is tested by adherence to His commandments.
WHF “If a man love me, he will keep my words”. John 14:23.
GAT Would the new commandment cover it all?
JT Not quite, because you require specific commandments for conditions arising, and conditions arose at Corinth which served as an occasion for the Lord to give certain rules by which the assembly is to be controlled. You need light about certain things, and the apostle gave it to the Corinthians. The test of a man’s spirituality would be that he recognised what the apostle wrote as the commandment of the Lord; 1 Corinthians 14: 37.
WLP We find Christ’s commandments in the epistles as well, do we not?
JT I think so. Maybe if we inquired into it we should be able to locate them.
FL I think we get support in that, because the apostle, in writing to the Corinthians, distinguishes between his own judgment and the commandments of the Lord. I hope we shall take this very much to heart, because I am sure that the trouble amongst us is very much the kind of looseness that if we think we have a right motive we are justified, although transgressing the Lord’s commandments. We can go [p. 107] anywhere, or do anything, and trouble and confusion come in because we are not paying attention to His commandments.
JT As to John 14, what is so precious to the believer in days such as these is that the Lord contemplates that there should be some who would love him, and all the blessedness of the assembly in its original days would be made good to such. Some would not love Him, and hence the force of what He says as to those who would.
RSS Would the individual have the Father and the Son abiding with him?
JT I do not say that he would have it as isolated, but he would enjoy it. Where he would have it is another matter; the passage does not indicate this. All it indicates is that the person, on account of his state, would enjoy the divine presence. I have no doubt at all that it is amongst the saints; you would enjoy it in the assembly, though there might be others about you who do not love Him and do not keep His commandments. It would be guaranteed to you because of your state.
FL You must not lose the value of the personal pronoun, and its singular number.
WLP It is individual in Revelation 3:20: “If any man hear my voice and open the door”.
JT Yes. “I will come in to him and sup with him and he with me”. You may have a company of Christians gathered, and only a very few get the benefit of the divine visitation, because the enjoyment of the presence of a divine Person depends on your state.
Rem Then the proof of your love is in keeping His commandments.
JT Yes. You often hear brethren say, ‘I have the best motive, and the Lord knows my heart’, but what we have to go by is what the Lord has enjoined, not what is in people’[p. 108] s hearts.
RSS That is where David broke down in connection with the bringing up of the ark. The motive was all right, but he did not do it “after the due order”. 1 Chronicles 15:13. The consequence was that God expressed His displeasure by the death of Uzzah.
JT And the same comes out in Saul the king. I think he had the most plausible excuses in not waiting for Samuel, but then he had broken the Lord’s commandments. Samuel says, “Thou hast done foolishly”. He said he could not help it, that the Philistines were upon him. His excuses were very plausible, but Samuel says, “But now thy kingdom shall not continue: the Lord hath sought him a man after his own heart”. 1 Samuel 13:14.
WCR You see the same thing when Moses smote the rock.
FL Things which are very much exercising us at the present time have this character: that men, honestly moved by kindly sentiments and by well meaning motives, are ignoring divine principles and divine precepts and that is why there is confusion. Just as soon as we regard what we are now speaking of, confusion disappears.
JT Yes. It is said, ‘It was not sufficient to cause any trouble’; but that is making little of sin.
RSS And of the commandments of the Lord.
JT Yes. As Samuel says further to Saul, “stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry”. 1 Samuel 15: 23.
FL It is a common enough saying in the world, that the sin in the garden of Eden was not sufficient cause to bring all this suffering into the world. It was an injunction, a commandment, and it was the breaking of it that has brought all the trouble into the world. And that remains true all through. So long as we give God His rights, we are right and safe from confusion, but the moment we get the impression that anything in the way of a precept is of minor importance we land into [p. 109] trouble.
JT I think it is most encouraging, that whilst we are responsible to keep His commandments, yet the result is that, as doing so, the Lord manifests Himself to us.
RSS And I rather think we have an impression connected with commandments as being something hard and difficult, whereas they are not. We are, if we love Him, very anxious to know what the Lord would have us to do under certain conditions, and it is an immense gain to us to have His commandments; thus we are not left without definite instructions. They are not burdensome or grievous; they are the expression of the Lord’s direct mind and will, and to one who loves Him, it is a great relief to find that.
GAT Supposing you are in a meeting, and you notice the commandments of the Lord are broken, perhaps in a small way, would it be better to leave it alone or take it up and divide the saints over it?
JT I think the rights of Christ must be the first consideration with every one that loves Him. That is a cardinal principle in the assembly. It is on that principle we are gathered, and if not we are not gathered aright.
AAT It would be unrighteousness, would it not?
JT Yes, and worse.
RSS Because it is rebellion in a way.
JT It is, and that is the worst thing in God’s account, it is what Satan was guilty of.
GAT So you stand for the rights of Christ, and not for the feelings of your brethren?
WHF Did not that come out in connection with Korah? It was rebellion.
JT Yes. Rebellion against the priest and king.
AAT Do I understand that ordinary sins committed by saints are not so grievous to the Lord as ignoring His authority?
JT You would not like to modify sin in any way, but the Scriptures speak of rebellion as the leading [p. 110] feature of sin and that is the reason why I regard the condition of Christendom as so serious. The authority of Christ is wholly disregarded, and you cannot have anything in God’s account more serious than that.
AAT That brings us back to what was said concerning the authority of the Lord and the Lord’s supper.
JT Yes. There is the error of Balaam, who sought reward; and the gainsaying of Core. God would strike at rebellion; the earth opened her mouth and swallowed up Core and his company.
WHF Do you not think that is the question at issue at the present moment?
JT Yes. It was the same thing in Bethesda. The rights of the Lord, and the order and holiness of the house of God were compromised.
LKM Would it not be a help to us to recognise that the Lord’s commandments are in connection with resurrection?
JT I think that His commandments, in a way, take His place till He returns. In leaving this world He has left certain commandments whereby his people are regulated till He returns.
WHF He “commanded the porter to watch” (Mark 13:34): would not watching be regarding the commandments of Christ?
JT Yes. I think there is great need of porters just now, because what the enemy would do is to introduce evil elements. The work of the porters is largely to look after the door so that the right kind of people are admitted.
WLP What would you say in regard to one who might be breaking bread with us and yet practically identified with others that are loose?
JT You would have to tell him that you could not walk with him.
RSS That is in connection with any overt act.
JT Exactly. You cannot judge a man by what [p. 111] he may intend to do. God waits for overt acts before He intervenes in judgment.
GAT Suppose a man is going on contrary to what you believe, and opposes it?
JT I think you would have to wait for an overt act of rebellion before he should be refused.
RSS That is what the Lord did in connection with Judas.
GAT I suppose if a meeting was in a good spiritual condition he would be exposed quickly.
JT But it is evident we have to leave people in regard to their state; we must wait till they do something wrong before resorting to discipline.
RSS As to John 14:21 — “He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them ... I will love him and will manifest myself to him”. I was wondering if that has not a connection with what we were speaking about a good deal on a former occasion in connection with the Lord’s supper: to break bread in remembrance of Him, because He is absent. But then this verse assures us that those who keep His commandments love Him, and to those who love Him, He will manifest Himself; and, therefore, while we are there we may expect Him to come and manifest Himself to us.
JT And therefore those who enjoy the manifestation are those who love Him. It does not follow that those who are there — that every person literally in the meeting - will enjoy His presence. I think His presence is known to those who love Him.
RSS And it is exceedingly encouraging to think of ourselves as coming together as those who love Him and have a claim on Him in that very way. You think of yourselves as a company into the midst of which the Lord can come.
Rem That being true, you could not keep Him waiting till the bread was broken.
JT The point that we have sought to make clear [p. 112] is that the Lord comes in in connection with the breaking of bread. In that connection He is made known to us. The act of breaking bread is that through which He is brought to our affections.
WCR That is the reason why it has been pressed by Mr. Raven that the bread should be broken early in the meeting.
JT Because you come to do that; but then you want to get what follows, that is, the divine presence; and I think you may reasonably expect it as conscious of loving the Lord.
RSS Quite so. John 14:21 is a very great help to me in connection with the morning meeting, and in connection with the brethren. You like to take account of them as those who love the Lord, and you like to be in the company of those who do, and those who love Him have a claim on Him, and He recognises it. I was going to ask as to verse 18 which also occurs in that chapter: “I will not leave you comfortless, I am coming to you”, not exactly ‘I will come’. “I am coming” suggests His attitude, not exactly that He has come.
JT I think these verses, John 14:15 - 20, contemplate the assembly as we have been dwelling on it in the early chapters of Acts. The Lord contemplates the saints as in order, and loving Him, and the Spirit comes to them as such; that is evidently Acts 2. Of the Holy Spirit, He says, “that he may abide with you for ever; even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him; but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you and shall be in you”. John 14:16,17. Now all that is clearly fulfilled in Acts 2. Then He goes on to say, “I will not leave you orphans, I am coming to you”; John 14:18. I think He simply views the church normally. After the Spirit has come, He says, as it were, ‘I will come, too, I will not leave you orphans’. Undoubtedly they expected Him, and I am certain the Lord came [p. 113] to them. He goes on to say, “Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me; because I live, ye shall live also. At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you”. John 14:19,20. Now I take that to be in the order of regular sequence, coming after the Spirit was given. The Lord would come personally to them, and they would live because He lives, and the world knew nothing of all this. But when He raises the question of the individual loving Him, I think He contemplates the breakdown, because they all loved Him at the beginning. You could not think of anybody in that company in Acts 2 not loving Him. But when He comes to verse 21 it is, “He that hath my commandments and keepeth them ... I ... will manifest myself to him”. John 14:21. I think He contemplates the possibility of some not loving Him, therefore I think it may apply to our own day.
B Do you not think we come together as individuals in affection?
JT As individuals in the wilderness. We miss the Lord, knowing He is not here. We want to see Him. Now He has appointed a means whereby we may see Him, and we come together to break bread, and He is made known to us in the breaking of bread. It seems to me as simple and clear as possible. So the breaking of bread ought to suggest Christ to you. Who could do that but one who has the Spirit and who knows Christ? And as Christ is suggested to your affections, I think you discover that He is there. It is a real thing. The real Presence is there for all those who are equal to it.
RSS And one likes to think it is of the Lord’s devising, the means by which we call Him to mind; and for that reason there could not be anything better devised.
JT Because there is one thing that all do, and we have to do individually and often; that is, we have to eat. The disciples would eat three meals a day or [p. 114] more, and the Lord evidently always broke the bread; so that it was a thing that He had done often, and so the way He did it must have been very familiar to them. It seems to me He leaves with them something that was intensely familiar to them. Thus the Lord leaves that simple reminder.
Ques Is that the reason He was known by the two disciples going to Emmaus?
JT I think so. They could not fail to recognise Him.
GAT As to manifestation, would that be some fresh impression every Lord’s day?
JT I think that is what we were seeking to show the other day. If Christ comes in you always get something new, and it gives character to all you have to say the rest of the week. You may say the same things you said before; you may use the same texts, and the same thoughts, but you give a new turn to them.
WHF Is it not in the way of communications, His coming in? I “will manifest myself to him”. John 14:21.
JT No doubt, but I think He manifests Himself. You say, “It is the Lord”. You arrive at it in that way; you feel it could not be any other than He.
GAT Is it a right thing to say you come together to meet the Lord?
JT I think you come together to break bread.
FL Can you explain this, there is evidently some deep principle underlying it: When we get together in meetings of this kind, no matter what subject we take up, almost invariably we come to the Lord’s supper? I think we might also say, invariably with great profit and with new light. I have been struck with it on this and other occasions.
JT It would look as though there was some special interest in it. I understand Mr. Darby used to say that brethren always got into Romans 7 at a reading, and I suppose it indicated where they were [p. 115] at that time, and in that way what you say is encouraging.
WHF I think I can bear witness to that; years ago Mr. Darby said it in this country.
JT I think the Lord delivered His people from that through the G. controversy. God always brings in something through these controversies, and the truth involved in Romans 7 was the issue at that time.
WHF I think that whatever scriptures we take up, the Lord directs to the very point we need.
JT I think that what is before us at the present time is the house of God, and in this connection, undoubtedly, the Lord’s supper has a great place.
RSS Do you not think that perhaps we have found that it is at that point we touch the Lord in a special way, and He touches us? There is something exceedingly attractive to the soul in the supper, and for that reason there is perhaps a desire to get help, and to understand better what our privilege is in that connection.
FL I would like that we should get the thought in the second section of the chapter.
JT In regard to the first part, the elders enjoined the apostles “not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus” Acts 4:18. In the sphere which is indicated in the early part of the chapter you have the hostility of the leaders of the world against that name. I think every believer discovers that the spirit of the world is positively hostile to Christ, and that His name is refused. They were told “not to speak at all nor to teach”. It was not that they were to renounce what they believed, but they were not to speak nor teach in the name of Jesus. That is, the enemy is content if you keep silence. But when you come to the second part (verse 23) you get your own company, and in that sphere of things that name is everything. That name is cherished, and the things of God are cherished [p. 116] there.
FL That is very good; the contrast is very suggestive, and what comes out in that circle is the manifest power of the Holy Spirit. The whole circle is engaged with the counsels of God concerning Jesus; and the identification of the Holy Spirit comes in by shaking the house with power; and then there is the moral conformity that comes out in the concluding verses, and especially as seen in Barnabas, who shows the spirit of a true Levite. He becomes a son of consolation; he devotes himself and his substance to the saints. It would all seem to run in a nice order there.
JT So the question would be, and it is a searching question, especially for young believers, as to whether that is the kind of company you would cultivate; a company in which the rights of God are maintained and cherished. God had anointed Christ, and the world was against Christ, and so the issue was really between God and the world; therefore the prayers uttered in the assembly take that into account. They speak of Herod and Pilate and the people being arrayed against Christ, whereas those in the assembly are wholly in sympathy with God in regard to the place He had given Christ.
FL I think we older ones would be disposed to say to the younger: Do not be so long in finding out the value of that place and company as some of us have been. I think we can look with a great deal of sympathy and affection and interest on those who are young in the way, and have a sincere desire of heart to be identified with that company.
JT I feel it is very serious as to those to whom God has given light, because if God continues His testimony for some years, we who have it now will be removed and another generation will have to take our place; so it is a very serious question for us as to whether we are going to hand down to them what we have had handed down to us. We should see to it [p. 117] that in handling things that have come down to us we do not adulterate them; that we pass them on to those who follow us as we have received them. And, then, on the other hand, it is serious for the younger generation that are to follow, because in their day they will have to take up these things and stand for them.
B Is it not a good thing to press on saints that they have to surrender their own interests?
JT That is the point. This company were wholly taken up with God’s interests. God’s rights were in question. The kings of the earth set themselves against God’s rights, and these people were standing for them. In the case of Barnabas, he surrendered all he had here on account of the interests of God. That is what marks those who are standing for the truth. In our day it is a question of 2 Timothy days; the truth has been passed down from one faithful man to another, so that it is a very serious matter as regards ourselves as to whether we are going to be faithful and pass it on to others.
FL Jude wrote in view of the last days, and his exhortation is to “earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints”. Jude 3. I understand that is the whole scope of what is “in Christ Jesus”; and it is that we should contend for.
JT We cannot deny that the testimony has been handed down to us, and our obligation is to hand it down to others.
Ques Did Mr. Darby do that?
JT Yes, he and others handed it down to us.