TEACHING AND ORDER IN ASSEMBLY ADMINISTRATION
[p. 169] TEACHING AND ORDER IN ASSEMBLY ADMINISTRATION
John 20:16 - 23; Matthew 18:15 - 20
JT These passages teach us of assembly administration, and the first is particularly in mind as to teaching. As we know, the word ‘assembly’ is not used in the passage, but it is in it; it is contemplated, and the thought is that we might look at the teaching that leads up to the instruction in this chapter, at least in this passage. The word ‘Rabboni’ is the one Mary uses in replying to the Lord. He says to her, “Mary”, in verse 16. It is thought that she represents the receptive element. The gospel really begins with the same thought. The two disciples who followed Jesus said to him, “Rabbi, where abidest thou?” John 1:38. And it is thought that the teaching of the assembly, the instruction as to it is of prime importance at all times, but especially now, and John has this in mind. Not so much to occupy us with official terms but to accustom us to the circumstances of the assembly and the feminine side entering into it; the instruction coming in that connection through a feminine channel. The idea would be among other things that we should be softened in dealing with one another and get adjusted. For she needed adjustment, as did all the disciples at this time, but she represents ardent affection for Christ with certain dark thoughts, unintelligent thoughts, but she became adjusted. John undoubtedly is intended for this, for adjustment. So that she is addressed by her name, of course, which is Mary, but having a meaning somewhat involving suffering, leading to a feeling person. He called her Mary, which is to be noted, undoubtedly meaning that He had intended that her name should be there in this particular person. “Jesus says to her, Mary. She, turning round, says to him in Hebrew, Rabboni, which means Teacher”, John 20:16. The two addresses, that is, the Lord’s and hers, are of particular interest at this time.
CAM Would you say that addressing the Lord as Teacher shows she had bowed to His lordship? Would that not be a primary thing?
JT I think it would show what was in her mind, for she was not heretofore particularly instructed. She is not characterised particularly as one who had received instruction. She is rather characterised by affection, and as one who had to do with evil. Out of her had been cast seven demons. They had gone out of her. She is taken up more with the Lord personally in the early part of the chapter. She was drawn to the Lord personally in affection but now she has this word that is somewhat unusual. She has this Name to use in responding to Him: Rabboni, and we are told what it means; that she has evidently come on to the light of teaching, of being instructed, which is an important matter especially for sisters, because sisters have a great deal to do with matters of administration. Not in a formal open way, but yet they have a great deal to do with what transpires, and what she had in her mind is very important, therefore, that we should have the teaching entering into these administrative matters.
AAT Had Mary of Bethany received the teaching as she sat at the feet of the Lord?
JT That would be the idea with her, evidently at an earlier stage than we are treating here. She had laid hold according to Luke of what marked the moment. The Lord had been announced from heaven on the mount of Transfiguration by the Father as One to be heard. Heaven had announced that He was to be heard. That was the order of the day; as in a later day with Lydia; the Lord opened her [p. 171] heart to attend to the things spoken by Paul. That is, as it were, another order of the day. Certain things are stressed as needed.
RWS Suppositions may bring damage into the assembly. It says she supposed He was the gardener.
JT She was somewhat confused and dark, and it is humbling that there is so much talk in these administrative matters that is found with those who are not receiving adjustment. It is remarkable how many things are said in administrative matters that are not founded on fact. I believe that is the idea here; that that should not be. When she says, Rabboni, she has in her mind that she had been adjusted. Still, she needed more, because the Lord said to her, “Touch me not”, John 20:17.
ANW Does she need, too, to be moved from her individualised position somewhat? I understood that Rabboni has the bearing of ‘my Teacher’, if I understand correctly, and she calls Him “my Lord”. She is concerned about “my Lord”. I thought it was perhaps a matter of moving from the individual position to His brethren.
JT Yes. The ‘my’ is undoubtedly there according to what we learn. And now it is the time for her to be used, and then that she should go to the brethren. They were in the Lord’s mind. She was in the Lord’s mind, too, particularly, for the moment, but now they were in His mind, and the message is to come through one who is evidently coming into instruction, freshly, and would surely convey that in what she might have to say to them. It says, “Mary of Magdala comes bringing word to the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that he had said these things to her”, John 20:18. She was not in the position of a teacher and yet she had seen the Lord. That is important, too; and that He had said these things to her, without, perhaps, implying that she quoted verbatim what He said. I would [p. 172] think she put His words into her own words. It would not be a formal verbatim message. It says, “that he had said these things”, not used these words, but said these things.
APT Does Chloe indicate feminine understanding of the position somewhat in Corinth? “For it has been shewn to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of the house of Chloe, that there are strifes among you”, 1 Corinthians 1:11. Does that indicate the feminine idea functioning in that meeting?
JT It would be in a similar way, similar condition; the house of Chloe; someone of her house. It would be informal, too, but still evidently carried in a very circumstantial way.
CAM The Lord says “my brethren” in speaking to her. The Holy Spirit records that bringing the word was to the disciples. The disciples would involve we are learners, would it not?
JT Well, it would. You mean he does not call them apostles, in keeping with John’s line. But the word would intimate that they were learners. They were disciples but they were his brethren.
CAM I was impressed by what you said that He did not distinguish her as a teacher in speaking to her, but what she said would go with His own authority.
JT Yes. “That he had said these things”, would clearly convey that she thought He was in authority; that He was a Teacher and He was her Teacher. She did not suggest that somebody else had something else. She did not suggest that in her message; that some other person had said something else. It was what He had said.
PE Was it weakness on the part of Peter and John that they were not at the tomb to receive this communication? They were at the tomb but they went home and Mary [p. 173] stayed.
JT That would show that they had already laid hold of what was there and the facts, but they were content to go home with the facts. They could stay at home and rehearse the facts. In Malachi it says, “Then they that feared Jehovah spoke often one to another; and Jehovah observed it, and heard, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared Jehovah, and that thought upon his name. And they shall be unto me a peculiar treasure, saith Jehovah of hosts, in the day that I prepare”, Malachi 3:16,17. Peter and John, I would say, would be content with less than Mary had; with the thought of speaking often, rehearsing the thing together. They laid hold of the facts, I would think, because they had gone in and seen how the linen cloths lay, as if they learned by what they saw in the sepulchre, which is important, too, but certainly not so important as a communication directly from the Lord, which she had. She had looked into the sepulchre, too, but they had gone into it; one of them, and undoubtedly laid hold of the facts, so that they would on the way home, or as they got home, say, we are assured that He is risen. The facts show that. Where the linen cloths are lying and how they are lying would show there was no struggle at all. He could not be taken away in any clandestine way. The linen cloths were left just as they were when they were on His body, which was remarkable. And yet they did not get the communication from the Lord which she did get.
JTJr Is there some instruction in the fact that the angels say ‘Woman’? The Lord says ‘Woman’ first; and then ‘Mary’.
JT Well, I would think the feminine idea is stressed, but when He calls her by name, then she is on a higher level really. He calls His own sheep by name, not by such a classification as ‘woman’; but still that would mean that the feminine thought is stressed, in such circumstances as that, which, as I said, I believe, bears on John’s way tending to the softening of our feelings.
AI Is that not seen in the Lord? According to this verse it says, “Mary of Magdala comes bringing word to the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that he had said these things to her”. Is not seeing the Lord an important matter in relation to bearing testimony?
JT It certainly is. That is just the point in it. She is qualified to bear witness; she had seen Him.
CAM Are you looking at Mary as an element among the saints rather than differentiating between brothers and sisters exactly? Would it be right to look at it as an element among the saints that is submissive to the Lord’s will and impressionable, and in that way bears spiritual, feminine features?
JT Yes; and a clear witness; a competent witness. She had seen the Lord, she regards Him as a Teacher, and that she had been taught by Him, so that she is a competent witness, seeing the Lord qualifies her to be a witness, but then the fact that she is taught is further evidence that she is capable of witnessing the matter in hand, because nothing needs more teaching than having part in the assembly. We are told that angels desire to look into what goes on there, and if we deal with those matters we not only can say we saw the Lord, or she could say she saw the Lord, but she apprehended Him as a Teacher, meaning she had learned something immediately from Him, and that something would bear on the whole matter, because we are coming to assembly facts, and the very highest of them; namely, that they were to be entrusted with something. Whatever they forgave would be forgiven by the Lord. That was most important, because the Lord was entrusting them with something, leaving it with them — what they should do.
JTJr It does not say the woman comes, but [p. 175] Mary of Magdala; that is, the person of that place.
JT That enters into witness. She is identified. There were other Marys but there can be no question as to who this Mary was.
JAP The two messengers that Joab sent to David about the death of Absalom showed that the man that was not adjusted did not give right testimony and the man that was right was suited to the message. Does that bear on what you say?
JT Just so. Ahimaaz wanted to run. He wanted to do it. He wanted to have part in the thing, and perhaps, more or less in a personal way, but he had to wait for the Cushite. David says, Turn aside and stand here. He just had to wait there. He was really put to shame in that he was not competent. The message was not suited to him, Joab said, but this news is perfectly suited to Mary. She is a suitable person to relate it. She does not relate it with any confusion at all.
APT In 2 Corinthians 13 it says, “In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every matter be established”, 2 Corinthians 13:1. There is a note there that refers to the word ‘matter’: it means ‘utterance’. I suppose that is what you have in mind: to hear. You are able to hear and report it correctly.
JT Yes; because in court witnesses are all examined and all challenged. They are challenged as to whether they are competent, and that is the idea, I think, here. She is competent to bear witness from various facts that are mentioned. She has been taught of the Lord and she has seen Him. She has already been told. She regards herself in that way. Now she has seen Him and has heard Him saying certain things and they were for the brethren. They are of the highest order of importance, because they are “my brethren”. First He says to her, “Touch me not”, meaning she is to be under restrictions, “I have not yet ascended to my Father; but [p. 176] go to my brethren and say to them, I ascend to my Father, and your Father, and to my God, and your God”. The message is of the highest order, and yet, as we were remarking, she does not intimate that she is giving it verbatim, but in the sense of things, for there is really more in it in that sense; more substance, the word ‘things’.
JS Would the message, “Go to my brethren” involve His counterpart?
JT I do not know that the word ‘brethren’ goes that far. You are alluding to the assembly as His counterpart. John is not exactly using terms in that way. He is dealing with individuals. It is the brethren as so many persons; so many persons related to Him. You are in the middle of circumstances right through and now you feel you are in the midst of assembly circumstances of a feminine kind; but yet the term ‘brethren’ lifts them somewhat; ‘My Father, and your Father’ too. The whole matter is lifted up through these words, and yet she is great enough to carry them and speak of them, not as words but as things. That would mean they are substantial and capable of enlargement, of expansion, because the Father did come into it. “I ascend to my Father, and your Father, and to my God, and your God”. Whatever is to be deduced or worked out from what she said is substantial; it is very capable of being enlarged. But the words, the formal words, terms of the most exalted character are there, and they are to be carried into all the subsequent matters, that is, the matter of administration.
RWS Does the official side involve more what is formal and ordered, but this side that you are bringing forward in Mary requires spiritual sensibilities, so that you understand there is more in the matter than appears on the surface?
JT That is what I was thinking. Things [p. 177] are substantial. Words — if we are to analyse them, we will have to go to the dictionary as to words, what comes out of the mouth. Words are formed in the mouth, the vocal powers; but things — well, they are of another classification. Things are substantial and capable of enlargement, and there is more elasticity to them. They are less formal. Therefore, anything that comes up, we think of what may be put into this word ‘things’.
CAM It must be very great, because the expression ‘all things’ is used. We can see in a moment it is not the same as ‘all words’.
JT Quite so.
TW The same expression is used in the end of Luke: “And as they were saying these things”, Luke 24: 36.
JT Quite so.
ANW Would you say a word as to why what is done is so effective in bringing the disciples together from their homes to this one meeting place? Why is it so effective, with the exception of one at least?
JT Well, there is no doubt it is the same incident that our brother just now has alluded to in Luke. It is the same incident and another train of things comes up. It was a gathering time which would be in keeping with Luke’s line of things, that the Lord had gone with them all the way and even submitted to their constraint, confirming what we have been saying as to things. He submitted to their constraint at Emmaus: “Abide with us”, Luke 24:29. He submits to that and goes in with them and then vanishes. Of course, a great deal occurs and a great deal that is unwritten occurs, and they would carry all the things in their hearts on the way back to Jerusalem. And when they came there and found the eleven and those that were with them, they were saying certain things: that the Lord was risen and had appeared to Simon, [p. 178] etc.
APf At the close of John he says, “This is the disciple who bears witness concerning these things, and who has written these things; and we know that his witness is true. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which if they were written one by one, I suppose that not even the world itself would contain the books written”, John 21:24,25.
JT That is good. The word ‘things’ is stressed. We can see how elastic they are. How much can be enlarged on in them. It is not a retailing of words, the creeds, but the truth of Christianity is set out in things, in persons; things connected with persons.
GVD Would it be right to say that John’s presentation is along moral lines? As you said, Mary, and then the disciples, were in a moral state that was suitable. Where they were would suggest what is moral.
JT Yes; where they were. It is not even called the upper room. The stress is laid on the importance of these persons. I think that is the way the Spirit of God uses John; the importance of these persons, that the Lord came where they were. For instance, suppose we wanted a meeting-room, referring again to assembly matters, because the procuring of a room or giving up of a room is an assembly matter, and these words would bear on that. Where are the brethren? Because we must be governed by where they are. So that it says, “When therefore it was evening on that day, which was the first day of the week, and the doors shut where the disciples were, through fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst”, John 21:?. That is to say, they are where the disciples were. That must govern any matter, any physical side as to a room.
CAM John’s geography seems to depend on where the people are. Bethany was made up by certain persons.
JT We have [p. 179] the distance from Jerusalem to Bethany mentioned, and the distance from Jerusalem to the mount of Olives is mentioned in Acts 1. The disciples were at Bethany. There were particular ones there. And it aids and supports what we are saying about the importance of the disciples. That is, we are now in assembly circumstances, and we are not, of course, speaking of a room, but we are speaking of the disciples. We have passed on from Mary. She has done her service. It is said they were there. As we connect this passage with Luke 24, there would be a sort of gathering principle going on, because Luke says that the Lord Jesus stood in the midst while they were speaking. He does not say they came. He does not say the Lord came. It would seem as if there is no question of His coming or how He came, but He is concerned about the disciples as gathered. John is not saying that. He is not saying anything about gathering, but Luke says they were gathered, and the Lord is concerned from that point of view; where we are gathered. Matthew stresses the word ‘gathered’ saying, “For where two or three are gathered together unto my name, there am I in the midst of them”, Matthew 18:20. Luke borders on that, because while they were saying the things He stood in the midst. But John says, He came and stood, making more of the persons; where the disciples were. The circumstances are now on a high level and what happens is to lead up to this matter of administration, because the idea is introduced in what is recorded. So He says, “Peace be to you”. Certain things are said. “And having said this, he shewed to them his hands and his side. The disciples rejoiced therefore, having seen the Lord. Jesus said therefore again to them, Peace be to you:” meaning that what is in hand, what is in the Lord’s mind is important, and it is important, too, that they should be in the state to deal with the things, to make them concrete and useful. So that He proceeds after the reference to peace saying, “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”. That is the finish. Thomas now comes in, but what is in mind mainly is these remarks which the Lord makes: that He had breathed into them and the other things, all tending to sober them and spiritualise them, make them spiritual and then to be inwardly affected by His breathing. “Receive the Holy Spirit”, and then putting it on them to forgive. “Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted to them; whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained”. Now, the passage in Matthew says, “Whatsoever ye shall bind on the earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on the earth shall be loosed in heaven”, Matthew 18:18. It might be considered casually to be the same thing, but it is not the same thing. It is a question of binding and loosing, but the binding is put before the loosing, whereas this passage places the remission before the retention of sins. “Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted to them; whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained”.
CAM It must be a very spiritual thing. The Holy Spirit is just mentioned. “Receive the Holy Spirit”. The ‘the’ is really not there. That prefacing this statement would seem to indicate it is a very spiritual matter.
JT That is just what I was thinking. Exactly. It is a spiritual matter. We are in assembly circumstances; that is, the persons forming the assembly being in mind, and instead of the Lord waiting for the descent of the Holy Spirit, He breathes into them Himself immediately so as to bring about conditions which the instruction that He had in mind could enter into, and conclude, you might say. It was a [p. 181] finished matter; the part of assembly administration that refers to forgiveness of sins or retention of sins, and it is left to the brethren to do one or the other.
CE Do we see the power connected with Matthew 18 in the loosing and binding?
JT Yes; it is more formal and official.
ANW Is it not abnormal for John to deal with administration? Is that fair to say?
JT I do not just know why you say that.
ANW Well, I thought that administration stood in relation to church matters. I thought John’s was not quite that line.
JT Oh, I think he deals with administration, only he deals with it in his own way, and I think this is an illustration of how he deals with things.
RWS It is a great expression of confidence. There is no modification at all in the Lord’s statement.
JT No. There is no suggestion that they should ask Him about it. It is just that the Lord intends to convey that He has confidence in them, and confidence in them in regard of forgiveness of sins or retention of sins. He raises no question, so to say. Whatever they do He accepts and confirms. “Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted to them; whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained”. Notice, it is not ‘they will be’. There will be no need for anything else. There is no need for any other action. The thing is settled by their decision.
JHE Would Stephen be a good example of this? He said, “Lord, lay not this sin to their charge”, Acts 7:60. He was full of the Holy Spirit.
JT Well, he was full of the Holy Spirit. Yes. The idea here is these are people that heaven is concerned about. The Lord is concerned about them. He came to where they were, and we are told the day. It was the first day of the week. That is another thing to notice, which is intended to affect assembly matters, and certain things are said as to what He [p. 182] did. He showed them His hands and His side, and they were glad. They rejoiced. He said, “Peace be to you”, twice, and then He speaks about sending them as the Father sent Him. “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”. There is nothing more, intimating the thing is settled. It is settled by what they do in this matter of forgiveness or retention of sins. ‘Remitting’ is a well-known word. It is a final sort of word and settles the matter.
WCR When does this remission take place in a formal way? Sins are retained in a general way in an assembly meeting of withdrawal, but in what formal way does this take place — this remitting?
JT Well, other things enter into that, but the general position here is it is a question of what the disciples decide to do; whether they are free to remit matters as soon as they have been committed, or whether they decide to retain the sins that are committed.
DP Does this mandate extend beyond the apostle’s time? Is it workable in this broken order in which our lot is cast?
JT Oh, yes. It is a love question. It is a question of what enters into Christianity, because we cannot go on, we cannot really go on in assembly order and service aside from the dealing with matters, matters of sins. These matters of sins have to be dealt with. It is not here a question of primary forgiveness, as it is called, because it is a question of persons who may have sinned and may be in the assembly themselves. Take the case of Ananias and Sapphira. Their sins were not forgiven; not in the sense of administration; whereas you may have a case where the sins can be forgiven. The Lord is [p. 183] saying here, It is a question of your decision, and He is, of course, implying that He has left you down here to deal with these matters. You know the facts. At the same time He is trusting you with them, and He will accept your decision. Their decision would be final. There will be no need to bring it up again.
WCR What is the basis for retention of sins?
JT That is a question of the state of the person. The disciples are supposed to know. For instance, John says about that in his epistle, “There is a sin to death: I do not say of that that he should make a request”, 1 John 5:16. It is a sin unto death. I do not say that you should ask. He does not say it should not be asked for, showing how elastic this thought is among us.
FSC Does not the verse “whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted” imply we are apt not to remit? We remit and yet there is the danger of not actually doing it. One has felt that the brethren feel the thing afterwards even after it has been forgiven.
JT Maybe you would enlarge on your thought.
FSC I was wondering whether some do not feel after they have been restored that they are not fully forgiven. They feel that the extent of what they have done is not fully forgiven them.
JT I see what you mean. I have often had to do with that sort of thing, but the Lord is saying here, I am leaving it with you; but you can see it is preceded by so much that they are rendered quite competent to judge right away whether the thing shall be forgiven or not.
AI Have you in mind in the thought of remitting and retaining, that the disciples would do things in accord with the mind of the Lord?
JT He assumes that they would do what He would do, because they are taught. The idea of teaching enters into the matter before we have these [p. 184] facts stated.
AAT Is it not so that at Corinth they were very slow to bind and very slow to remit?
JT The second letter stresses that they should forgive him lest he should be swallowed up with over-much sorrow.
ANW Are you suggesting that if the action is not flagrantly an error it should be received and accepted indisputably?
JT I would say that. We have to take account of what the thing may be. The Lord is making it plain that there are certain ones He has confidence in and He is leaving things with them, otherwise there could be nothing done on earth. Everything would have to be referred to heaven, whereas the divine thought is that Christianity is set up here with persons having a final word in settling things. There are such persons that the Lord can trust.
JAP Are there gradations of sin, from what you say about John? He says there is a sin unto death and, therefore, are we to distinguish between sins?
JT Oh, well, we are. We read of persons worthy of few stripes and more stripes. And then John says in his epistle, “If any one sin, we have a patron with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous”, 1 John 2:1. And “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins, and cleanse us from all unrighteousness”, 1 John 1:9. All these things enter into what we are saying.
ANW Has it to be borne in mind that if it is necessary to retain sins, there is the possibility and probability that the sin may be remitted? There is the remission as well.
JT There is. The Lord surely is making much of remission because He mentions it first; and especially in the freshness of the Spirit’s vigour in early days, one would think there would be [p. 185] a readiness to confess sins and correspondingly a readiness to remit them.
ATD The exalted nature of the teaching would have a bearing on the way things are administered.
JT Just so. The Lord is contemplating here the best possible instruction. These disciples have had the very best instruction and now He is adding to that. Mary is saying she has been instructed and that the Lord was her Instructor, and so is He the Instructor of all the disciples. Therefore, there ought to be a readiness to conform with what He would wish; therefore, he is thinking, clearly, of a hard situation that is difficult to overcome, but the freshness of the work of God in early days would suggest that there would be a readiness to judge sins, to confess them, and on the other hand a readiness on the part of the disciples to forgive them.
JTJr There is a remarkable reference in 2 Chronicles 15 in regard to conditions in Israel. “Now for a long while Israel was without the true God, and without a teaching priest, and without law”, 2 Chronicles 15:3. Are not those three things connected with administration: the true God, the teaching priest and the law?
JT That is very important; whereas we have the teaching priest here with the Lord and we have one who recognises Him; that is, Mary. And now the disciples have a message through her which ought to help them further as to this matter of forgiveness, and, I believe, that is what is in mind: the conditions of forgiveness among the brethren. Are we ready to forgive?
ABP Would you say that in the case of Ananias and Sapphira Peter seems to make a difference? He spoke to Ananias and when he concluded what he said, Ananias fell down and expired, but when Sapphira came in he asked her a question. If she had been honest and opened up to the matter, the [p. 186] outcome may have been different. There seems to be the implication that Peter made a difference. Would that be right?
JT I would think that. She is given an opportunity to adjust herself, I would say, but conditions for forgiveness were not there. These two persons were in collusion. If they are not in collusion we must make allowance for that, but if there is collusion then it is more serious. But the Lord is contemplating here that there is a state, there is a readiness to forgive if forgiveness is warranted; if there is anything to warrant it.
RWS The freshness that you allude to of the Holy Spirit would promote spiritual feeling instead of personal feelings, would it not? I was impressed with what you said about the freshness of the Holy Spirit. The very first words the Lord uses after breathing into them the Holy Spirit is in regard to remitting.
JT It looks as if that is the setting. The Spirit is just freshly given, not in any official way because the official was at Pentecost. The unofficial ways are usually softer and more immediate and there is more spiritual sentiment involved in them. You would think twice, you would hesitate before you would confirm that the thing was right.
APT You mentioned the first day of the week. Would that help in this matter? There is a danger of overlooking that the assembly really has its start there.
JT I think that is good to bring that up. It is the second time the first day of the week is used in this chapter, which is important. It is used in 1 Corinthians 16 also in regard of sentiment; that is, the collection; the collection on the first day of the week; as the Lord has prospered him, so let him put by on the first day of the week in view of the collection, that there may be no collections when I [p. 187] come. The apostle, I think, means he does not wish apostolic authority to enter into this matter of a collection, and so in regard of forgiveness of sins. You are disposed to be liberal, as it were, for James says, “He that brings back a sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death and shall cover a multitude of sins”, James 5:20. That is a liberal thought. There is such a thing as that, to be liberal in dealing with a soul if he has sinned. And again in Galatians it says, “Ye who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of meekness”, Galatians 6:1. It is an important matter to get the persons right that do it.
APT Eutychus seems to have been helped on this line. He was in a pretty bad way apparently.
JT He was. He was looking out the window when he should have been listening to Paul. He did not do what the brethren were doing. And many young people are not listening to what has been said, and things are not too good with them. But still the government of God overtook Eutychus and Paul was ready to go down three stories to enfold him in his arms, and he says, His life is in him, Acts 20:10. He is not dead, as if there would be recovery. And then they went up after the recovery and had a conversation and broke bread, too, and they brought the boy away, not a little comforted. That is what I would say is Christianity.
ANW Whereas as regards Matthew is it not observable that the binding precedes the loosing immediately following the case of the man who does not listen to the assembly?
JT He is manifestly a hard man; a brother whom he has trespassed against speaks to him about it, and two or three besides speak to him about it, and they tell it to the assembly and he does not listen to the assembly. That is a hard case. That is for binding. “Let him be to thee as one of the nations and a tax-gatherer”. Some are bringing up a lot about this matter, about the time of shaking hands. There is nothing like that in Scripture; “let him be to thee as one of the nations and a tax-gatherer”. That is to the person who is sinned against. Others may have to do with him, but as far as you are concerned, his case is settled.
ATD What does that mean: “as one of the nations and a tax-gatherer”?
JT It is just a figure to show that he is not fit for fellowship at least as far as you are concerned, because that passage does not imply consummation of the matter. The consummation is what he is to you, and it is not because he has trespassed against you, but it is because he does not listen to the assembly, bringing out what the assembly is; that the Lord is saying to us, I am thinking of the assembly. “I speak as to Christ and as to the assembly”, and we should be speaking of it and thinking of it, and if any matter comes up, let us see we do not ill-treat the assembly, treat it with contempt in any way.
ATD The individual trespassed against would merge with the assembly if further action had to be taken.
JT It looks to me as if the Lord is thinking of the man who is sinned against. He is to be taught what to do. He knows what to do, and he should know what to do, but then if there is any contempt of the assembly, any disregard of it, the Lord does not like that. It is a greater matter to him than the forgiveness of the sinner. He has set the assembly here for Himself, to represent Himself, and if there is a case where the assembly can act and has ground for acting, they should act; and if they do not, they fail in the function belonging to the assembly.
JAP Would you say that a man like Ahab who characteristically was wicked, heeded what Elijah said, because it says he humbled himself?
JT “Seest thou”, says Jehovah. And he was a very wicked man really. But Jehovah says, “Seest thou how Ahab humbleth himself before me?” 1 Kings 21:29. That is important. Make the most of it. There is much he should have done, but what he did has to be recognised.
SM I was thinking of that. It says he walked softly.
JT Just so. He walked softly before Jehovah. I think it brings out what heaven is in these matters. How liberal God is, and is ready to make allowance for everything. That is every good thing as Paul says to Philemon: “every good thing which is in us”, Philemon 6.
AAT Is it not so that every case has to be handled with wisdom? I was thinking of Solomon. Immediately after David’s death there were certain cases that had to be adjusted before the thing came to a climax in the temple. Shimei had special grace extended to him.
JT He had. And the point there as to Shimei was that he was guilty really of great contempt, but David put it on his son Solomon to see to him, which he did. But, at the same time, when David was returning it was a favourable time, and that is the point of the Lord here. It is a favourable time. It is an assembly time but it is a favourable time. It is a time for the manifestation of favour, of kindness and goodness toward all. So one of David’s men says, “Should not Shimei be put to death for this, because he cursed Jehovah’s anointed?” 2 Samuel 19:21. True enough. But David says, “Do not I know that I am this day king over Israel?” That is the point. We have to recognise the function of the assembly and see to it that it has full scope. David says, I have full scope to act as king and I am acting as king and forgiving Shimei for the moment. Well, that is important.
So that we assert the Lord’s authority in its direct application or working in the assembly.
TEH I was thinking of Hosea in chapter 14, he outlines that the people had sinned and he says, “Take with you words”, Hosea 14:2. He outlined what they should say as if it was a favourable time to come back in.
FSC Would this scripture imply that the Lord is present, whereas the one in John would imply He is absent?
JT Matthew really is more formal. Quite so; more official. The Lord is going to be absent; but Matthew is treating of the Lord being present. Quite so.
ABP Does the procedure in Matthew 18 include what we speak of as an assembly meeting? I have in mind verse 17.
JT I think so. The order is this matter of binding and loosing. I am just going to read it; the question of the binding on the earth and the loosing on the earth. Well now, that runs down to the end of verse 18. You are speaking of verse 17?
ABP Yes. My inquiry is, does the procedure which is given through verse 17 include what we speak of as an assembly meeting?
JT I was just going to seek to get the order in which the whole matter is set. Verse 17 reads, “But if he will not listen to them, tell it to the assembly; and if also he will not listen to the assembly, let him be to thee as one of the nations and a tax-gatherer. Verily I say to you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on the earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on the earth shall be loosed in heaven”. That is a finished part of the instruction. It is a subdivision, as it were; finished. Then he says in verse 19, “Again I say to you, that if two of you shall agree on the earth concerning any matter, whatsoever it may be that they shall ask, it shall come to them [p. 191] from my Father who is in the heavens. For where two or three are gathered together unto my name there am I in the midst of them”. “Again I say to you”, would mean, I would apprehend, that we have come down to another stage in the assembly’s history I was only thinking that before the thing could be really answered we have to get this whole paragraph. That is, the ‘again’ in verse 19 contemplates another stage in assembly history, and that stage implies that we are not exactly in the pristine conditions of the assembly when there were many, but only a few If we are now dealing with a matter of this kind, it is brought down to two or three; “two of you”, which is also to be noted, and then “two or three”. That would, I understand, bring the matter down to our conditions where there is a scattering and a smallness and a divided condition, but yet there is the idea of “two of you”; and then the two or three gathered not simply two or three persons, but “two or three ... gathered together unto my name”. The thing therefore, becomes varied with these conditions. There are two of the assembly; the Father hears them; and then there are two or three of the same gathered together unto the Lord’s Name. The first relates to the Father and the second relates to the Lord. Therefore we can deal with matters of this kind and finalise them, too, on this principle.
ABP But, if in taking matters up we look for a scripture that would guide us in the procedure in carrying through, do we consider this scripture through verse 17 of Matthew 18 as the complete procedure, or do we have to go to Acts 15 for a fuller outline of how things are done?
JT The passage up to verse 17 might be applied now. That is to say, up to the word ‘again’. The truth is always the truth, and I think we would rightly proceed according to the early part of the passage in dealing with the trespass, for instance.
[p. 192] And then the question comes up as to whether we are really proved to be of the assembly in what we are doing, and whether we are gathered unto Him, unto the Lord. These are additional thoughts that must be clarified.
CAM I think that is very helpful. There are two sections and they correspond with the light of Timothy and 2 Corinthians, put together. Would you agree with that?
JT I would indeed. Therefore, twenty-five years ago when the matter came up about withdrawing or putting away, it was remarked that someone said, Well, which shall we use? Shall we have 2 Timothy or Matthew 18 or 1 Corinthians 5? Which applies today? Well, the reply was really at the time, Both apply. Both are Scripture and both have an application in the souls of the persons who are dealing with them; but in outward conditions and forms you want to be in accord with the time of humiliation within; the smallness of the times and the disjointed or dislocated conditions, so that you feel it is better to say, We withdraw. It is happier and more consistent than assuming to be acting as they did at the beginning.
AAT In 2 Timothy 2:19, is that not assembly iniquity?
JT I would think so. You would not like to say absolutely that it was not any other, but I would think it is religious iniquity, ecclesiastical iniquity.
AAT Why do we use that scripture when a brother is on a wrong course and has nothing to do with anything religious?
JT We cannot strictly say it does not refer to any other iniquity, because the word ‘iniquity’ is unqualified. “Let every one who names the name of the Lord withdraw from iniquity”, 2 Timothy 2:19. It is just the meaning of the word, whatever iniquity it is. We would be led to think, but not to insist on [p. 193] it or assume that it is just so, but I would think ecclesiastical iniquity is in mind. The apostle is instructing Timothy as to that point. There was a great deal of it coming in at that particular time.
WWM Do you think in Matthew 18 that the Lord is stressing to everyone the confidence and authority that He has placed in the assembly?
JT That is the thing. The Lord is always jealous that the assembly should have its place. Just as David says, “Do not I know that I am this day king over Israel”. This brother that was questioning him — he was not thinking of that. David had been deposed from the throne but was now back on it. The Lord has a place in the assembly and that is the thing to keep before us: the authority that belongs to the assembly.
JAP Do you mean that David’s counsellors were trying to make the assembly a vehicle for their personal feelings?
JT Just so. That was just it.