THE SPIRIT IN WHICH THE TESTIMONY IS CONTINUED
[p. 461] THE SPIRIT IN WHICH THE TESTIMONY IS CONTINUED
John 20:19 - 23; Genesis 24:61 - 67
JT It is thought that in looking at these scriptures, we shall see the way John’s ministry tends toward the testimony. In chapter 20 we have not only facts relative to the heavenly position, which is in mind also, but the Lord speaks of sending forth the disciples, saying, “Peace be to you: as the Father sent me forth, I also send you. And having said this, he breathed into them, and says to them, Receive the Holy Spirit: whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted to them; whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained”. John 20:21 - 23. That implies that the intent is not immediate access or ascent to heaven, but continuance here in testimony. In the sense in which the Lord was sent forth, so He sends the disciples forth, and then He breathes on them in that connection, saying, “Receive the Holy Spirit”, John 20:22, and adds the power to remit sins and to retain sins as if the whole testimonial position was in mind, rather than the translation to heaven. This latter is now imminent, although the bearing of the teaching even now is testimonial.
In Genesis 24 it is thought that the service of Isaac is seen similarly because he led Rebecca into his mother’s tent. Sarah’s tent would indicate the position of Israel in testimony, but occupied by the assembly, only the conditions at the outset of our dispensation involved that the testimony to the Jews was in mind. Sarah’s tent is not the position of testimony to the gentiles, it is rather what was continued, as the Holy Spirit came down, particularly to the Jews. It is thought that these lines of truth will help us and especially enable us to see the place the assembly has, and firstly in the testimony to the Jews, as in the early chapters of the Acts. It is thought, in keeping with all this, that Abraham represents the [p. 462] full heavenly side of the position, not Isaac, although he also is occupying the heavenly position, because in chapter 22 it is not said that he came down with his father and the young men, to Beer-sheba; it is as if he remained on high. Rebecca being mentioned at the end of the chapter. In the end of chapter 24, Isaac takes her into his mother’s tent and loves her as his spouse. It is thought that John’s ministry, as enhancing and implementing Paul, will be clarified as we look at these lines of truth. It is a question of life and the place life has in the testimony.
LPM Does the reference to the week and the first of it enter into the matter as connected with things here?
JT Yes, and it is a wholly new beginning, it is not a continuation from Moses, it is a wholly new beginning. So that the Spirit having come in in the Acts the apostles have the leading place in teaching. Moses is not alluded to, nor the prophets, they come in later, of course, as augmenting what was begun at Pentecost, but Pentecost began by itself, it is a wholly new beginning. And those who came into it by conversion persevered in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship. So that the apostles’ teaching has the first place in everything now; the personnel of the ministry are the apostles, and those that came in after are in connection with them.
Ques Will you enlarge a little on the thought of the testimony?
JT Well, just to bring out the added things after verse 19 in John 20, that the Lord breathed into the disciples and said to them, “as the Father sent me forth, I also send you”. John 20:21. It is not simply that they would be given the Spirit and fitted for heaven, but that they would remain here in testimony, and all that would be dependent on what the Lord thought. “If I will”, it is said later; that is, in chapter 21. If John should remain, what was that to Peter? The inference is that there was a continual testimonial position, depending on what the Lord might decide; there would be nothing fixed, and so [p. 463] the breathing into the disciples and then the authority to remit sins.
AM Does the reference to John the baptist in this gospel help in this matter? The other gospels speak about him coming, but in John he is “a man sent from God”, John 1:6.
JT Well, I think it would, because the idea of being sent implies a commission, and it is seen here in the Lord’s words, “as the Father sent me forth, I also send you”. John 20:21. And then the further commission, “whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted to them; whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained”. John 20:23. It is on the same line right through.
Ques What is the force of being sent here? Is it the sending from earth or sending from heaven?
JT Sending from earth where they were. Even as the Son of God was sent from earth; it is never said that He was sent from heaven, as far as I know. The distinction to be kept in mind, however, is that the Spirit is said to be sent; but the Lord Himself personally came; His dignity seems to be specially kept in mind and guarded. It is said, however, that He was sent, but that would be from earth. The position is that the Son of God has come, He has come down from heaven to earth; that would be His own doing, but as come here He is sent forth; taken into the position of one in service.
JH Is what is testimonial living and in the hands of the Spirit?
JT Well, quite so. The idea, I am sure, is just that; the Lord breathed into them, which would indicate the peculiar intimacy that John’s ministry implies. John gives the more intimate character of the Lord’s ministry than the other evangelists, especially beginning with chapter 13 to the end of chapter 17; and then as the Lord rose, and after He had been speaking to Mary, He “came and stood in the midst”. John 20:19. Luke 24:36 says He “stood in their midst”, but John says He “came and stood in the midst”. John 20:19.
“[p. 464] The doors were shut where the disciples were”, John 20:19, showing that there is certain inwardness and privacy, in what is recorded. I think that these considerations will help us as to the general trend of the ministry of Paul and the ministry of John; the latter being intended to augment the former, by bringing out the great thought of life, and the further greater thought still of the Lord’s Person, the deity of Christ and then what He became, He “became flesh”, it was His own action.
FJF At the end of John 15 we read, that the Holy Spirit sent from the Father would bear witness concerning Christ, and then it says “and ye too bear witness, because ye are with me from the beginning”. John 15:27. Is the apostles’ testimony that of the Spirit, carried out through them, or are they distinct?
JT Well, that passage implies that the Spirit is given subsequent to the apostles’ commission. The idea of a commission, not the mere historical fact, is involved in “ye also shall bear witness”. The Spirit Himself would bear witness, but they also would bear witness; that is apostolic, for they were commissioned. They were with the Lord from the beginning, and had that peculiar position, and the ability too, as qualified through such instruction as the Lord could give and did give them. The Spirit would bear witness, of course, throughout the whole dispensation; and that would also imply such additions as Paul, and Barnabas; the Spirit’s own liberties would be seen in that. Hence we see much of the Spirit’s liberty in Paul and Barnabas being sent out. “Separate me now Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them”; Acts 13:2; that was additional to the twelve.
Ques Is what you are speaking of calculated to bring in what is heavenly in the testimony to be manifested in life here?
JT That is good, that is just what I think.
GCS What does it suggest, that the Lord should say, “Peace be to you”?
JT Well, there is a double peace you will observe. This is the Lord’s own personal peace. He had said “I leave peace with you, I give my peace to you”; John 14:27. But we have an additional thought in verse 21 of chapter 20; “Jesus said therefore again to them, Peace be to you”. John 20:21. He had already said that when He came in (verse 19) and then He says it again, which would indicate that they were ready for what He had in mind. He would confirm it to them, and so, “Jesus said therefore again to them, Peace be to you”. John 20:21. It was the personal thought of the Lord, and His breathing was His own action. John would stress the personal dignity of Christ in all that he presents here. He says much more about what the Lord said immediately before His death, than the other evangelists do. They would see, not simply that He was going to heaven, but that He was personally able to do that, to ascend. It is said in Luke 19:38, “Peace in heaven, and glory in the highest”. That would be in view of His ascension. A state of peace would ensue, and undoubtedly the assembly would replace the devil, because the Lord had said, “I beheld Satan as lightning falling out of heaven”, Luke 10:18, assuring all that there would be peace in heaven; there would be peace in heaven before there was peace on earth, for Satan having come down from heaven, there would be a terrible time, as the book of Revelation indicates. So that the position now is what is in heaven, because Christ has gone in there.
ETS So that the Lord’s ascension would be behind all this?
JT Just so, the message to Mary was not simply the statement of the fact “I ascend”, but gives the character of the thing. On the strength of that He speaks of sending them out in a testimonial sense as we have been saying, and what was read from Genesis confirms all this, because it is the position in Sarah’s tent.
C G. What is seen in the assembly today is the reflex of what is in heaven, giving it a heavenly [p. 466] character.
JT Well, exactly, as Ephesians would show us. The gifts have come down from Christ gone beyond all the heavens, intensifying the idea of the testimony being from heaven.
JH What is the bearing of peace in relation to this matter of the testimony?
JT Well, it is over against what is going on abroad politically, “saying Peace, peace! when there is no peace”; Jeremiah 6:14; there is not any likelihood of it either, save that God modifies things in order to enable us to go through. The peace given to the apostles and peace in heaven would mean that the assembly is established in that, showing that the eternal state of things has already begun in the assembly.
LPM Would that be confirmed by the reference in Corinthians to God being the author of peace in all the assemblies of the saints? “If any one think to be contentious, we have no such custom”, 1 Corinthians 11:16.
JT Quite so. Hence the great urgency of the brethren being of one mind, not by mere consent, but by the power of the Spirit, because the Spirit would promote unity amongst us.
TSC Would Exodus 24 illustrate what you have in mind? I was thinking of the dignity and liberty of the heavenly side coming in before the testimony side in the wilderness that follows.
JT Very good. We begin with Exodus 19; we get there the law, the primary thought of God, what was given from Sinai, and all that entered into that; the priests, although they are not named, and the restrictions made on the mount, so that the law should have its needed authority, and we might say its terrors, according to Hebrews 12. But then we have the instructions of Exodus 21 and chapters 22 and 23, pointing to the wilderness position. The angel that would continue with the people right through would not suffer any lawlessness, he would control things. Then Moses and Aaron, Nadab and [p. 467] Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel are directed to go up; Jehovah directs them to go up, without saying exactly where, but in the idea of going up, we have the idea of ascension. Thus the present position typically should come about; that is to say, a position from heaven. In connection with the going up, we have the twelve pillars set up, and offerings offered through the youths of Israel, and a covenant ratified through basons of blood; an enormous quantity of blood so as to bring out how thoroughly the matter is done on the principle of death. Then they go up, and they see the God of Israel, but Moses is to go up by himself. Joshua was to accompany him, but that is simply an accompanying element; the idea is that the mediator was to go up and be with God, and he was with God for forty days and forty nights, and he got the pattern there, the pattern of the tabernacle. All that follows from chapter 25 is to bring out the truth of the tabernacle, and what it was in the wilderness, pointing to the present time typically. I think all that enters into what we are saying, because in Exodus 20:24 Jehovah said, “in all places where I shall make my name to be remembered, I will come unto thee, and bless thee”. That would show that it alludes to the present time, for the idea of the Lord coming to us is found in John’s gospel.
Ques Will you help us as to the authority given to the disciples to remit sins? It is after the Lord breathes into them.
JT Well, I think the Lord intended to impart His Spirit to them. It is very much like Philippians, the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ. Philippians is a wonderful epistle for the spirit of things, the spirit of christianity. The Spirit is given, I would say, in John 20, in a personal sense, to bring out the personal influence of Christ in christianity, added to all that is said about the Spirit coming in in Acts 2, where it is accompanied with great power and tongues of fire, so as to assert the divine [p. 468] authority in the gift of the Spirit. But the personal touch in John 20 is an added thought, I would say, to bring out the personal part that the Lord Jesus has in the administration, and it has much to do with our relations with one another, because the Spirit of Christ introduced into the disciples (they are not called the apostles) would affect them in relation to one another in the spirit of grace, so that all might go on together, and not allow sin to interfere. We have the means thus of dealing with sin, of remitting it, so that we might go on more freely and happily in the dispensation into which we have come. I believe all this is in keeping with John’s ministry, as augmenting Paul. I do not know whether that bears on what you have in mind.
Rem It is ‘sins’, not sin, individual sins.
JT That is right, individual sins, showing what means we have in our care meetings and the like to deal with matters by the Lord’s authority; to deal with them in the Spirit of Christ in the way He would do things.
FJF That is only for those inside, would you say?
JT I would think so, it is not a general proclamation to the world such as the gospel implies. I would say it is rather for the last days. The Lord in Matthew 18:22 in keeping with this, says, “I say not to thee until seven times, but until seventy times seven”. That is grace as also in Luke, but John would enhance all that, in bringing in the personal influence of Christ, His personal influence in christianity.
AST Would you say that the power of life is evident in this ability to remit or to retain?
JT Just so. You might say it is a commission without restrictions by the Lord, there are no restrictions added to it. “Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted to them”. John 20:23.
FJF It would show they had the mind of Christ?
JT Quite so; and so the Corinthian epistles would help us from Paul’s side of things. In the second epistle [p. 469] we see how he came in to deal with the incestuous man that had been delivered to Satan for the destruction of the flesh. The end was reached long before the judgment seat of Christ, it was reached too early for the Corinthians, they were not ready for it. Paul in urging them to forgive, is in accord with this idea in John’s gospel. It is the Spirit of Christ acting in Paul, the personal influence of Christ in christianity.
JD Would that be borne out in His showing His hands and side?
JT I think it would, and no doubt that involves the assembly, although John does not mention it, it is not his line, it is the persons who form it. But the fact that the Lord had been into death in that touching way, that He could show His hands, reminding us what He could do for us; “the love of Christ constrains us”, 2 Corinthians 5:14, what He would do for us and what He suffered for us. So that we are reminded of Adam and Eve, the figure goes back to that, to the beginning of things in manhood. And so the truth as to Christ and the assembly, especially in these last days, is intended to affect all the services of the saints. Mark reports that the Lord said, “Go into all the world, and preach the glad tidings to all the creation”. Mark 16:15. That is a very wide commission, but Paul would regulate us in that service, and John would also. The word of God is the word of God, and every scripture is inspired of God, but our service is to be governed by the principles that may be involved in any matter, the levitical principles that may be involved. There is the broad general overture to men, but the levitical principles come in to regulate us, to modify things, and to make our service more effective.
FJF To direct the service?
JT I think so, and keep it within bounds, because there are restrictions in the divine commission in Mark. When Paul was sent out, he was restricted by the Holy Spirit; he was not to go to such and such a place, showing that the levitical principles governed the service even [p. 470] although it be a worldwide commission. God has a right to modify a general commission; time may necessitate a modification.
JI In Mark they were told to “Go into all the world”, Mark 16:15, but did they go?
JT The inauguration of christianity was not done in a day, as some might think. It took years to effect all that was intended by the Lord, so that changes came about, and long after the twelve were appointed (and He had appointed them Himself), the Lord says of Saul of Tarsus, “he is an elect vessel unto me”, Acts 9:15, a special vessel. Paul is then told to do certain things, and in Acts 16, as we have already remarked, he is directed by the Spirit of Jesus. We have to notice that the Spirit of Jesus suffered them not to go to Bithynia. The question is, therefore, Did this modification imply that certain sections of the world would be eliminated in some sense, from the general commission? That appears to be the truth. The book of Revelation would show that the general position as to the gospel had failed, and the Lord is changing His attitude; in fact it was He who received the revelation that God gave to Him, long after these other things happened, and other things had to happen, and they are happening yet. So there is modification after modification. We have now come to a day of small things, and that has to be recognised, nevertheless the Lord says, personally to the assembly, as to the opposers that “I will cause that they”, “shall know that I have loved thee”. Revelation 3:9. The Lord retains and asserts His personal love for the assembly, and He will make those who say they are Jews and are not to come and worship before her feet, that they may know “that I have loved thee”. Revelation 3:9. These things have all come in in later years.
AST Would you say that John was in the acceptance of that in the isle of Patmos? He was prepared for all that it involved.
JT Quite so; he was restricted, for he “[p. 471] was in the island called Patmos for the word of God and the testimony of Jesus”. Revelation 1:9. It was not for the gospel exactly, but for the testimony of Jesus, “the word of God and the testimony of Jesus”. Revelation 1:9. Mark says “they, going forth, preached everywhere”. Mark 16:20. Jesus “was taken up into heaven, and sat at the right hand of God”, Mark 16:19, as if it were a deliberative position, and His servants went everywhere, and this was immediately after He had rebuked them for their unbelief, showing that the unbelief could not be very deep. The Lord knew how deep it was, and how far they could be trusted, notwithstanding the fact that there was unbelief there. Having rebuked them, He immediately says, “Go into all the world, and preach the glad tidings to all the creation”. Mark 16:15. God is not limiting the message; it is to the creation, but then the other things, as we were saying, that came in through Paul and through John in the Apocalypse have to be recognised.
HW Are there modifications suggested in Philip being sent southward and Paul westward?
JT Just so. Philip was not sent at all at first; it says, that he went down to Samaria and preached the Christ, showing that we have at times to do what we can, what our hands find to do, and then the Lord will own it, if it is successful. And Philip was but partially successful, for he did not discern Simon Magus; at the same time the Spirit of God took him on, though not at first; the angel took him on at first, and then the Spirit took him on later, and raptured him, and he arrives at Caesarea, reaching the point that is in mind in Peter’s commission to the gentiles.
RGB Would Numbers 10 help as to the living movements of the testimony? You have the movement of the cloud, and then the silver trumpet, and then the personal movement of the ark moving aside from the directions that had been given?
JT That is good. Moses’ mind was different, great as he was; it was on lower lines. He said to Hobab,
“[p. 472] come with us, and we will do thee good”, “and thou wilt be to us for eyes”. Numbers 10:29,31. Hobab declined, saying he would depart to his own land; and then the ark came out, as if to testify to the love of Christ, in type. The ark came out of its place, because it was in the centre of the position, in the centre of the tribes as if to be protected in dignity, but it came out itself, conveying to us what the love of Christ will do, probably indicating now what we are enjoying in these last days, that the love of Christ is acting for us. So the ark went out and led the way for them three days in the wilderness. I think that is very important, especially because of what we are dealing with now, what the Lord is doing for us, and what He is ready to do, and will do, to the end. “Having loved his own who were in the world, loved them to the end”. John 13:1. That is through everything.
FJF Will the proper, you might say, and highest testimony of the assembly be when she comes out as the heavenly city, but in the meantime she is occupying Israel’s position?
JT Well, I do not know that she is, I am not so sure that I would say that, because Paul gave up the Jewish position in the Acts, saying, “lo, we turn to the nations”, Acts 13:46, chapter 14; and, “the salvation of God has been sent to the nations, they also will hear it”, Acts 28:28. I would say that the position now is purely gentile, the Colossian position, purely gentile.
LPM Is that the bearing of the expression, in regard to the kingdom of God at the end of the Acts, Paul preaching things concerning that, unhinderedly?
JT Just so, and the statement, the quotation from Isaiah 6, in that passage in Acts 28 is all the more striking and solemn, because it is God sending strong delusion on the Jews.
GCS “Feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace”. Ephesians 6:15. Would that be the condition in which we should go out to [p. 473] men?
JT Quite so, that is the full height of the Ephesian position.
FJF I was wondering whether the assembly now fulfils what God had in mind in regard to Israel; I mean what is suggested in Sarah’s tent.
JT Well, so long as it pleased God to retain them in that position, but Stephen’s martyrdom was a message sent back to the Lord by the Jews, that they would not have him; he is rejected. You have that in Acts 7; we have already alluded to chapter 8 which meant that the Spirit moved toward the south, but moved in a man that had no commission; I mean Philip. He undertook what he could do, and the Spirit of God took him on as if to honour him, as if he had purchased to himself a good degree. Then he is found at Azotus, and later in Acts 21 we learn that he has four daughters who prophesy; he was honoured in his house. Acts 9 brings in Paul, of whom the Lord had said, “this man is an elect vessel to me”, Acts 9:15, and we learn that he immediately “preached Jesus that he is the Son of God”; Acts 9:20; that is to say, the ground of the testimony now clearly is gentile, such as Colossians indicates. The position is clearly separated from Judaism. So that Stephen’s murder, and then Herod’s being eaten with worms, and then Paul’s action in Bar-jesus being made blind for a season, all point to the rejection for the moment of the Jewish position. God is now going on with the gentiles, as Paul said, and they will receive the gospel. So that the gentile world, the western world, is receiving the truth at least in principle; there are many who are receiving it, but very few Jews, hardly any. Ephesians itself indicates that the gentile assembly is viewed as growing into “a holy temple in the Lord; in whom ye also are built together for a habitation of God in the Spirit”; Ephesians 2:21,22; ye also, referring to the assembly viewed as of the gentiles.
RGB Does the introduction of the gifts in Ephesians 4, to which you have referred, show that the ministry and [p. 474] service are to be carried on in the full light of union, and the heavenly position?
JT Yes, they have come down from heaven, indeed from beyond all the heavens, showing how much enters into the idea of gift, the endowment of the assembly, because they have to be looked at as showing how the assembly is endowed.
ETS Would you give us a little help on the remitting and the retaining of sins?
JT Well, I could not illustrate it better than in what I have already alluded to in the two epistles of Paul, the incestuous man is first bound and delivered to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, but he is repenting early; Paul enlarges on the evidence of his repentance, and the second epistle is written to bring about forgiveness in the assembly; that they should forgive him fully and freely. I do not know what we could say more clearly than that; those two epistles are really the illustration of what is said about remitting and retaining sins.
EWC Would it be an assembly action as much as withdrawing?
JT It would indeed. We have come to that, maybe, in the past 25 years, for the Lord has helped us; indeed, it was much earlier, but especially in the last 25 years the brethren have come to the right understanding of withdrawing from evil. “Let every one who names the name of the Lord withdraw from iniquity”, 2 Timothy 2:19. Instead of assuming to have power publicly to put away, as the early christians did, and as at Corinth, it is more seemly for us, because of the great breakdown and the many who have turned aside and are still away from us, who have become lost to us, and we have not all the saints together anyway; it is more seemly for us, when we have to deal with sins or sin, to withdraw, until the person judges himself, but then the underlying attitude of the assembly is remission. In withdrawing we are not making too much of the sin, but would act so as to [p. 475] encourage people to be able to say that grace reigns in the assembly, the spirit of grace reigns. We are not enlarging on the guilt, we are rather thinking of what belongs to the assembly, the grace of forgiveness. Paul says in Galatians 6, “if even a man be taken in some fault, ye who are spiritual restore such a one”, Galatians 6:1, restore him.
AM Does John 21 show how the Lord Himself would deal with sin? Sin in the seven disciples who went fishing, and then sin in Peter?
JT He does not say a word about the sin. He does not say a word to them, as He meets them, about their unfaithfulness in going fishing — that is what you have in mind?
AM Yes, the spirit in which things are done.
JT Beautiful. He does not say one word; in fact, His approach to them is, “Children, have ye anything to eat”? John 21:5. He is establishing the principle, that He is the everlasting Father. I believe that is the idea, the Lord was acting as a father, even in the end of John, because chapter 21 is really a sort of appendix to illustrate how the gentiles are brought in.
AM-h Paul says in 2 Corinthians 2:8, “Wherefore I exhort you to assure him of your love”; and then he says, “if I have forgiven anything, it is for your sakes in the person of Christ”. 2 Corinthians 2:10. Would that give the character of forgiveness?
JT I am glad you brought that out, it is a beautiful passage dealing with what is now before us; it confirms fully the Spirit of Christ Himself. Some of them were hesitating, and it is very current too. We know so little how to deal with sin and sins. The idea is to release the brethren so that they shall go on, shall go on with us.
AM-h Would it also be in keeping with the dignity of the dispensation, that God is not retaining sins? Surely that should come into the assembly?
JT Just so, it is the same in Luke 7, having nothing to pay “he forgave both of them”; Luke 7:42; that is not modified. That spirit should remain with us.
GCS Does the epistle to Philemon enlarge on that with a view to the forgiveness of Onesimus? Paul says, “if he have wronged thee anything or owe anything to thee, put this to my account”. Philemon 18. Would that be our attitude as appreciating the death of Christ to which all our accounts were put and answered before God.
JT Yes, very good; so that we come to what is proper to the assembly really in these matters, the spirit of it, readiness to forgive, readiness to perceive any evidence of repentance; “repentance towards God, and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ”. Acts 20:21.
FJF Would you look for brokenness in such a one?
JT Yes, quite so; we must look for that, it would not be righteous to forgive unless there were that, only that you should approach the person in the attitude of forgiveness; it is a question of priestliness with us. I think the Lord intended that, in view of His Supper, the saints should be all priests. He has constituted us priests, so as to give us power to act in forgiveness. The priest would be forgiving.
AJH As to this matter of forgiveness, are we assuming that there has been a governmental action on the part of the assembly and now it is a question of dealing with the matter in priestly grace? Then what is to be our attitude to that person as having been withdrawn from?
JT Well, I have heard it said that the person should be left to himself until he judges himself, but I do not think that is right. I think the priest is so constituted by the Lord in order to accentuate the idea of grace; the priest is ready to forgive, and I believe Paul was exercising a priestly attitude in all that he wrote about the man that had been put away, so that the assembly in Corinth should learn grace, learn to forgive. We must keep in mind that the priest is always supposed to be present [p. 477] among the saints. The priest, or priests, being present it cannot be said that the person under discipline is not to be visited until there is some evidence of brokenness. An assembly action having taken place, the matter rests with the priests (involving the assembly of course), who are regarded as having discernment and authority in every matter, see Deuteronomy 21:5. Chapters 13 and 14 of Leviticus suppose, that without any action being taken on the part of the leper, he is spoken to by the priest. Even if there is no evidence of repentance, the priest may approach him with a view to bringing about repentance, but it must be the priest. Galatians 6:1 says: “ye who are spiritual”; that is, the priests, not anyone. Matthew 18:17 — “let him be to thee as one of the nations and a tax-gatherer” refers to the brother trespassed against, not necessarily viewed as a priest. The above remarks do not ignore that all true christians are priests, as stated in 1 Peter 2:5, but the term “spiritual” in Galatians 6:1, clearly refers to qualifications required for the restoration of saints where sin has occurred.
EWP It says in John, that the Lord was “full of grace and truth”. John 1:14.
JT Good, full of it, “full of grace and truth”, John 1:14, as over against Moses, “the law was given by Moses: grace and truth subsists through Jesus Christ”. John 1:17.
FT And is the same attitude continued in God Himself in 2 Corinthians 5:19, “how that God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not reckoning to them their offences”?
JT Quite so.
JI The person should not be left to anyone to visit him.
JT I would say that; not anyone; the brethren should be sure that the persons deputed to look after matters are really priests.
JI It should not be an individual exercise but visiting as authorised from the [p. 478] assembly?
JT Well, I would be afraid of that, because I think the priest ought to be able to act at any time, I believe he is so constituted that he has power to act at any time. We are made “priests unto God” according to the first chapter of Revelation, and “priests of God and of the Christ” in Revelation 20:6. I think the Lord is fortifying the position, in surrounding Himself with priests, thus the element of grace is to prevail.
Rem The leper is brought to the priest in Leviticus 14; evidently there were those taking an interest in the leper.
JT Quite so, that is good, because it helps us. And the priest is always supposed to be there in Leviticus. It is not said, ‘If there is a priest’, but “he shall be brought to the priest”, or “he shall be seen by the priest”, or “he shall come unto the priest”. The priest is always supposed to be there. We can understand that in christianity, because Christ is always there, and the Spirit of Christ is here on the earth in the assembly. The position is fortified in that way by grace, so that the assembly should be augmented, and carry on its testimony.
AST “Ye who are spiritual” Galatians 6:1, means that the restoring is put on individuals, is it not?
JT Well, that is just exactly what it is. “If even a man be taken in some fault”. Galatians 6:1. The idea is not that we take him in it, find him in it, but that he is overtaken by it, that he is just in it, and it is found out. Well, let him that is spiritual restore; “ye who are spiritual restore such a one”, “considering thyself lest thou also be tempted” Galatians 6:1.
EAK Would confidence underlie the matter and would that be promoted if the priest acting in that way takes other persons into his confidence in his action?
JT Well, just so; that is the great advantage of priesthood. The Spirit of God was not hasty to anoint Aaron and his sons; they are not immediately called priests as introduced to us in the scripture; their official [p. 479] position is stated in chapter 28, when they have suitable clothes. Earlier the priest is there, of course, but we are not told who he was, the element was there. In Exodus 21:5 the Hebrew servant is brought forward saying, “I love my master, my wife, and my children, I will not go free”, and it is subsequent to that that we get the priesthood. In Aaron and his sons, the position is adorned; they are the very acme of the priesthood, the real priesthood as in christianity, in the sense of love, exercised in forgiveness to men and in serving God. Deuteronomy laid that down that everything must be determined by the word of the Levite, which meant the priest, because the Levite was a priest in Deuteronomy.
Ques Would you make clear how we bring the man to the priest?
JT Well, I think it shows what was there in Israel, that there was somebody to do that, but the priest is the one that determines everything, and he is never supposed to be absent.
LPM News may come indicating that something was moving in the condition of the man that would warrant the attention of the priest? Something in the way of a sovereign action recovering him from his leprosy?
JT Quite so, and then as to the man in Corinth, clearly Paul got news of the change in the man, he makes so much of it, and he was ready to forgive, as they forgave, and he urges them to do it.
ACSP Will these features be found as the assembly is in the enjoyment of the love of Christ as seen in Rebecca taken by Isaac? The scripture says, “he took Rebecca”.
JT I would say that.
Ques The goodness of God leads to repentance. Would the Father seeing the prodigal return, and running out to meet him, show that there is gladness as to it?
JT Quite so. Luke 15 is on the highest level. The word is, “Bring out the best robe”; Luke 15:22; things are the best; it is the heavenly side, really, in that passage, hence the music and the dancing. It is to bring out the wealth that there is immediately, to meet need as discerned. The movement in the prodigal is there, and the Father ran to meet him, and kissed him caressingly. It is all to bring out the very height of the position, and I believe it would lead up to Ephesians.
Ques If one under assembly discipline is coming to the meetings, how would you regard him?
JT Well, that would be a matter for the priest to discern. As to the assembly, the priests are supposed to be there. It would be a matter for them to see to, not to wait and let all the movement be on his side. The priest would go to him, or he may be brought to the priest. Things are never to be left unattended or uncared for in the assembly period; we are never driven to the wall. The priest is empowered to do things, and there are those that should bring people to the priest, so that the matter should be solved; things should not be allowed to drag on. Another thing is confidence, confidence in the assembly, as to matters of discipline; we must have confidence in our brethren, in the priests, because if they are of the assembly they are worthy of our confidence; all assembly people are worthy of our confidence.
JI How would you take the scripture in Matthew 18:22 and the reference to forgiving “seventy times seven”, as to serious matters, one after another?
JT One after the other; well, it shows the excess of grace; how grace is there, grace reigning, it is unmodified, the word reign is unmodified. There is no limited monarchy at all in christianity; it is a monarchy, but it is unlimited; it is unlimited in Christ, He acts in unlimited grace; that is really the truth. So we can go as often as we will, because the thought is restoration, recovery.
WS James in his epistle speaks of saving a soul from death and covering a multitude of sins.
[p. 481] JT Quite so; that illustrates all we have been saying; he that does it, saves a soul from death and covers a multitude of sins; that is a fine action, and it is entirely in accord with heaven, and the dispensation of grace. Let us make much of the assembly; that is another thing and to have confidence in it.
WBT In Leviticus the priest goes and looks two or three times. Would that help us as to liberty on the part of the priest to consider the matter?
JT Quite so; liberty in the priesthood. If we look at Leviticus 13 and 14 we shall be impressed by the frequency of the use of the word priest in both chapters.