THE BEGINNING AND CLIMAX OF THE TESTIMONY
[p. 116] THE BEGINNING AND CLIMAX OF THE TESTIMONY
JT As we proceed with these scriptures, I believe we shall see that the first treats of the beginning of things just immediately before Pentecost, and the second, that is chapter 20, affords information as to the testimony of God as it reached its climax. Chapter 20 is a love chapter; it begins with love, and ends with love, and there is love at the middle. So that we are at the very zenith of the testimony in that sense. The first thing to be noted is that attention is called to the Lord. It is said, “I composed the first discourse, O Theophilus, concerning all things which Jesus began both to do and to teach, until that day in which, having by the Holy Spirit charged the apostles whom he had chosen, he was taken up; to whom also he presented himself living, after he had suffered”. So that we have here the very beginning of things after the Lord had risen. Then in verse 4 we have something that should be compared carefully with chapter 20; that is the idea of assembling. The Lord assembled with the apostles. It says, “being assembled with them, commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to await the promise of the Father, which said he ye have heard of me”. That is to say, after the thought of His presentation of Himself to them in life, He assembled with them; and what is to be observed is that the word “assembled” precedes the breaking of bread in chapter 20. But here the Lord is with them Himself; He assembled with them, but there is no breaking of bread, whereas in chapter 20 the writer says, “And the first day of the week, we being assembled to break bread”. The assembling in chapter 20 has [p. 117] the breaking of bread, in view, but there was no breaking of bread while the Lord was on earth, even after He rose.
RP In that connection is it peculiarly linked with Paul’s ministry?
JT It is in chapter 20, but not in chapter 1. There was no breaking of bread while the Lord was here; it is after He went to heaven; in fact, not only after He went to heaven, but not till the Spirit had come down is the idea of the breaking of bread mentioned. We have to go by what is written. In the second chapter we have the breaking of bread, it is mentioned twice, but only after the Lord went to heaven and the Spirit came down; and then it is mentioned again in chapter 20.
ENJ Would this be something to take account of as fundamental? That is to say, they were assembled, and the Lord, beginning to speak, commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem. We look to the Lord to say something to us as assembled.
JT The great thought to have before us is assembling, and we have to be taught to assemble. It is not simply that we have so many persons in a certain place at one time, and that they do something, but the idea of assembling is mentioned before anything is done. So we have to learn how to assemble.
AM Does that enter into the charge that was given, by the Holy Spirit, to the apostles? I was thinking of the Holy Spirit being necessary for us to understand the matter of assembling. It is not just a natural movement, it is a spiritual movement that is in mind, and we need this power if it is to be effective.
JT What we have here is not a question of the Spirit’s teaching, but the Lord Himself being assembled with them, He commanded them not to depart [p. 118] from Jerusalem; but it is the Lord Himself by example teaching them how to assemble.
AM Would not the apostles carry on the charge? Paul, for instance, brings out the idea of the charge.
JT He did; but it seems we might well keep to what is written here, so as to see how the Lord had the thought of assembling in His own mind. Of course, He charged the apostles, but then this thought as to assembling is additional. Being assembled with them He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem.
LPM Did this matter of learning to assemble enter into 1 Corinthians 11:18: “For first, when ye come together in assembly”?
JT Yes, it is alluded to there, and it was a right thing to do, but they were doing wrong things; which is another thing to be noticed.
LPM The need of learning to assemble seems to be at the very outset of what you have in mind in regard to the Lord’s supper. The first thing is how to assemble.
JT Showing that it is not simply that we have a ritual; we cannot just say we have that, yet there must be something of the kind, because everything has to be done in order. If we go by Luke, we have the word ‘method’. Things had to be done methodically, but not in the sense of ritual, except following what the Lord did Himself. It is very instructive to follow the details of what the Lord did Himself in any given matter.
ET Is this, in Acts 1, the right foundation in an educational way, and in Acts 20, where we read, “we being assembled”, we see that the lesson had been learned and taken on?
JT That is it. It had long been learned; the brethren had been doing this for a long time, and now in Acts 20 the first day of the week comes and Paul has arrived; he too had to do [p. 119] with it.
RGW Does Hebrews show that this thought of assembling is to be continued right through, “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together” (Hebrews 10:25)?
JT Just so. It is not simply coming together, but assembling in view of the breaking of bread.
ENJ Is there something required with each one of us in order that we might be able to assemble? I was thinking of our walk during the week, and as to whether we are disciples, and brethren one of another.
JT Well, it is a question as to whether the idea of each other is before us, because we are so apt to be governed severally by local matters, home matters, our own affairs, and neglect the idea of assembling, which refers to the Lord and His order of things, in view of the assembling and the breaking of bread. Perhaps we think less of each other than we should. We may despise the idea of each other, what the first day of the week begins with, what the Lord begins with on it, and then what we begin with. We might say we begin with the Lord, but it is not so. The Lord begins with the disciples, and He would have us, too, to begin with each other, because it is a question of love, and we are to be taught how to love, not simply to love one another, but loving each other in the assembly.
ENJ Aaron is called “the Levite”, and in Exodus 4 we are given the details as to the way in which God had been dealing with Moses separately, but when they come together there is an affinity, because of the work of God in each. It says that, when they met, Aaron kissed Moses.
JT Yes, it was a love matter. It is not only that Jehovah says to Moses, “Is not Aaron the Levite thy brother?”, Exodus 4:14. That is something we have to notice, that the idea of levitical service begins with Aaron. He is called definitely “the Levite”, not simply a Levite. He was characteristically that.
Jehovah says to Moses, “He goeth out to meet thee”, Exodus 4:14. As if God would put it into the heart of Moses to love Aaron, and He put it into the heart of Aaron to love Moses, because they were two leading servants, and it is most important that all the servants should love one another.
JM Does your thought as to assembling involve that we embrace one another in affection, and in the relationship that we are now brought into?
JT We not only greet one another in a formal way when we meet at the place of meeting, but there is really love, and we know each other’s affairs. Then, of course, the Lord is coming in; He has promised to, and He will, and it is a question as to whom He is to come to. He is concerned about that, as to how we meet each other, and how He finds us. On the first day of the week, the whole day, as it were, He is on the alert for His people, because it is the day of meeting. It is the first day of the week according to John 20, where it is mentioned twice.
JMcN Is the power of the Spirit available in view of assembling? When the Lord left them in Luke 24 He said they were to abide in Jerusalem until they were clothed with power from on high.
JT Just so. It is said in that chapter that they were in the temple praising and blessing God. That might be very good, but then the temple is not to continue as a meeting place. We have to learn to meet in the house instead of the temple, and that is what you get in Acts 2. They met in the house, which is a matter to be observed.
ET I was going to ask if the liberty of sonship would be basic to this matter of assembling rightly, and what you mentioned as to the house would help in that regard?
JT I think it would. It is a question of how we regard each other. Gideon inquired, “What sort of men were they ... ?” and the answer was, “As thou [p. 121] art, so were they; each one resembled the sons of a king”, (Judges 8:18). Well, they are dignified. We have to greet each other in the light of our dignity; the Lord would have that.
PAH “Salute one another with a holy kiss”, (Romans 16:16) would suggest mutual respect and affection.
JT Just so, that saves us from corruption.
CW Would the passover help? The Lord said to go into the city and find a certain man, then the twelve gathered together, leading on to the breaking of bread.
JT Well there is order in that. But then, what they see, and what they meet, and who meets them, all enters into it. Then the climax is that the man of the house has a guest room, and the Lord asks for that room, as if He were concerned about the place of meeting, and that it has to be suitable. It is a guest room. That raises the whole question as to our meeting rooms. What kind of meeting rooms have we? Are they any kind of meeting rooms, and is there any thought as to what is suitable?
AED Would that raise the question of hired halls that may be used?
JT Yes, especially picture shows and theatres; things that are not suitable and are polluted in themselves. So it raises the whole question of meeting rooms and what is suitable for the brethren to meet in, and many other such things come into the mind, and the Lord had them in His mind when He sent the two disciples to prepare for the passover. It was a question of preparation.
ET At present there is a good deal of difficulty in places where the meetings are growing, and there is hiving off taking place. Building is difficult. Would you say something as to the suitability of a brother’s house?
JT Quite good. We have scripture for that. It is mentioned in the last chapter of the first epistle [p. 122] to the Corinthians, and is also mentioned in Philemon. “The assemblies of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla, with the assembly in their house, salute you much in the Lord”, 1 Corinthians 16:19. “And to the sister Apphia and to Archippus our fellow-soldier, and to the assembly which is in thine house”, Philemon 2. So we have two mentions in which the assemblies were in houses; not subdivisions, but assemblies. There is no such word in Scripture as subdivision, it is assembly.
RP That helps in relation to the truth of the assembling together. We regard it as a whole, the assembly in a city. And the assembly universally is held in our minds and affections.
JT Quite so. It raises the whole matter of where we meet, and we have here in these two instances the idea of assembling in a brother’s or sister’s house, the idea of the meeting place identifying an assembly; it is called “the assembly in thine house (Philemon 2)”. See also Romans 16:5. It may be a question now as to whether the word subdivision is literally right, because it is really not the idea as to the matter at all. Assembly is the word used in these two chapters.
PAH It speaks of, “first, when ye come together in assembly”, 1 Corinthians 11:18. That would be for the Lord’s supper, would it not? So the word is “in assembly” there.
JT Then “the assembly” is used in 1 Corinthians 16 and in Philemon. So it is not in assembly, it is the assembly, meaning that the saints who meet in a certain house or room are called the assembly.
Ques You have helped us in regard to the assembly in a city, and we have used the word in a convenient way as to subdivisions. You have in mind that the character of each subdivision is the character of the assembly in the city expressed in that part of it?
JT [p. 123] That is the idea. Instead of the word ‘subdivision’, it is the word ‘assembly’, as if the Lord would dignify the place where the saints meet, because He comes to where they are. He came to where the disciples were. That is the point that He makes.
LPM That does not disturb at all our activities in the light of the assembly in the city, and the administration and all that.
JT It does not at all; it is just a question of the use of a word, and whether the word is correct.
LPM Your thought is that if difficulties seem insuperable as to getting a suitable public building, rather than remain in large numbers, if it can be arranged, the brethren would be better to meet in a brother’s house?
JT Well, apparently, if you go by the two passages we have read.
LPM I think that helps us.
JT I think what ought to help us all round is getting accurate terms. God begins with accuracy; that is to say, He told Adam to name the creatures, and He did not alter any name that Adam gave any creature, but just accepted it, and I believe the Lord has the same respect for us as to the names we use.
AED Is that the beauty of the thing in Acts 20, that the same word is used as is used by the Lord, “the upper room where we were assembled”? Would you say something in that regard as to that expression, and the fact that Paul is referred to in Acts 20 as being in the third story? I was thinking of this matter of where the Lord comes, and the need for all that attaches to the place being in accord with the Lord’s presence, so that not only the building, but the way the saints sit, and how we conduct ourselves, bears on it.
JT I would go with all that.
LPM The idea of elevation is clearly in mind.
[p. 124] It is not on a level with the street. It is not even the second, story; it is the third story, and the upper room.
JT Just so, the upper room is not on the level of the street, and it is not the temple. Sometimes we have positives to refute negatives, and it is said that the disciples were continually in the temple praising and blessing God, but they were to stop doing that; that was to come to an end, and the thought was that it was to be in the upper room, and that is where they are seen in Acts 1.
AED Is it to bring out the uniqueness of what there is in this dispensation, and the way things have become degraded in Christendom? Are we to move away from the spirit of that in our minds and move in the light of what was at the beginning?
JT I think that is good, to get away from hackneyed terms that have the tinge of the world in them, and get back as nearly as possible to what was in the beginning, because that is the point, both as to the beginning of creation, and the beginning of the assembly that is mentioned specially; John’s gospel, for instance.
ENJ So the Lord in speaking of the matter of divorce said, “But from the beginning it was not so”, (Matthew 19:8).
JT Just so. It had been brought in because of their hardness of heart; the Lord said, ‘It was not so from the beginning’. Well, perhaps we may now return to the chapter, having said all this. I would be glad if the brethren will be ready to consider what has been said as to subdivisions and other such terms that are not exactly scriptural.
ET When a thing emerges in its true character, we are justified in naming it, but we have been diffident in using the word ‘assembly’ on account of the public breakdown.
JT Well, there is something in that; I am sure [p. 125] we should consider that point, only it is just as well to deal now with what we began with, that is to say, the names that scripture authorises, and one of them is assembling, or assembly. Then the upper room, which is a scriptural name, and so in Acts 20 we have, “We being assembled to break bread”. That is to say the idea of the breaking of bread is preceded by the idea of assembling.
PBP Would you say a word as to the distinction you have made as to loving one another individually and loving the brethren as assembled?
JT Well, I think that is something to think of. We meet each other as one person with another, but is that person an assembly person? Does he belong to the assembly? Is he characteristically an assembled person? Because in the book of Acts the persecution was in regard to the assembly and those who were of the assembly. Therefore it was a reproach to be of the assembly, whereas it is really an honour to belong to it.
FRG Is your suggestion that we might speak of, say, the assembly at Milton? I was thinking in relation to letters of commendation in regard to brethren moving about.
JT Well, it is rather ‘The saints assembling at so-and-so’. I think that is quite right, because the word ‘saints’ is a dignified word, and we assemble at a certain place. It is only a question of identifying the place where the saints are.
FRG We have rather reserved the thought of assembly to the city, the saints breaking bread in the city of Brisbane, but you think that we should be at liberty to speak of the assembly in Milton or elsewhere?
JT I think the word ‘saints’ is what has been customary in letters of commendation, and, of course, letter of commendation is the very term used in the Scriptures, and the letter is couched in the terms of [p. 126] Scripture, and signed by a certain one who is known. That is about all that is needed, I would think. If anything else be said, the word ‘assembly’ could be used, only in a modified way, because it is scriptural.
RP I think the thought of the subdivision has been mentioned to preserve the thought of the assembly being an entity in a city, but you are encouraging us to regard the assembly and the saints in their dignity.
JT Perhaps we are dwelling too long on these points, because we have very limited time. The word ‘subdivision’ certainly does not agree with the word ‘assembly’, or the meeting together of the saints either. We ought to keep the dignity attaching to the saints.
LPM So that you have the thought of the character of this great entity in any place, the saints are in that character. Would that be right?
JT That was the idea in the letter to Philemon, and also in 1 Corinthians 16. It is just that the brethren might have a matter of the kind before us in a fluid sort of way, and not fix it as a permanent term or name, but to just give the idea that will preserve us from any worldly or human tinge, and keep us as nearly as possible to the terms that Scripture uses.
LPM Is the assembling of the saints prior to the service of God like the tabernacle being set up before the service?
JT Very good; that would preserve the dignity, that it is not simply a negative thought. The word ‘subdivision’ is not right, because we do not divide the assembly; it is not our part to divide it. The idea is that it is a company of Christians, and that should be carried through. It is a company of saints meeting in a certain place, and we are commending someone to them in love. That is about all.
ENJ [p. 127] So we should think of our halls in the various parts of any city as the place where the saints are accustomed to break bread.
JT That is the idea, according to the word used as to Philippi, “where prayer was wont to be made (Acts 16:13)”. It was by a riverside.
WLW One very important meeting is the care meeting. How do we get on about that designation? Does God honour that?
JT I think that is very good. The very word “care” is used in regard to an elder: “How shall he take care of the assembly of God?” It is a question of caring for the assembly.
LPM It is really a meeting of those persons who exercise care, is it not?
JT The term ‘care meeting’ may be too hackneyed. It is the meeting for the care of the saints, to take care of the assembly of God. That is the term used, so that the dignity of the thing is preserved.
LPM Do you wish to say something in regard to Acts 20 as to the service, the saints being assembled?
JT Well, just to point out that at the first assembling, the Lord Himself was there, and there was no breaking of bread, showing that the breaking of bread is contingent on His being away, whereas in Acts 20 the word is, “the first day of the week, we being assembled to break bread”. Now you see how the idea of the first day of the week is continued. It is found also in 1 Corinthians. So here, as they were assembled, Paul discourses to them, about to depart on the morrow. You see the dignity of all that. We have two words used. One would refer to a discourse, an address as we might say, and the other to a reading meeting, or to a conversational meeting. Two words are used in that chapter, and these are all very important matters in regard to dignity and spirituality. It is important to use right [p. 128] spiritual terms in our conversations together, because the Scripture says, “they that feared the Lord spake often one to another”, (Malachi 3:16). They must have spoken something, and the point is, if we are applying it to assembly matters, the terms we use ought to be properly given. The names ought to be properly and spiritually given. Then to bring out the difference, Acts 20 refers to the actual breaking of bread, as you might say, in the full thought of it as known amongst us today, known amongst them in the beginning after the Spirit came.
DHB Is there a link with the first chapter, where they were told to wait until the Spirit came, so that in chapter 20 they are moving on spiritual ground?
JT That is to say the Spirit is there and the ministry is proceeding. Paul discourses. Two words are used as to current ministry. The first is a discourse and the second is a conversational matter, and we carry on these two things now, and we are entitled to do it and keep to it.
RP Has Paul’s discourse a dispensational bearing, authoritative as governing the assembly’s history here, and the truth is worked out in a conversational way amongst the brethren?
JT There must have been something that he would like to correct and enlarge upon, whereas the conversational word is used later, and it would mean what they might wish to say to one another in detail.
PAH You were saying that the discourse has continued ever since, the same as the conversational setting. Paul discoursed at length, possibly having a great bearing on the service of God, and that has continued to our day?
JT You could not just say the thing itself has continued, but the principle of the discourse has continued in what we call an address. We have [p. 129] ministry meetings, which are quite intelligible and useful too. These meetings have continued.
PAH I was thinking particularly that the discourse of Paul would have a bearing on the order of the service of God. They needed much instruction.
JT It was Paul’s discourse. The idea of discoursing has continued. We have the ministry meetings: “Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge (1 Corinthians 14:29)”. That is to say, we ought not to have more than three addresses in one ministry meeting.
AED Might I ask why the thought of eating is added; “having broken the bread, and eaten?”
JT I think to show that the full thought of the Lord’s supper is carried through. It might be distorted in what is current today among the sects, but the proper thing is to break the bread. The Lord gave thanks and broke the bread, and then it was eaten. It was given to the disciples to eat. The full thought of the Lord’s supper should be there. The eating should be there; it is a question of eating as well as breaking the bread.
RP “As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup (1 Corinthians 11:26)”.
JT Just so.
JMcN It says in chapter 1, “he shewed himself”. Is that peculiar to Acts 1, or is it still true as we are gathered together?
JT Well, it might not be just in the same form, but I think it is the idea of John 14:18, The Lord says, “I will not leave you orphans, I am coming to you”. Undoubtedly when He would come, He would be seen. In the first passage we read (it is a strong word) “he presented himself”. It is not simply that He was there, or near by, but He presented Himself. That is to say, He would have Himself seen or apprehended in a certain way; that was the point. He presented [p. 130] Himself living.
ENJ As assembled, that would be the supreme moment, when He presented Himself living.
JT Just so, that would be the supreme moment of the occasion. I do not think we get it later, it is only found there. But we do get later that He comes to us, and that is another word, and it is something we believe and expect every Lord’s day. The Lord comes to us. It is a precious thing, too.
FRG Would Eutychus represent one who was not really in the gain of being assembled together?
JT Just so. There were many lights in the upper chamber, which would allude to the persons who were there. There were about seven brethren there who accompanied Paul, and I suppose they would be the lights, each one would be a light. But then Eutychus was a young man, a boy in fact, and he was evidently looking out of the window. He was not occupied with what was current at all; he was not in the occasion really.
PBP You were saying that the breaking of bread was not while the Lord was on earth. Have you something more to say as to that?
JT It is important to see that it is while He is absent, not while He is in heaven, although I would not deny that, but while He is absent; and while He is here too, in the sense of persecution, that He is to be remembered.
PRP So that it is “until he come”.
JT Just so. It is a question of showing His death. “Ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come (1 Corinthians 11:26)”.
RP You spoke of the Supper as being a love matter. Would the first day of the week link on with the spiritual and inward, side particularly brought out in Paul’s ministry?
JT We had that in our meeting this morning. It was a love matter, and we were greatly helped too, in the sense of the Lord being with us. The idea of [p. 131] being taught preceded it; we are taught things so as to be rightly in the assembly.
AM Certain features of lovableness displayed in the assembly are attractive to the Lord. I was wondering if this feature of youthfulness was not a spiritual suggestion, and a valuable one such as we see in the testimony today. The assembly should be youthful; at the very end she will not be old and worn out.
JT You mean the word ‘youthful’ as applied to Eutychus?
AM I was wondering if Paul saw the value of it, and so the boy was restored. “And they brought away the boy alive, and were no little comforted”.
JT Well, it was a love matter. He enfolded him in his arms, a recovery matter. He was not in accord with the occasion. He needed to be recovered to a proper attitude, which is very important. That is why I mentioned the love matter. Eutychus could hardly be considered as representing love. He was youthful, but he was careless. But there is the possibility of his being recovered and brought back. “They brought away the boy alive”. They did not leave him to himself.
WLW “We being assembled”. Would that be characteristically? Mention has been made of loving one another in assembly.
JT Well, “we being assembled” is not necessarily love, because love might be there irregularly. The word “assembled” has to be taken account of by itself. It is something to be acquired, knowing how to assemble, because the word “assembly” is taken from that, and it is the noun that governs the position of the testimony; that is, the assembly; it is included in the thought of the ministry.
WLW Eutychus was out of accord; one was wondering about those who only present themselves [p. 132] on the occasion, of the breaking of bread and at no other meeting.
JT The question is whether they do present themselves as we have it in chapter 1. It is not simply that they are there. He wants to be known in a certain attitude.
JSP You were stressing the point of being together. I suppose we hardly have that in Eutychus. He was one who had another outlook, and needed the embrace of Paul. Is that right?
JT Quite so, and as I was saying, the proper word for ‘together’ is assembling.
ENJ We are looking for more help as to the remark as to those who only attend the morning meeting, and are not seen through the week. You have said it is a question as to whether they really assemble.
JT But they do not. I would just say that because the word ‘prepare’ should be there too. The Lord spoke of preparing, and we read of the word ‘prepare’ being applied to persons too (see Luke 1:17). So that if we come to the breaking of bread only on the first day of the week, and are not there on the other occasions of coming together, what can we say about that? We are just careless.
PAH The assembling on the first day of the week would involve that there are other assembly matters to follow in the week. The week is complete in itself.
LPM So that it says they were seven days at Troas before this took place. Paul and the others were there together.
JT Yes, and they were there as representative of Paul’s ministry; that is to say, of the work that had been brought about by him. It is said in verse 4, “And there accompanied him as far as Asia, Sopater son of Pyrrhus, a Berean; and of Thessalonians, Aristarchus and Secundus, and Gaius and Timotheus [p. 133] of Derbe, and of Asia, Tychicus and Trophimus Acts 20:4”. Evidently they were representatives of Paul’s work; that is to say, the very best work that was available. They were all there; it was a remarkable occasion, and this young man Eutychus was not there in spirit at all. He was at the window opening, and fell down. But there was power to restore him, which is a great matter. Paul was ready for that, too, as well as to minister.
JMcN Is that not attractive? John speaks mouth to mouth, or face to face, but Paul embraces.
FBG Does 1 Chronicles 11:1 help in regard to assembling? It says, “All Israel assembled themselves to David to Hebron saying, Behold, we are thy bone and thy flesh”.
JT Very good, I am glad you brought that up, because it is a beautiful setting there. “Thy bone and thy flesh”, showing that they recognise David, typically Christ. How beautifully it fits in with what we are saying!
RP In Acts 20 the saints were able to move forward to what was specifically in mind. “We being assembled to break bread”. That is what was in mind.
JT Just so. That was in mind in comparing the two passages, because comparisons are of great value in the interpretation of Scripture, and the use of Scripture in ministry. The two scriptures could be usefully and profitably compared. Acts 20 refers to the real situation as to the ministry and continuance of the service of God at that time. It was at the height of Paul’s ministry. The work was going on; Paul’s services were going on, and the evidences of his testimony and work were with him; they accompanied him.
AED They no doubt had part in the discourse and helped forward what Paul would bring out.
JT Well, I do not know if they did, because it was Paul’s action. It was a discourse of Paul; it was not a Bible reading. We noticed there was a conversational matter at the end of the chapter, but the discourse was wholly Paul’s.
AED I meant in the long speaking. They would have part in it, and they would he a model for us.
JT I am sure they had a good time, even although it was very late towards daybreak, showing how in the early days the brethren were ready to sacrifice to be there.