AUTHORITY IN DOCTRINE AND FELLOWSHIP (2)
[p. 274] AUTHORITY IN DOCTRINE AND FELLOWSHIP (2)
Acts 2:42; 1 John 1:1 - 4; 1 John 1:7; 1 Corinthians 10:14 - 22
JT For those who may not have been present yesterday it may be remarked that our subject is the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, extending to and inclusive of Paul’s doctrine and the fellowship that he speaks of. The proposal was not so much to consider the doctrine of the twelve, and the doctrine of Paul in themselves, but rather to show that it was their doctrine. There had been doctrine — or teaching — earlier, teaching carried down from the Old Testament, which of course is not abrogated, which stands, but is not included in the apostles’ doctrine. What the apostles taught was the test for faith — and their fellowship also — so that the believers are said to have persevered in them, showing that there was opposition. Whatever they taught would be cherished by the converts; it would have authority with them. It is not intended to suggest that we have any such authority vested in any man now, but to show that there is authority. The presence of the Holy Spirit, a divine Person, continuing on with the assembly, and in it, and speaking, necessarily carries the thought of authority. So that where God works in the soul of a man or woman or child, there is the recognition of that. “He that has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the assemblies”, Revelation 2:7. An ear to hear implies a work of God. The thought is illustrated in the three thousand converts at Pentecost who “said to Peter and the other apostles. What shall we do, brethren?”(Acts 2:37) They recognised, not only Peter, through whom the light immediately came to them, but the other apostles; that is, the authority of God distributed in those twelve, was recognised in them, by those in whom God was working.
[p. 275] That illustrates how those in whom God works at all times recognise the authority of God as it is expressed. It was not as if at that particular moment a voice from heaven had called attention to those twelve men, that they were the representatives of Christ’s authority; they were manifestly that, and the converts discerned it, and so in this verse we have the expression “they persevered in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles”, (verse 42).
PL “They recognised them that they were with Jesus”, (Acts 4:13); would that be the moral side?
JT It would. Peter, we are told, stood up with the eleven, not with the hundred and twenty, and his opening words are in verse 14. “Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice and spoke forth to them. Men of Judaea, and all ye inhabitants of Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give heed to my words”, Acts 2:14. There is the assertion of authority in the person who speaks, but then the eleven standing there evidently conveyed the same thing to the converts. In making these remarks, it is in no way to suggest that there is any person, or persons, in whom the authority of God is formally vested now, but to call attention to the Spirit speaking, and that He speaks through persons selected of Himself, who have moral qualifications, and where that is so, those in whom God is working will recognise it, and where it is not recognised there will be the assertion of independency.
HES Is that especially called attention to in 2 Corinthians, where the apostle is so concerned that what he says should be borne out in all that he is?
JT That is so. As we had it yesterday, the Lord said He was altogether that which He said, John 8:25. As was remarked, there is no intention of unfolding the doctrine of the apostles; it would be too much to undertake in two readings. It means the doctrine of Christianity; but Paul is introduced as distinctive. The [p. 276] ministry of the twelve was set out in its own distinctiveness and quality in Peter and John, according to chapter 3, but Paul’s teaching is distinctive to himself, and it represents personality, which is a matter of consequence in the ministry, because it is called attention to in the Lord. His Personality is announced before He enters upon His service: “This is my beloved Son, in whom I have found my delight”, (Matthew 3:17), and then He is anointed. Correspondence to this is seen with David, as anointed his personality is stressed: “he was ruddy, and besides of a lovely countenance”, (1 Samuel 16:12); and moreover one of Saul’s attendants said, “Behold, I have seen a son of Jesse the Bethlehemite, who is skilled in playing, and he is a valiant man and a man of war, and skilled in speech, and of good presence, and Jehovah is with him”, (verse 18). So that personality enters in to the ministry, and it would appear that the Lord emphasised that special trait with Paul, so that his personality entered into his ministry more than any of the others; it is to bring out what personality implies, and in personality the idea of what is more excellent. So that we have the full thought of God set out in the mystery, in Paul’s teaching. He not only speaks of his teaching, but his gospel — “my gospel” and “my teaching” — and that is a matter I believe the Lord would have us to note, because, after all, aside from personality, ministry is not of much value: ministry and personality should go together.
MWB Then, would you say that two things are requisite? On the part of those who hear there is to be the ear to hear, and then on the part of those who speak, there is to be the personality or moral antecedents and qualities.
JT That is it; the minister is attractive personally. His gift, of course, will enhance him, but he should enhance his gift and his ministry.
MWB Would you say a word as to the place [p. 277] the epistles of John have in the question of teaching or doctrine?
JT Well, his epistles show that he has a very great place, mainly in regard of life. I suggested the passage in his first epistle because it brings in the question of fellowship in relation to life, and I thought it would amplify this verse in Acts 2, where we have the apostles’ fellowship. John formally calls it “our fellowship”. He speaks of the same thing, saying, “our fellowship is indeed with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ”. That is not what we properly speak of as Paul’s fellowship, or sometimes what we speak of as a Christian fellowship: it is what is exclusive to the apostles. Is that clear?
MWB I was wondering if you would say a little more about the distinction between “our fellowship” in John, and the distinctiveness of Christian fellowship in 1 Corinthians 10.
JT We have what we rightly call Christian fellowship in Paul’s ministry. John touches on it in verse 7: “if we walk in the light as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another”: that touches Paul’s side. Paul never says ‘my fellowship’; the twelve do; they say “our fellowship”. Paul says “my doctrine — my gospel”, but with him it is just fellowship; so that he says that God has called us “into the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord”(1 Corinthians 1:9), and then, in the verses read in 1 Corinthians 10 the cup is fellowship and the bread is fellowship; and in the last verse of the second letter there is the fellowship of the Spirit.
MWB The “our fellowship” of John is more connected with the inauguration of Christianity.
JT That is what I understand.
MWB Then, what is implied in, “that ye also may have fellowship with us”?
JT That bears out what we are saying. The generality of saints come into the fellowship subordinately;
[p. 278] they come into what the apostles had with the Father and with His Son; but the apostles had a distinct platform of their own in the promulgation of the testimony.
EuR In speaking of the apostles’ fellowship, are you stressing the thought of authority connected with the fellowship as well as with the teaching, and that that remains connected with the fellowship?
JT Yes, the idea of authority that shuts out all independency in fellowship.
EuR One great evidence of it would be that sin is dealt with authoritatively.
JT Quite so. It is a partnership, as we have often remarked. The word signifies that I participate in something jointly; and the doctrine of the apostles would enter into the fellowship of the apostles, for the fellowship must be governed by principles, exclusive and inclusive; and no doubt that is why their names are in the foundation of the wall of the heavenly city.
JD How far does personality weigh with the Lord in selecting a vessel — or does it weigh with the Lord at all?
JT It does weigh with the Lord; it is stressed as in Himself, as we have seen. He selects sovereignly, but He selects on moral grounds too.
HES Is it particularly seen in David, who was a man after God’s own heart, although sovereignly chosen?
JT That is what I was remarking. The question of choice is greatly stressed in 1 Samuel 16: the prophet is sent to Bethlehem to the house of Jesse the Bethlehemite, a man in the recognition of the testimony already. Bethlehem had a great place, and Jehovah said to Samuel that he was to anoint whom He would name. Samuel did not wait for the name; he would anoint Eliab, but he had to wait. There was no one in the house that Jehovah could name. That means [p. 279] that God is not going to accept any one; He is not prepared to accept what I may present to Him in myself; He is not obliged to; and He resents any such thing as the ordination of a minister by a so-called bishop; and the assumption that, because of university and divinity qualifications, he must be accepted. God resents it; He says “whom I name”. And so the seven sons of Jesse pass before the prophet, and he says, “Jehovah has not chosen these”(1 Samuel 16:10). That was a very solemn thing. They were all put to shame, although no doubt they were at their best. So that, we have not only the rejection by the Lord, of Saul, and of Amalek in Agag, in the previous chapter, but the rejection of all the sons present of this house of Jesse the Bethlehemite; there was no one there whom God could name. The next thing is that Samuel says, “Are these all the young men?” There is the challenge. Now Jesse had a place in the testimony; he is acknowledged; he and his sons are called to the sacrifice; he and his house are sanctified so that we may be outwardly recognised in the testimony — have a place in it — and yet not be called into the service. Therefore, he has to wait; they have all to wait until David comes in. I refer to that in answer to our brother’s question as showing how particular God is as to personality. As soon as David arrives, personality is immediately stressed. He was of “beautiful appearance”; and Jehovah says, “Arise, anoint him; for this is he”(1 Samuel 16:12). The same chapter shows that an observer among the ordinary people discerned other distinguishing qualities in David: “I have seen a son of Jesse the Bethlehemite”,(1 Samuel 16:18) and he describes his qualities. Later he has such power to play, that he relieves even a man like Saul!
WCG Was the personality you speak of in David to be seen in his appreciation of the ark?
JT No doubt. “We heard of it at Ephratah”,(Psalm 132:6) he says; there was also the energy of life in him. He was ruddy, which implies the energy of life. It is not mere [p. 280] ability or gift, but the man himself is living and in spiritual power; and he had a beautiful countenance, he is personally attractive. All that appeared in Christ perfectly, infinitely, but it also appeared in Paul; there were all those features that enhanced the testimony in him, so that his personality entered into it.
WCG In Christ it was God Himself: “God has been manifested in flesh”, (1 Timothy 3:16).
JT Just so; but manhood was there: “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased”(Matthew 3:17) refers to this.
Ques Do you mean that God in calling us to the fellowship of His Son has in mind that His features are to be seen in us as in the fellowship?
JT Certainly, otherwise the fellowship would be discredited. That it is the fellowship of His Son is the dignity of it. There is to be some reflection of the Son in those in the fellowship, and if there is to be that, there must be the fellowship of His death, that is chapter 10, and then the fellowship of the Spirit. Those three features must go together; they are characteristic. It is not so much the authority entering into the fellowship, but the characteristic features of it. It is the fellowship of God’s Son.
JD Would you distinguish between the fellowship of “his Son” and “Jesus Christ our Lord”?
JT Sonship is the attractiveness and dignity of it, but “Jesus Christ our Lord” would be the authority of the Lord entering into it.
EuR When it says, “by whom ye have been called into the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord”(1 Corinthians 1:9), is that general to Christians now?
JT Yes, fellowship as Paul presents it. What he introduces is properly our fellowship, not exclusive of the others, but inclusive as to the principle of authority. The apostles’ fellowship involves authority, and at the same time gives them a distinction that no others [p. 281] have.
EuR But the faithfulness of God is behind this general fellowship right through.
JT Exactly; “God is faithful”.
AS In Mark 13:34 it says that He gave authority to His servants — who would they be?
JT They are just “bondmen”. What is seen there runs right through. It is not a question of the apostles there, but bondmen; in whomsoever true bondmanship to God is found, authority is with them. That scripture enters specially into what we are speaking of. It is the authority there, you notice; it is not simply authority, but the authority, the whole idea, and that runs right through.
MWB Would you say a word about the link between the doctrine and the fellowship? Is it possible for us to have the fellowship in a practical sense if the doctrine is wanting?
JT I think not. They are linked together in the passage, as you will observe: “they persevered in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles, in breaking of bread and prayers”. Now, “in breaking of bread and prayers”: this is not a question of the apostles. It is not the apostles’ breaking of bread nor the apostles’ prayers; it is just the “teaching and fellowship of the apostles”; the others flow out of the divine nature and the intelligence of the saints. The breaking of bread and prayer with all that follows shows what they were as the subjects of the work of God. But these two things — the teaching and fellowship of the apostles — are linked together. Aside from the teaching there could be no claim to the fellowship.
MWB Does that go so far as the exhortation in the second epistle of John, that if one came and brought not the doctrine, there was to be the refusal of admission to the house?
JT Exactly. That was the point raised at Plymouth. It was a question of the doctrine, and not [p. 282] only the doctrine, but of clericalism primarily, which effectively nullified the fellowship.
MWB What do you mean by clericalism in that sense?
JT Well, they had a set of ministers there who held the ministry in their hands, which in principle shut out the Spirit. Thus fellowship was involved. Subsequently the worst kind of doctrine developed. Bethesda in receiving from the meeting thus affected, committed itself to the evil. The passage you referred to bears on that; if one has not the doctrine, he is not to be received nor even to be bid God speed, because in doing so you are a partaker in his evil deeds — that is the idea of fellowship.
MWB It should make us very careful as to how we link ourselves in any way with that which is so corrupt in Christianity professedly today.
JT The fellowship is the great bulwark we have, and it implies our loyalty to Christ, to the truth, and consistency with the death of Christ, and also our loyalty to one another. That is the way Paul develops the truth of fellowship. John says, “if we walk in the light as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another”, not that we should have. John deals with things abstractly: “if we walk ...”, but Paul in 1 Corinthians brings out the thought of loyalty as to one another — I mean as committing ourselves — “we, being many, are one loaf” — and whether we are true to that when we are not assembled, whether we are consistent with it when we are not under each other’s eyes.
EP If the man who does not bring the doctrine of Christ could not be received into our houses, could he be received into our gatherings?
JT Certainly not; the assembly is more holy than our houses. Other scriptures besides 2 John treat of the assembly’s judgment of such [p. 283] a person.
FSM Would Lydia furnish an illustration of what you are saying? She attended to the things spoken by Paul, and then she besought him, saying, “If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and abide there”(Acts 16:15). Is there not the positive side that fellowship would give an open door to Paul and all connected with him?
JT Quite, it is the converse of John’s second letter. One man is excluded because he does not bring the doctrine; another man is received, we may say, because be brings it. Lydia’s heart was opened “to attend to the things spoken by Paul”(Acts 16:14).
HMS Is it of value that those two principles are established in sisters — the elect lady in the epistle of John and Lydia in the book of Acts?
JT It is remarkable, showing the important place that sisters have in the fellowship. The elect lady is called upon to exercise discipline in her own locality. A lone sister may exercise discipline in that way. It is a question of fellowship. Whether l am in a large or small meeting, or even isolated, the fellowship must be maintained; the obligation is always present. So there is what we may call local fellowship, and general, but the general necessarily includes the local. There is really only one fellowship, but it takes a general bearing and a local bearing. The apostle Paul deals with it locally at Corinth, but when he says, “we, being many, are one loaf, one body”, he is speaking of the general fellowship — not “ye”, but “we”.
JAP What relation has eternal life to fellowship?
JT John’s side of the truth is to give body to it; he speaks of what is substantial; here he uses the neuter pronouns “that” and “that which”. In the first three verses “that which” appears four times; meaning that what he was presenting was substantial. Life is substantial; whether in Christ or in the saints. Here the apostle is referring to Christ, saying, “That which was from the beginning, that which we have [p. 284] heard, which we have seen with our eyes; that which we contemplated, and our hands handled, concerning the word of life”. It is no mere phantom or myth or theory; it is a substantial thing, so to speak, a thing handled and seen and contemplated. Later he speaks of the life as in the saints: “Which thing is true in him and in you”, chapter 2:8. That gives body to our fellowship. We have got something really enjoyable and attractive, which should be so to every Christian. All is that “your joy may be full”. Why should we not have joy in our fellowship?
Ques Do we have fellowship with the Father and the Son?
JT We ought to leave any particular scripture in its own setting. I should not deny for a moment that we have fellowship with the Father and His Son in a way, but why should we say that? The scripture, speaking through one of the apostles, says, “our fellowship”, and ye “have fellowship with us”; it does not say ‘ye’ have fellowship with the Father and His Son. I am only remarking as to the importance of letting scripture have its full place with us. I know that many disregard the distinction — as other such distinctions — but we lose if we do. Let scripture speak for itself.
EuR And in 1 Corinthians when the apostle says “ye”, the bearing of that is on the saints in a locality, but when he says “our Lord”, that involves what is universal, seeing he puts himself in. It would greatly strengthen things in localities, where things are small, to feel Paul bringing them within the embrace of the “our”.
JT Just so. It is wonderful to dwell upon the dignity of what we are called into. There may be a Freemasons’ lodge and other such things in the same town; that is, certain other fellowships, but we see the fellowship we have! A member of the Royal Family may be Grand Master of the Freemasons; but look at the fellowship we are in — the fellowship of God’s [p. 285] Son! We ought to take that in; but then, the converse of that is the fellowship of His death, and therefore, the dignity we have spoken of as in the fellowship of God’s Son, is not to make anything of us in the town. We have to be on our guard about these large meetings, because they do tend to make us something in the town. I am not deprecating them at all. May God grant there may be greater enlargement among the Lord’s people; but the fellowship of God’s Son is not to make us anything in the town, as of the town, but is rather like Bethany, “where was the dead man Lazarus whom Jesus raised from among the dead”(John 12:1): that is the position. He sat at the table with Him. That is all inward and spiritual. There is no thought of making anything of us in our localities as religious bodies; but the moral dignity is there, and this is maintained by the fellowship of Christ’s death: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of the Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of the Christ?” That involves the general fellowship, but expressed locally. The Lord’s death is thus shown, and this incurs reproach.
HES The same thought is seen in Ittai the Gittite who said, “As Jehovah liveth, and as my lord the king liveth, surely in what place my lord the king shall be, whether in death or life, even there also will thy servant be”, (2 Samuel 15:21).
JT Exactly. He had only come “yesterday”, but he was in the fellowship, and he valued it. Wherever the king might be he would be, and that is the position; wherever the King is we should be. Christ is rejected as David was then, but nevertheless He is God’s Son.
Ques What have you in mind in referring to John 12 in regard to the “dead man Lazarus” being there?
JT In the way the facts are stated there is a moral bearing on Lazarus, that he did not belong any more to the town; he was not “a man about town”; as to the world he was a dead man. He was risen and brought [p. 286] back to normal life, but the way the Holy Spirit mentions it shows that the man had ceased to be a living man in relation to this world; he belonged to another world.
EuR He would be dead to the religious and social circles in that town.
JT Yes. So that a company of Christians in any town or city, is not made anything more of by the fact that they are of the fellowship of God’s Son; it does not enhance their position in the town. Chapter 10 puts them out of view, because partaking of the Lord’s Supper means the communion or fellowship of the blood of Christ. He poured out His precious blood, and the body of Christ lay in death. That is what we have part in; that indeed is what we are feeding on; eating the bread and drinking the cup of the Lord’s supper implies this; the eating and drinking is also a testimony to the Lord’s death: “For as often as ye shall eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye announce the death of the Lord, until he come”, (1 Corinthians 11:26).
EuR There is thus a stigma upon those in the fellowship.
JT It is a very searching matter; and I think we ought also to add the thought of the fellowship of His sufferings. The sufferings of Christ perhaps have not the place with us that the Lord would give them. We are to know the fellowship of His sufferings. That is a connection in which the word ‘fellowship’ is used that should never be out of our minds.
PL Assembly sorrows would enter into the fellowship of His sufferings.
HOS When the apostle Paul said that he filled up “that which is behind of the tribulations of Christ in my flesh, for his body” (Colossians 1:24), was that his special distinction in regard of suffering?
JT It shows how he calculated what should mark the assembly in the way of suffering, that it was one of the features, and evidently the saints were behind in this. There was a need of filling up, and he did it [p. 287] in himself; so that I am sure the Lord would bring us into the participation or fellowship of His holy sufferings. As He entered Gethsemane, there was remarkable care and precision in what He was doing with His own. He wished them to be in full view of all that happened to Him. He said, “Sit here until I go away and pray yonder” (Matthew 26:36); a very touching thing, that some are just caused to sit down, while He goes some distance and prays. Then He took three with Him, and “began to be sorrowful and deeply depressed” (Matthew 26:37), and He sought that they should watch with Him. Then He withdrew from them a stone’s throw, showing that there should be a full view. A stone’s throw is not very far, not like the two thousand cubits that separated the ark from Israel: He was near enough to be in full view, so they could observe His agonies. Peter says of himself, “witness of the sufferings of the Christ”, (1 Peter 5:1). Now, these things were not written only for them, but that we might have a full view spiritually, and be able to see all that happened, in order that we might have fellowship in the sufferings.
MWB You have drawn a distinction previously between the way Luke presents that scene, and Matthew and Mark, referring to the mount of Olives in Luke. Would you say a little more about that? Does it necessarily imply spiritual power?
JT I think so, and the word ‘custom’ is added: “according to his custom”. That is not brought in in connection with Gethsemane. Gethsemane is more the pressure side. You only get Gethsemane in Matthew and Mark, and correspondingly the forsaking is only found in those two evangelists. Luke’s way of mentioning it is to bring it within our range, to make it, as it were, easier for us. The pressure side is not stressed, but rather that it was a custom of the Lord’s to go to the mount of Olives. He went to a place where He had been accustomed to go, and His disciples followed Him. If we get into His customs, we shall find they are not [p. 288] mere customs, but there is power in them. Then Luke tells us that He was helped by angelic ministry, which is another touch we can count upon. Luke’s side is to make it possible for us, if Matthew and Mark stress severity of suffering.
HES In John’s gospel the Lord’s greatness and glory are seen, while in Luke it is how near He has come to us in suffering.
JT Yes. John gives us the ark going through Jordan, and the distance is maintained, but I think Luke would bring us near to it, and present it so that we might accept it more. You say, I can accept that much. The Lord will own you as having part in His sufferings if you do.
Ques Have we on the one hand the privilege of entering into the Lord’s sufferings, and then, are we also privileged to enter into the joy of the Lord as exalted among His brethren, like David?
JT Exactly. John gives us the joy side: “that your joy may be full”.
Ques If we enjoy that, is it something like the land of Goshen, where we have no dog-flies?
JT Just so. In fact, in the fellowship we are immune from all the plagues of Egypt.
MWB You have referred to the fellowship in connection with the truth, and the sufferings of the Lord; would you say a word as to the way we involve our brethren in the question of fellowship?
JT I thought we should see that in 1 Corinthians 10, because that chapter has in view our every-day relations. It is the Lord’s supper, and our participation in it is made to bear upon our public relations and conduct. The word ‘communion’ used here in the New Translation is perhaps a little misleading as to what is taught in the passage; because it has acquired a somewhat different meaning from its original as used by the apostle. The word ‘communion’ today is a common expression, used by persons in the denomination for [p. 289] taking the sacrament: the holy communion, as they say. But, in truth, in that they are not thinking of their relations to others — their joint participation with them, they are only thinking of their communion with the Lord, in an individual way, which is not the idea at all. The idea is that the Lord’s supper is a joint matter, that we as brethren in any given locality have partnership, or are joint participators in something, and that something involves the death of Christ, that is, the blood of Christ and the body of Christ; then further, that, inasmuch as that fact is so solemn, it is to enter into all our public relations and conduct. I am not only under obligation to the Lord in that, for He is not regarded as in the fellowship; the fellowship is among the saints. We are in the fellowship, and it is the fellowship of His blood and of His body. That is characteristic, but the fellowship is that in which we partake. It is a question therefore of my conduct, and whether I feel under obligation to the brethren, both locally and generally.
HOS Would that have been seen with Ruth when she sat down and dipped the bread in the vinegar?
JT Quite so; she had part in what the reapers had. She was not to go into any other field; but that is what young Christians do sometimes: they go into another field and become damaged.
JD Speaking of the obligations of the fellowship, do they exist whether we break bread or not?
JT It is well to go by the scriptures. The obligation is placed on what we are doing, upon the cup which we bless, and the bread which we break; and then again, it says, “as often as ye shall eat this bread, and drink the cup”. The obligation is attached to what we are doing. That is, am I in the fellowship? If I am in the fellowship, then I express it as in the breaking of bread; I am not in it otherwise. The obligation attaches to [p. 290] that.
MWB It is not always seen that any action in any sphere of our life involves our brethren. Is that not the meaning of the fellowship?
JT That is just the idea. We are joint partakers, and so, if someone has some particular view of the truth and carries it on apart from the brethren, it is a denial of the fellowship. It is not that we always see eye to eye in everything, but we are “using diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in the uniting bond of peace”, (Ephesians 4:3). There is no lower standard than that. Then there is the “unity of the faith”; but if I take up a line of teaching which is regarded as unscriptural, and I persist in it, and refuse entreaties and exhortations and admonitions, well, I simply deny the fellowship, and, not only that, but I am not hearing the assembly. One may say. Where is the assembly? But then, the light intended to govern it governs us. There are those who are walking in the light of the assembly, and the Lord is with them, and disregard of their entreaties and admonitions is simply that I am not hearing the assembly. That is the way the truth stands; to refuse it is an absolute denial of the principles of the fellowship.
Ques And would such a one be amenable to discipline?
JT Certainly. Not hearing the assembly renders him a subject of discipline. “An heretical man after a first and second admonition have done with”, (Titus 3:10.) It is the refusal of admonition that immediately occasions the discipline.
MWB Is it not equally applicable to the question of associations, such as unequal yokes? Do we involve our brethren in matters of that kind — marriage, for instance?
JT We do. It is remarkable that we have such a long chapter on it in this very epistle, which is the “law of the house”. The Corinthians had apparently written to the apostle about the subject of marriage,
[p. 291] and he had entered into it at length, stressing that it must be “in the Lord”.
FGW What about Christians who have never broken bread? How do they stand in regard of this scripture?
JT Well, they have to deal with the Lord as to that. They are neglecting His request, and they are outside the circle of those who do; we pray for them. We cannot impose obligations on them until they actually break bread, for that is the way the truth is stated. “The Lord knows those that are his”, (2 Timothy 2:19), and “I rebuke and discipline as many as I love”, (Revelation 3:19), indicating that we may claim them for the fellowship, but they are not in it. They do not partake of the Lord’s table, for we cannot do this save as consistent with it. These “cannots” in the passage are to be noted. It says, “Ye cannot drink the Lord’s cup, and the cup of demons: ye cannot partake of the Lord’s table, and of the table of demons. Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?” People enquire sometimes whether that means nominal Christians who partake of the so-called sacrament. We would not infer that they are partaking of the table of demons. They are not, unless indeed we refer to the Mass in the Romish system; but what we can say about every independent company is, that it is not the Lord’s table, and that is enough.
EuR What does the Lord’s table convey to you here in this chapter?
JT The stress is on the Lord; He dominates it; it is a question of food, but partaken of in this dignified, exclusive setting.
EuR Is it administration?
JT It is the centre of the Christian system in this sense, as over against Judaism and heathenism. The allusion is evidently to the bread. It is His table, what He furnishes as food.
Pages 292 - 415 “The Praises of Israel” Readings and an Address, Edinburgh, 1933 (Volume 116).