THE ASSEMBLY'S BEGINNING AND FAILURE
THE ASSEMBLY’S BEGINNING AND FAILURE
Revelation 1:9 - 20; Revelation 3:7 - 13; Matthew 18:15 - 20
JT The proposal is in view of bringing out the position in the book of Revelation as to the general history of the assembly. The passage in Matthew is suggested because it will enable us to see how the assembly began to function, as one might say, officially, and Revelation shows how it broke down; at least it records the fact. It is thought it will help us all to see how the breakdown took place, and hence the necessity for this book — what is called the Apocalypse. It is clearly distinct from ordinary assembly epistles and the gospels. It contemplates the breakdown of what the gospels and epistles present as inaugurated by the Lord Himself and by the Spirit. So that we have the Revelation given to the Lord Himself: “Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him”, Revelation 1:1.
APT What would the apostle John represent in this matter himself?
JT Well, he is a prophet, and not simply an ordinary person who might be included in the list of prophets. They come in second in the list in the classification of gifts in Ephesians: “apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers”. John has to be regarded as distinct from the ordinary prophets. No doubt all the apostles had the gift of prophecy, but the book of Revelation is not simply a ministry as in the assembly convened; it is written, not spoken but written by one specially used. As it is said here, “he signified it, sending by his angel, to his bondman John”, Revelation 1:1. This could hardly be said of any ordinary prophet as is included in the classification in Ephesians. John is viewed as a special servant, a bondman to whom the thing is [p. 84] signified; not simply revealed by the Spirit in the ordinary sense. It is said that the prophets of old spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit, but the word here is ‘signified’; “he signified it, sending by his angel, to his bondman John”. Clearly, therefore, he has a distinct place, a unique place.
AR Can we not come into that place by being bondmen?
JT That is a word entering into the book in a special way. It is said, “Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him, to shew to his bondmen what must shortly take place”. But the whole Apocalypse was signified to John. Other bondmen come into it. It is important that we should, too; every one of us; but John has a unique place. In fact, there is hardly another just like it in all the Scriptures.
RWS Why does God allow the breakdown?
JT Well, perhaps it may be to show what He can do in meeting it. You wonder why He allowed Peter to break down, or David. It may be that He intends to show what He can be, or what He is in meeting breakdowns; and this meeting now is in order that we might make inquiry as to what marked the beginning and what marked the breakdown.
AAT Has every testimony broken down? Has the testimony of the different dispensations broken down?
JT That is a different thing. The Lord’s did not break down; you know that. You would say that. But every dispensation did, because dispensations are committed into the hands of men.
JTJr Is there a difference between the external side of testimony and what we might refer to as a remnant — what is faithful?
JT That comes out in this book. The first thing is to compare verse 9 with Matthew. The opening verses up until then are introductory; we might say [p. 85] prefatory, but John is introduced in this formal way: “I John, your brother and fellow-partaker in the tribulation and kingdom and patience, in Jesus, was in the island called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus. I became in the Spirit on the Lord’s day”, Revelation 1:9,10. Now we have nothing like this in his history as an apostle. Then what follows here is, “I heard behind me a great voice as of a trumpet, saying, What thou seest write in a book, and send to the seven assemblies: to Ephesus, and to Smyrna, and to Pergamos, and to Thyatira, and to Sardis, and to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea. And I turned back to see the voice which spoke with me; and having turned, I saw seven golden lamps, and in the midst of the seven lamps one like the Son of man”. I think we see here the clue to Matthew 18. That is, the Lord is in the midst of the seven lamps or light-bearers. It says in Matthew 18, “For where two or three are gathered together unto my name, there am I in the midst of them”, Matthew 18:20. He is here in the midst of seven assemblies, seven light-bearers. The link is plain enough that He is in the midst in both cases, only there is a great difference between the “in the midst” in Matthew and the “in the midst” of the scene in Patmos. The Lord Himself spoke in Matthew 18 and there are no habiliments at all suggested like these in Revelation 1, so that we have to inquire, Why the change?
FHL Do not some features of this position remain right from Pentecost through to the taking away of the church? The seven are in view, are they not, in the sense that there is a complete thought from the beginning to the end?
JT Just so; only there is a great difference between the Lord’s attitude here in Revelation and Matthew 18. Matthew 18 must depict what immediately followed — the inauguration of the assembly at Pentecost, whereas this contemplates an era long [p. 86] after; although John was alive at Pentecost and he is alive here, but great services took place, including Paul’s to bring about these seven assemblies.
AR Is Matthew 18 favourable whereas Revelation 1 is unfavourable? There are unfavourable conditions in Revelation in the seven assemblies. He is there judicially or governmentally, like the Son of man.
JT Quite so. That is the point, just to see the difference; whether the cause is somewhat to be found in Matthew 18 in trespass by the brethren.
ANW He is in the midst, is He not, in Revelation 1, whether they will or whether they will not; whether they are together in His Name or not? Is that not so? Is that not His rightful position as in the midst of what bears His Name?
JT It is; and He is there because there is some basis for His being there. Some here abandon even that position so there must be some basis for His being there in Patmos. He is not mentioned first Himself. What John sees is not the Lord Himself but the seven lamps, as if they were still worthy of notice. They are, indeed, called lamps or light-bearers so that this light was still there shining.
WCR Is there any thought of decline in Matthew 18 in connection with the two or three?
JT I think there is. The trespass is perhaps the secret of what we find in Revelation. The first point in Matthew 18 is, “Tell it to the assembly” without any question of her authority or decline. But then the Lord says, “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 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”, Matthew 18:19,20. That would link on pretty well with Philadelphia in Revelation, so that the first part of the passage or [p. 87] paragraph in Matthew 18 is what you might call pristine assembly conditions where it is formally owned. “Tell it to the assembly”. It formally owns the official place of the assembly. But when the Lord says, “Again I say to you”, there is a suggestion that something happened and we are in smaller circumstances.
AR Where difficulties appear, the root condition is usually personal feeling.
JT Just so. I think the link would be there — the trespass was not acknowledged. Therefore the solemn word, “Let him be to thee as one of the nations and a tax-gatherer”, Matthew 18:17. That would correspond pretty much with 2 Timothy. That is, the principle of iniquity would be there in the refusal to acknowledge the trespass, so that withdrawal, the principle of withdrawal from the man, or designating him as a heathen man and a publican, is necessary. There is the parting of the ways. Then the next thing is, “Again I say to you”. The Lord is making provision for that, that if we have to deal with persons in that way, if the thing goes on we may come to a day of small things and we have to look to two. They are of moral importance in being two of the assembly, answering to the assembly, and then two or three answering to it.
AR Do you think that was the root here in this place?
JT Well, very largely, I would think. The way love had waned as at Corinth. You know how they treated Paul, several of them, and said his letters were weighty but his bodily presence weak and his speech contemptible, 2 Corinthians 10:10. They discredited him. That would be the sort of thing that had become general, I would think, if we can examine this book, because this book is really prophetic. All that is indicated was not just existent when it was written.
AAT Do you think that His position in [p. 88] the midst of the candlesticks is a continuous position? Is that a position He has taken all the time?
JT It is in the sense, as has been remarked, of authority. Any personage or king or president or head of anything would have a right at any time to look into and investigate and challenge conditions. His habiliments are judicial. He has a right in these garments to come in at any time and examine conditions and maybe indict anyone in the position.
AAT In Matthew 18 it would not apply.
JT It would apply. That is just what Matthew 18 does suggest, that there are judicial conditions. There is a regular prosecution that enters into church order, and prosecution in view of discovering or having sin judged and dealt with. That is the point in the passage.
FHL Would “Let him be to thee”, Matthew 18:17, answer to the overcomer? It is an individual appeal.
JT Pretty much. As far as you are concerned, you are done with him. The others may not be, but you are taking the lead in being done with him morally and as far as you are concerned the assembly has the final word. That is, hold or maintain the truth of the assembly. What would we do without the court? It is a judicial position.
AAT The court is not the care meeting, is it?
JT No, but it is preliminary. It is leading up to it.
ES Would you explain the use of the word ‘kingdom’ in verse 6 in relation to what we were speaking about in connection with the breakdown?
JT We were speaking of that in Rochester, as to how the saints are constituted a kingdom. There are several kingdoms spoken of in the Scriptures, but this one seems to be to meet an emergency, just in keeping with what we have said already. Matthew 18 is an emergency and we are provided with the means to deal with it, and they are conclusive. The thing [p. 89] does not go by the board. It reaches the assembly, that is, the court, the head authority representative of heaven. Now Revelation 1:6 says, “has made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father”. That would give the saints authority to act in power. Any kingdom has ramifications, because the idea of a kingdom would be represented in a republic as much as in an empire or an ordinary kingdom. They all have the same features of a kingdom, and if conditions arise that are intolerable, that, we will say, Matthew 18 does not meet, if the Lord brings out the idea of a kingdom and constitutes the saints in a given place or generally a kingdom, then they can proceed against evil that may exist that may be intolerable. If the Lord Jesus makes us into a kingdom, we can deal with it. There is no reason why we should ever be driven to the wall by wickedness.
JAP With regard to the word ‘breakdown’, if Matthew 18 is functioning, is that breakdown? If there is power in the saints to meet evil, is that breakdown?
JT It does not seem so. Matthew 18 is intact at first, but then if we read carefully and keep the Apocalypse and the epistles to Timothy in mind, we can see that there is a second matter. “Again I say to you”, the Lord says, “that if two of you shall agree”. He has already said, “Whatsoever ye shall bind on the earth shall be bound in heaven”. That is a big thing. That is an immense power in the hands of the saints, but then He passes on from that and uses the word ‘again’ meaning there is a change of events, a change of circumstances; a smaller set of circumstances, and He begins with two, saying, “If two of you shall agree”. Two of you, notice; that is, two of the assembly. The idea is still intact in their minds. They have access to heaven. They ask the Father who is in heaven. They are united about it. It is given to them, those two. Well, that [p. 90] might be enlarged into a kingdom, if you get those two on moral lines. They have agreed about a thing and heaven is listening to them and heaven answers them, so that the thing is given to them. That may be the basis or nucleus of a kingdom provided by the Lord or constituted by the Lord to meet a very wide emergency; because we have had in the history of the testimony certain things beginning small but widening out everywhere and it becomes dangerous, and the Lord usually comes in and constitutes persons with power to deal with it.
JTJr John speaks in his third epistle about having written something to the assembly. He says, “I wrote something to the assembly; but Diotrephes, who loves to have the first place among them, receives us not. For this reason, if I come, I will bring to remembrance his works which he does, babbling against us with wicked words; and not content with these, neither does he himself receive the brethren; and those who would he prevents, and casts them out of the assembly”, 3 John 9,10. Would that show what had come in even at the beginning?
JT That helps us, I think. The lady, the person in the second epistle, who was a sister, whom he directs that if one comes, not having the doctrine, he is not to be received into the house, nor even be bidden God-speed, 2 John 10 — all that would point to what we are speaking of; how emergencies are met and how the saints are changed by the Lord into a court or kingdom with authority to deal with evil.
RWS So that what precedes the “again”, “tell it to the assembly”, and the two or three agreeing — the one is as legal as the other.
JT That is good. You are in reduced circumstances but the legality is there; not using the word ‘legality’ as anything that binds up the brethren but what is owned to be right and of God.
RWS Is that not where we are tested? An [p. 91] action in pristine conditions might be bowed to by reason of the very number of those who bow, whereas the “two of you” might be just two weak brothers ostensibly or publicly. Is that not the test, to understand that that is just as legal as what existed at first?
JT That is very good. And then the extension is to “two or three”, which is wider and may go to any extent.
ANW Would you say a word as to the bearing of the “unto my name”. That seems to be the crucial point there.
JT Gathering together is also a matter of importance publicly. The ‘two’ are not said to gather together nor are they said to do anything in the Lord’s Name. It is to stress the importance of agreement or unity in two persons who are constitutionally assembly persons. It is to bring out the value of assembly persons, whereas the next verse, verse 20 says, “For where two or three are gathered together unto my name, there am I in the midst of them”. That is a public position and the Name has authority vested in it.
AR Paul stressed the idea of unity before he stressed the idea of withdrawal in 1 Corinthians.
JT Quite so; unity in 1 Corinthians 1 and authority in 1 Corinthians 5.
AR We so stress the idea of authority we forget the idea of unity.
JT That is the order and I am sure that is important. He says, “ye and my spirit being gathered together, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ”, 1 Corinthians 5:4. That is what I was thinking of, the apostolic spirit; and then, the person “being such”, 1 Corinthians 5:5. Let us be sure that what is alleged is so, “to deliver him, I say, being such, to Satan for destruction of the flesh”. You have not only the court but the executioner, you might say, because the [p. 92] prisoner is not only condemned but he is put under limitations; delivered to Satan in this case.
APT Referring again to the “two” in verse 19, would that be, as you were saying, not exactly assembled together, but they have assembly status in that sense? They agree on a matter. Is that the way you look at it? “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 from my Father who is in the heavens”. These two persons are not assembled as we get in verse 20, but they have assembly status as a result of their agreement.
JT The point of importance or value attached to them is that it is “two of you”. You just wonder why it should say “on the earth”, but it is to bring out the position, I suppose, the position of the assembly. I think we can see how much enters into this; how heaven is brought into it, and the Father; and these two are on earth and they are agreed and they ask and it comes to them. I think that is very important, how a thing starts. This thing may be some widespread leaven or heresy, as has taken place frequently in the history of the testimony or assembly — a widespread thing may begin small. As James says, “See how little a fire, how large a wood it kindles!” James 3:5. It begins small, but how wide it may extend!
RWS Is this necessarily two in a locality? Two brothers or a brother and a sister.
JT It would seem as if it could be either a brother or sister. Take the elect lady whom John mentions, or Gaius. Suppose they were two. Or suppose it were Priscilla and Aquila. You can see, if they were living in Corinth and Paul were attacked or the truth were attacked, how they would agree and speak to God, and it should come to them from heaven. It might begin to spread.
AAT In verses 18 and 19 are we not in [p. 93] the midst of a discipline matter? The context before and after indicates that discipline is in view, does it not?
JT Yes; it is a question of a brother. “If thy brother sin against thee”. It is a trespass matter, and then what you are to do. It has been often gone over, but we are just looking at it now as to how it merges publicly with what we have in Revelation; this matter of the Apocalypse, which is something that does not appear in the Lord’s remarks in the gospels nor is it accounted for in the epistles by the apostles. It is something that is contemplated as coming in later, called an Apocalypse, an unveiling, meaning it was not exposed. The thing was not exposed, but now it is exposed and it is to meet conditions that were mysterious in the way of wickedness. “The mystery of iniquity” is spoken of in 2 Thessalonians 2:7 and it is spoken of also here; the mystery of the seven stars, etc. The word ‘mystery’ comes in several times in the Apocalypse. The word ‘Apocalypse’ means an unveiling, but it is not contemplated in the early ministry or writings of the New Testament except here. It was written here, of course, in John’s time, apostolic times, but it is an unveiling of something that is to develop later fully.
JAP In regard to what you say about mystery, I notice it says in the letter to Ephesus, “thou canst not bear evil men; and thou hast tried them who say that themselves are apostles and are not, and hast found them liars”, Revelation 2:2. You would think they had a good reputation in dealing with things, but is not the mystery of evil you are speaking of suggested in: “thou hatest the works of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate”?
JT They were faithful to a point, but there is something against them. At the same time Ephesus seems to be generally in a fairly reliable condition. But now, is it the point at which or into which [p. 94] Matthew 18 enters? Matthew 18 was evidently held as a weapon in the discipline in the assembly, but did it fail to meet conditions in Ephesus which is the first church mentioned? That is, was it enough to expose the fact that love had failed in Ephesus; that it had left its first love; that it happened at the very time in which they were trying those that said they were apostles and were not, and they did not like the Nicolaitanes, but still there is something happening there that the Lord has to resent, and did Matthew 18 enter at that point? Was it enough to meet that, or was that ever met? Was the want of love in the assembly ever really adjusted? That is a question to be understood.
GVD Does not love underlie gaining a brother? Usually it is a matter of gaining the brother.
JT It is. Love was supposed to be there. The man that was trespassed against, if he has it, will succeed, and the procedure indicated would suggest he did succeed. That is, the man’s state is recognised by someone. He is guilty of unconfessed trespass, and unfit for the fellowship.
AR Paul says in 1 Corinthians 13:8, “Love never fails”.
JT It is significant that that is brought in at Corinth. They failed at Ephesus. They were able to judge bad doctrine, but they failed in the matter of love.
FHL Is that why you linked it with Philadelphia? They had an open door and a little power.
JT Yes; I hope we shall see that there is a point of merging between Matthew 18 and Revelation 1, for the Apocalypse contemplates that some hidden thing has happened in the history of the church, and it is a question of whether it was ever adjusted.
ANW Are you carrying the idea of Matthew 18 [p. 95] and the trespass both into the meeting for prayer and the administrative meeting in verse 20?
JT I would. These are the resources that we have, but how long do they last? How long will they hold against the evil? Why did the Apocalypse have to come in and the peculiar attitude the Lord Himself takes up judicially?
FSC Would you bring in the turning away from Paul in Asia? He says, “all who are in Asia, of whom is Phygellus and Hermogenes, have turned away from me”, 2 Timothy 1:15.
JT Quite so. There is an event in the history of the church that had to be dealt with, and many other such things are alluded to in Paul’s own word; like Alexander the coppersmith and Demas’ defection. These are all matters that have to be adjusted, and of conditions in Corinth the apostle says in the letter, ‘When your obedience is fulfilled I will have to deal with them’, but did he ever deal with them? It is just a question of whether they were ever dealt with. Are we obliged to allow things to lapse as unable to deal with them, or is there a means by which we can deal with them? Matthew 18 ought to hold, but evidently it had failed and Revelation contemplates that — that love in the assembly had failed.
APT In Paul’s address to the elders he says, “and from among your own selves shall rise up men speaking perverted things to draw away the disciples after them”, Acts 20:30. Would there be some lapse locally to allow that?
JT There you are. There is another point — the elders of Ephesus. In fact, when we come to look at it now, we will see how many things there are that were already working even before the Apocalypse was given. Its application is plain. It contemplates the ending of apostolic ministry here below. John, of course, was an apostle, more as mysterious, continuing to the end, according to the end of his gospel, but [p. 96] apostolic power had waned when the book of Revelation was inspired.
ANW The Lord Jesus walking in the midst of the assemblies would denote he was not entirely restful but that something needed examination.
JT I think that is right. He had to go journeys.
DMacd In relation to two of you agreeing on a matter, sometimes a situation may come up in a local assembly and there is a difference of opinion, and it comes up time and time again — the same issue. Is it then a question of two persons agreeing on the matter?
JT It would seem as if something has to be done, not by the whole meeting, but by some two. That supposes loyalty in at least two. There will be something done. It will be successful. It will be done to them, the Lord says, of My Father which is in heaven. If we can get a condition like that, we may be sure we will get results. Even although it is a widespread matter, it will be met.
RWS Is there not a suggestion that it will be added to? It speaks of “two or three” following that.
JT Just so.
ANW And then further, the subsequent evidence that the Lord was in it. “There am I” He says, showing that He was in it.
JT Quite so. If He has a footing surely something will be done.
JLF In what way does the one that is offending hear the assembly?
JT That is another thing. That would be a matter of procedure, too; whether two brothers were sent to him, or whether he were present. We are told in Timothy, “Those that sin convict before all”, 1 Timothy 5:20. That would mean he was present. Sometimes the offending brother is not present, and, of course, that is a disadvantage. If he were honest,
[p. 97] he would be present. If he knows the brethren have a charge against him, he should be present, but if he is not present, the brethren would have to go and see him. I suppose two would have to go and see him.
AR If there is withdrawal, there is self-will somewhere. A person being withdrawn from is a result of an act of self-will on the part of that person.
J.T. What is your point?
AR It shows there is a bad state in the person.
JT Well, we will suppose that this person who is contemplated here has trespassed against his brother, and the brother addresses him and he fails to listen, and then he brings two others and he fails to listen to them, then the next thing is, Will he hear the assembly? Tell it to the assembly, and if he will not hear the assembly, “let him be to thee”; that would mean, if he will not hear the assembly, he is a self-willed person, and it is not simply now that he has trespassed against a brother, but he has trespassed against the assembly. He is showing disrespect for divine authority, because divine authority is vested in the assembly. I suppose that is what makes the sin so serious.
A.A.T. Is he wicked?
JT That is the inference. We do not get what the assembly does. We have to go to Corinthians for that. Matthew 18 does not go that far, but it shows how the brother who is trespassed against can bring in conviction of the brother who trespasses and establishes the idea of the assembly. It is to regulate how the brother acts who is trespassed against and what he is to do. What he does is to regard the man as a heathen and a publican. The assembly’s action is not stated.
ANW Would it not be in verse 18? I wondered if that might not give us the authoritative action of the assembly, and then the Lord turns to the plural again: “Whatsoever ye shall bind on the earth shall be bound in heaven”.
JT That is authority that they can take on, but it does not say they took it on. The Lord does not go that far. He indicates how the matter can be settled. What is left unsaid is for faith to proceed in. It is right to act on.
AR Why should two brothers or two sisters be divided? God has linked us together. It is because there is some issue.
JT Is not the issue here a trespass? The man does not listen to his brother.
AR Cain and Abel were divided over the idea of a gift.
JT Quite so. It is the want of love and subjection.
RWS It must require skill to reprove. It says in verse 15, “go, reprove him”. The note says, ‘to show the true character of anything, so as to convict, and hence reprove by showing a man’s fault’. It must require skill to know how far grace should operate, and how far love should go in this matter of reproving. Is that why it is “two of you”?
JT I suppose love is really the basic power of dealing with the matter. It never fails, but the Lord seems to have in mind that we should be thoroughly versed in the procedure with one another, to adjust matters of this kind in the assembly, and He shows that the procedure laid down by Him is successful. The man is isolated as far as the one whom he has trespassed against is concerned. He is isolated. Well, I think all that put with the other facts that we have implies that we have light. Intelligence enables us to proceed with this light to a full result. So that “If two of you” comes in, and then, “Whatsoever ye shall bind on the earth shall be bound in heaven”. That is there, and it seems to be in a way constitutional; what belongs to the conditions as [p. 99] governing this matter, and the brethren can take it up.
WCR The little strength in Philadelphia corresponds with the two or three?
JT I think we might link that on there. What is clear now is that there is enough in what the Lord says to furnish light for us as to any matter that has to be reached governmentally. The Lord gives us intelligence to take things up. The Lord is dealing with persons who are of the assembly: “two of you” and they have enough light to proceed and to reach a conclusion.
JTJr Would you say in principle that the Lord acted on this when He spoke to Peter in the previous chapter? It says He anticipated him. He did not let the matter drop without being spoken about. I mean in chapter 17. It says, “And when he came into the house, Jesus anticipated him, saying” Matthew 17:25. Did you have that in mind, that the thing is taken right up? The whole matter was settled quickly. The piece of money that was found in the fish’s mouth settled the matter. The matter of paying the tax was settled.
JT If you carry that through into chapter 18 — we are dealing with two persons who are at odds — one of them is right morally and the other is not. The question is whether the evidence we have in the paragraph we read in chapter 18 is enough to reach a conclusion. You might say, Well, there is nothing said as to what is to be done with this man. One brother has to regard him as a heathen man and a publican, and others are not doing it. They might say, we do not see that we should do that. Is there not enough light in the instruction the Lord gives to settle the matter? I believe the Lord would convey to us that we are assembly persons and have light, and that He gives us enough for us to go on and reach a conclusion.
RWS Reaching a conclusion individually.
[p. 100] JT I think the whole assembly could reach a conclusion on the facts given. That is, this brother is a righteous man. He has shown himself to be righteous. He has gone the whole way with the other man, and he, in his own mind, is settled as to him and regards him as a heathen man and a publican. Can the matter hang in the air like that? No. The Lord has given enough for the assembly person, or the assembly itself to act. The assembly is composed of intelligent persons. If we have a case brought in such as the Lord indicates here, there ought to be enough intelligence in the assembly to settle the matter, so that we do not need to let things drag. If he is a heathen and a publican, if the Lord says that man is not fit to be your companion or to have any fellowship with you, then he is not fit for the assembly.
AAT A heathen and a publican is out of fellowship.
JT Can we not furnish all that is necessary? The law of the house is not like the law of Moses. It contemplates that the assembly, which has to do with the matter, is formed of intelligent persons.
ANW If there is nothing personal nor any prejudice, there would be a unified action in regard to it.
JT Can a man stand by himself? If he has judged that the man is to be treated as a heathen man and a publican, are the other brethren to stand by and say nothing? The Lord does not mean that at all. The word ‘you’ there is a guide. The assembly is formed by persons who are intelligent, and made intelligent by the Spirit, so that they will know what to do. The Lord has given us enough information so that we can act. What can we do in every care meeting, but see that that brother is righteous? His attitude is right and we must all support him. It is intelligent persons that have to do with [p. 101] him.
JH Was it not a serious matter in Acts 15 when Paul and Silas separated from Barnabas and Mark. The brethren sent forth Paul and Silas. Is that akin to an assembly action?
JT It shows that the brethren generally were with Paul. That is as clear as anything. Of course, the authoritative thing there was the letter written by the assembly, by the elders and by the Spirit. The Spirit confirmed it. It was sent abroad among the Gentiles. That was the conclusive, authoritative thing. What happened between Paul and Barnabas was a matter of heat. There was contention between them and it was so strong that they separated one from another, but there was no assembly action called for in that. Paul was justified in the mind of the brethren generally.
JH I meant as regards Mark. He was justified in his action that Mark should not go with him.
JT It was not an assembly matter. It was a levitical matter between the two. We would all say Paul was right, but we could not say more than that, because Barnabas was not out of fellowship, nor Mark either. This matter involves a person unfit for fellowship, and if one brother says it is so, are the others to say nothing? The Lord says, “Whatsoever ye shall bind on the earth shall be bound in heaven”. Bind that man that is unfit for fellowship.
AAT Then we turn to 2 Timothy to act?
JT We do not need to turn anywhere. This is spiritually anterior to 2 Timothy. This is a condition that might arise at any time after the assembly was inaugurated. Things were still intact, but when the Lord says, “Again I say unto you”, He means there will be a change from that, and I think the book of Revelation contemplates that and 2 Timothy also.
RWS Does the practical working out of this expose the Corinthian state that exists? We read about Philadelphia, but concretely it is humbling — [p. 102] the lack of uniformity of judgment and action towards those withdrawn from.
JT Clearly, but the position at Corinth was not really settled. There were many others, and that is just what ought to come up now; how much there is allowed to pass because general conditions among the brethren do not afford power to exercise discipline where it should be exercised. He says, “having in readiness to avenge all disobedience”, 2 Corinthians 10:6. And he tells us in the second letter of those who were still reprobate, and he says, I am waiting for you brethren to judge yourselves in every detail. I must wait for your obedience so that I can proceed against the others. We cannot say that they ever were proceeded against.
APT Does he not seem to have a little hesitancy in the end of the second epistle as to coming again, that the difficulty would still be there? Does he seem to suggest that?
JT I would say so. He had in mind to come, but then did he come? Did he deal with all these persons? I think we are reminded that if they are not dealt with, at any rate they should be spoken of. It should be understood that they exist and the book of Revelation contemplates that there are things existent that have not been dealt with.
JAP Do you think the case of Absalom in David’s kingdom was always a source of weakness?
JT It was. The book of Revelation contemplates there are many such matters. Every assembly had something that had not been dealt with.
ANW “How say some among you that there is not a resurrection?” 1 Corinthians 15:12.
JT Just so. Was it ever dealt with?
AR Joab was a politician.
JT His was a case that was never settled until Solomon came to the throne, and so it is in all these letters to the assemblies, the Lord has almost in every [p. 103] one something that He has against them, meaning it has been there and has not been dealt with. So that He says, “But I have against thee that thou permittest the woman Jezebel”, Revelation 2:20. How long had she been there? Are there any such conditions around in the gatherings today? Are there conditions that there is not enough power to enable us to deal with them?
WCR If that is the case it would be equivalent to saying there was really no assembly status in the place.
JT You might modify that a little, because the conditions at Corinth would not allow the apostle to deal with serious evil there. Are there such conditions now? We have to look into it. I think two of you agreeing is a great point. If you get one or two who are right with God, God will act with them and for them.
ANW You have these assemblies, but the word is addressed to the angel of that assembly, and that element coming to light would take the word on.
JT The word ‘angel’ is really the link with God, like the spirit in a man. A man’s spirit is like the lamp of the Lord in the man’s self, and so it is the angel in the assembly is like the spirit that God can act with and use against the whole assembly to set it right.
RWS “Having in readiness to avenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled”. “Your obedience”, is general, is it not, more than the two or three in Corinth?
JT The whole company had to be righted in the matter before the apostle could proceed. There was a strong party of them and it might mean a split in the meeting if Paul were to proceed against them.
RWS Did it begin with two?
JT Very likely. The house of Chloe. What about her? She was one like that; and the house of [p. 104] Stephanas. These were things that Paul could use there to bring about better conditions, and so he sent Timothy there.
FHL Was he afraid of conditions developing in Philippi when he addressed Euodia and Syntyche?
JT They were not right; although it was a very wholesome assembly, yet they were to be of one mind in the Lord. All these matters ought to be settled, and there ought not be anyone acting lawlessly amongst us, doing as they wish. The secret is that the general condition of the assembly in such a case is not right.
APT Persons who only come to the breaking of bread are really not in agreement locally, are they?
JT You just wonder about a person like that. The allusion in chapter 11 of 1 Corinthians helps. “For this cause”, 1 Corinthians 11:30. Well, these are the causes. The cause, of course, immediately was the conduct in the meeting when they did come to the Lord’s supper.
WWM Where there has been withdrawal, or we might say, binding, there is a unity there with others, but it is just as important when there is a loosing that no feeling is carried.
JT That is the thing; to get to the end of matters. The end of a matter is better than the beginning, especially in the evil; getting it finished.
WWM In regard to your reference to feelings, Mark’s name has been mentioned. While that was not an assembly matter exactly, as you say, but it was between Levites, yet you can understand when Paul says to bring Mark for he is serviceable to me for ministry, it would suggest that the man has thoroughly judged his course and now he should be received by all.
JT There should be no question about him at all. Very often when a man has really judged himself and the brethren want him to be with them, some are not free about it, and that is where the difficulty arises, but in Mark’s case the matter is clear. It is a finished matter.
WCR The eleven stood up with Peter.
JT Yes; indeed. They had no difficulties about him now. The end of a matter is better than the beginning, especially if it is a recovery, where there is restoration.
APT Would it be right to suggest if love is not acting the action is negligible? It is really love in all assembly discipline; the love of God as seen in the cross and the judgment of Calvary.
JT It is the one thing that is missing really at Corinth; the one thing that could not be illustrated. It is like a picture. 1 Corinthians 13 stands by itself. It is a description of love; not a model of love, but a description of it. It is one thing to get a description of a person, and it is another thing to get a picture of him, and the final thing to see the person himself. So that Paul gave us the description of love in chapter 13 and other such evidences of what was in his mind, but he sent Timothy so that he might live among them day and night, as it were, that they might learn in him Paul’s ways as they were in Christ. As it were, he was Paul himself. That was better than a description in writing.
AAT That is why Timothy is called his son.
JT The description in writing is, of course, vague, but the person is an embodiment. We had the idea of impersonation, persons being impersonated in other persons. Elijah, when the Lord was here, was impersonated in John the baptist, but he was himself on the mount. The actual Elijah was there. “Two men ... who were Moses and Elias”. They were not impersonated. They were the veritable Moses and the veritable Elijah, but John the baptist was representing Elijah. The Lord says, “If ye will receive it, this is Elias, who is to come”, Matthew 11:14. But there is another Elijah to come yet, but no [p. 106] doubt it will be some other impersonator; a man right here on earth, whereas Elijah has departed to be in heaven. Well now, I mention all that because it is a principle in the letter to Corinth — the impersonation of Paul. “For this reason I have sent to you Timotheus, who is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord”, 1 Corinthians 4:17, as if it were a complete representation of the apostle. And why? “Who shall put you in mind of my ways as they are in Christ”. That is important, too, to keep in our minds, because John the baptist represents it, and it will come in presently in relation to the Jews. Elijah is to come. Are there not impersonations in some little degree among the brethren that remind us of what is real; whether it be in the Lord Himself, or in the apostles, or later ministry because it is better to have the person than to hear about him?
APT Paul says later he had no one like-minded. Whom does he refer to there?
JT Himself, I would think. “For I have no one like-minded who will care with genuine feeling how ye get on”, Philippians 2:20. That is, how he would himself care for the saints, and Timothy would have the same way with him.
AR He says, “Yet shew I unto you a way of more surpassing excellence”, 1 Corinthians 12:31.
JT That is descriptive. He was not saying that it was a model of love among the Corinthians, nor that he himself was a model of love. It was just a writing; the showing was just in writing, not an impersonation. It is a beautiful description, but it is only a description. There is no person there. They are all abstract statements.
WCR What is the thought of the Lord writing the name: “I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven, from my God, and my new name”, Revelation 3:12? What is the thought in the name?
JT That is representation, I think, too. You would be reminded of His God and of New Jerusalem. The person who is an overcomer in Philadelphia would remind you of the things mentioned, which is near to what we are saying. It is very near to the idea of impersonation. The Lord Jesus is a perfect impersonation of the Father. John the baptist, in ministry, was the impersonation of Elijah.
RWS Despite the two or three, if our eyes are open do you think we will discover all these features working out practically in the idea of impersonation in the fellowship?
JT I think so. I think there are reproductions in the family of God. We are sure to get near likenesses. In all families you get near likenesses, and no doubt there are now near likenesses of past ministry.