RECEPTION
[p. 191] RECEPTION
Luke 9: 51 - 53; Acts 9: 6 - 31; Revelation 22: 14
JT The idea of order and mode of procedure as to reception amongst the people of God fits in specially with Luke’s presentation of the truth, so it seems as if we should begin with the Lord’s reception as seen in chapter 9. The passage read somewhat governs all that follows in this respect “the days of his receiving up”. Then the account of Saul’s reception ought to help us, for the Lord directs so that he should be properly received in Damascus; and, in the verse in Revelation, I think we may see the inherent right that belongs to those who are to be received, that is, it is not a question of conferring something on them, for those who have washed their robes have a right to the tree of life and to enter by the gates into the city; Revelation 22: 14. I do not know if that outline would fit in with what you have in mind.
PL Very much so. We should be thankful if you would enlarge upon this subject.
JT Well, I think we ought to bear in mind that the assembly is representative of heaven, and as to the matter before us, heaven’s way is seen in the reception of Christ, how He was received; and He shows from heaven (Acts 9) how the local company should be prepared to receive one into its bosom. It is a question of the reception of heaven, so that it is clear we should be instructed as to heaven’s mode in this respect, and that persons who seek to walk with us should be impressed with it.
PL Does Luke present the receiving of Christ in heaven as upon the basis of moral worth and the path in which He was found — “He stedfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem” chapter 9: 51?
JT I think so. In John He ascends; it was [p. 192] His own act as a personal right. In Luke He is received up, but on the ground of moral right. Paul speaks of Him being “received up in glory”. If our brethren are to be received into our midst, there ought to be some reflection of heaven in the manner of their reception.
PL So persons who are receivable are so as having the credentials of heaven — as having the moral features of the One who has been received there.
JT Exactly. There is no suggestion of any questioning in Revelation 22; they have a right to the tree of life it says, and to enter by the gates into the city. We should not be behind in relation to our brethren who have the qualification mentioned.
Ques Have you in mind the reception of the Lord’s servants amongst us?
JT No; it is the idea of receiving the Lord’s people as they wish to be in fellowship with us. How we receive the Lord’s servants is, of course, important, but it is not what is immediately before us.
HDT What had you in mind in regard to the absence of questioning in Revelation?
JT Just that the persons contemplated are obviously in keeping with the city; they have an inherent right on account of certain conditions and would be so recognised inside. A believer who washes characteristically is on equality with those who are in the fellowship with the death of Christ, and as seeking to walk with them he is taking up his right or heritage, which normally is freely recognised. Reception is a glad expression of this.
NMcC What would washing their robes involve?
JT It is the application of the death of Christ to their circumstances — what they appear in. The washing is not said to be by blood here. It would be the application of the death of Christ as represented in the water that came from His side.
GAL Is our Lord’s reception in heaven touched at all in Psalm 24: 7 - 9, “Lift up your heads, ye gates”?
JT No doubt. I suppose the allusion there is to Jerusalem and the opening of its gates to Christ as Jehovah of hosts. It is His right as King of glory. Others will seek Jacob there, but Christ will be received pre-eminently.
PL “Whom heaven indeed must receive” (Acts 3: 21), would show the Lord’s right to be in heaven.
JT Quite; and correspondingly He has a right in the assembly, and His own too; He added daily those that should be saved; Acts 2: 47.
EJMcB I judge your point as to the verse in Revelation is that reception confers nothing?
JT It acknowledges an inherent right. What do you think yourself?
EJMcB I am sure that is right.
JT I think the idea of mutual rights ought to be before us. There is the idea of citizenship attaching to a city, which implies rights, and I think that enters into the assembly now. There is no thought of patronage at all in the reception of the saints. “Receive ye one another, according as the Christ also has received you to the glory of God” (Romans 15: 7). “One another” is mutual.
JRS When the Lord says to Ananias in regard of Saul, “Behold, he is praying”, do you regard that as involving inherent right?
JT Yes, he was on equality with the saints at Damascus in that respect. That is the underlying principle; his state was that of dependence on God.
GWW Is the thought that reception is pretty much the recognition of the rights of citizenship?
JT I think that is what the verse in Revelation implies. Here is a person coming in who has a right inside, to partake even of the tree of life — the very centre, and he enters by the gates; he has full liberty [p. 194] of access.
DLH Do we not have to take account of the abnormal conditions at the present time? I suppose at the outset when people were converted and received the Spirit they were all received without any question, on the principle, no doubt, of right, that you have spoken of, but there is an element today which makes things somewhat abnormal, which we have to take account of.
JT I am sure that is right, but before touching on it, it is well to have before us the general position as at the beginning. Three thousand were baptised in Jerusalem at Pentecost, and it says that they were added that day, but there is no evidence of any special examination. In fact, one wonders how it could be done. Scripture says they were baptised and that they were added that day, but it does not say to what they were added or who added them.
Ques Was there not in them an attitude corresponding with His attitude when He was to be received up. His face set stedfastly towards Jerusalem in the way of obedience?
JT Yes; that is seen in their baptism. The direction of the Lord’s face is important — what He had before Him. Those three thousand corresponded as baptised; but more was needed, and the verses immediately following show their genuineness. It was an exceptional matter; they were taken evidently at face value, but the Lord does not recognise them formally, according to the record, until their traits, had been seen, until time had been given to show what they were. “They persevered in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles, in breaking of bread and prayers ... And all that believed were together, and had all things common, and sold their possessions and substance, and distributed them to all, according as any one might have need. And every day, being constantly in the temple with one accord, and breaking bread in the house ...”. Then it is said that “the Lord added to the assembly”. I think the Lord added to them as thus corresponding with Himself.
GWW Would you say in all those things you have the features corresponding with the heavenly city very plainly set forth?
JT That is what I thought. They are proved now. It was an exceptional situation, so many coming in at once, and it seems as if there is the suggestion of patience, that believers should be allowed to show what they are. There is nothing said about their being received by anybody. I think Acts 2 furnishes a certain principle as to persons who take up a public position of profession, to let them show what they are. I believe our mode of procedure in receptions includes that principle, that there is opportunity for persons to prove themselves before there is final committal to them.
WC Would you say a word as to “the days of his receiving up”?
JT It is an important point reached in Luke: “the days of his receiving up were fulfilled”. And I think what follows is somewhat in view. The Lord’s face was in a certain direction, and it is most important as to persons who seek to be amongst us to determine the direction of their faces.
JS Would following “righteousness, faith, love, peace” answer to that now?
JT Yes; you are thus in “the way”, Mark 10: 52.
CHP With regard to the reception of the Holy Spirit, would you not think as to Acts 2, that those whose received the word and were baptised there and then received the Holy Spirit? I am connecting this with Acts 10, where those who heard the word received the Holy Spirit before they were baptised.
JT I do not think you can make it ‘there and then’. Peter did not say they should immediately
receive the Spirit, but “ye will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit”.
MWB It is remarkable that it is not stated that they should receive the Spirit at that moment.
JT I think the point in this respect is to give God room for action. The gift of the Holy Spirit is a very important thing in His mind, and we must not deprive Him of the blessedness that is in it. “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20: 35). He certainly has great joy in the giving of the Spirit and it will not do to make it automatic. I mean, we have to do with God; we are brought into a condition of things where divine Persons are acting and we want to see the glory connected with the divine giving. There is radiation of glory. What glory shone at Pentecost (Acts 2) and at Caesarea; Acts 10!
MWB It would not do to assume in any way that they did not receive the Spirit. It is left in that indefinite form, is it not?
JT One of the most important things is to let Scripture freely speak for itself. Inserting what is not there often causes it to lose its force. We do not want to leave out divine Persons in Their gracious activities. Those three thousand were baptised to the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and room had to be given for the divine Persons to act. There is the radiation of glory in Their activities, and you do not want to miss that.
MWB Then would you link up the gift of the Spirit with the line of sovereignty?
JT I should. Our brother has referred to Acts 10. The record is that “the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were hearing the word”(Acts 10: 44), but we must not assume that is exactly how it happens always. God was pleased to cause His glory to shine in that way in giving the Spirit to persons whose hearts He knew well, for He is “the heart knowing God”. The Holy Spirit fell on them. It was an energetic action of the [p. 197] Holy Spirit. It was a glorious transaction. Peter recognised it and connected it with what happened at Pentecost.
MWB Then, with regard to reception, would you bring in those two thoughts: the direction of the face, which would involve separation from what is evil, and the discerning whether the person in question has received the Spirit?
JT I think those two features would settle the matter. Of course, the Lord’s face set towards Jerusalem meant that He was going there to die. No doubt, there was national prejudice in the action of the Samaritans in not receiving Him because His face was towards Jerusalem, but still His face was towards the place of His death. He understood how He should go out and where; it was to be at Jerusalem. This had been the subject of conversation on the holy mount. That is the kind of person to be received. The Samaritans did not receive Him, but heaven would. Those who understand heaven will receive those who accept death with Christ.
Ques Do the days of His receiving up have any reference to the transfiguration? As you were saying, Moses and Elias spoke there of His decease which He was about to accomplish.
JT Yes; heaven honoured Him there, and His death was the subject of their conversation, but in the passage read it is not the days of His dying, but the days of His receiving up. I think the word for receiving (used here only) is receiving back; His personal right would be involved.
JRS Would you see the two things in principle with those who are to be received: on the one hand, they are conscious of their place in heaven, and on the other hand, their faces are towards the place where they are to die?
JT Yes; the Lord has had to do with them before. What can we do if He has not? We are [p. 198] perfectly powerless. We must find that out, and the Lord will help us to find out whether He has had a transaction with them or whether they are just coming because others are coming.
Ques Is Ephesians 1 a little different thought, that believers received the Holy Spirit the moment they believed?
JT It does not say that. The idea is that having believed you receive the Spirit. It is not a question of the next second. You must never assume that, because it places God in a false position in the minds of those who hear you. We must regard Him as sovereign and free in His giving.
JOS Is that seen in Acts 8? The Samaritans had not received the Spirit, but Peter and John prayed that they might receive Him, and laid hands on them, and then they received Him.
JT I have no doubt it was a challenge to Philip, as to why his converts did not receive the Spirit while others did; but the national claims of Samaria also entered into this.
Ques Is there any difference between being sealed by the Spirit and receiving the Spirit?
JT The one is God’s act. Sealing is God putting a mark on you as belonging to Him. Reception is your act, but it is a gift you receive. It involves that you value the Spirit. God’s gifts do not go begging; we should not regard them in that light. “Thanks be to God for his unspeakable free gift” (2 Corinthians 9: 15). That brings God into great prominence, the giving God. “If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that says to thee, Give me to drink, thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water” (John 4: 10). It is glorious to think of God acting in that way, and it enters into our formation because we ought to learn from God how to act. “It is more blessed to give than to receive” are “the words of the Lord Jesus”.
[p. 199] Rem So in keeping with the gospel of Luke, “The Father who is of heaven” gives the Holy Spirit to them that ask Him, Luke 11: 13.
JT Just so.
CHP Is it not important that everyone who comes in should have the Spirit? “In the power of one Spirit we have all been baptised into one body” (1 Corinthians 12: 13).
JT Surely; we need to find that out. The Lord would indicate it to us, as He did to Ananias regarding Saul, if He has had to do with them.
Rem That is what Barnabas said to the apostles, that Saul “had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him” (Acts 9: 27).
JT Quite. If persons who seek to be received among the saints are commendable, the Lord will make it manifest.
JT-y Is your thought that there is a moment when a person has distinct value in the sight of the Lord? “I have found David my servant” (Psalm 89: 20). The moment came when there was something singular God could recognise in His servant.
JT Yes. “I have laid help on one that is mighty” — that ought to come out in some sense in persons asking for fellowship. It is largely a question of their secret history. When Samuel went to Bethlehem they all had to wait for David. We do well to notice that even the most spiritual man on that occasion made a mistake. He thought Eliab was the Lord’s anointed: “Surely Jehovah’s anointed is before him”, Samuel says. But was he before God in this? Jehovah had said that He would tell him when in Bethlehem of the one to be anointed, so the great thing is to get to the Lord about it. Samuel is quickly corrected, but they all have to wait till David comes in, and when he comes in, the Spirit says, “Arise, anoint him; for this is he”. There is now no question as to who the anointed is. All this shows how the Lord helps as to persons we [p. 200] should lay our hands upon. Hence the importance of seeking His mind.
MWB With regard to receiving, two or three, as the case may be, we have to visit applicants for fellowship and necessarily have to convey what they have found or seen. In what way should that be done, or is it necessary to be done?
JT I think the general principle underlying assembly procedure is confidence in one another; thus two or three witnesses, having the confidence of all, suffice where testimony is needed.
See how beautifully Barnabas testified as to Saul at Jerusalem. “And having arrived at Jerusalem, he essayed to join himself to the disciples, and all were afraid of him, not believing that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles, and related to them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him” (Acts 9: 26, 27). Now, I think there is a point of importance there, because we ought not to put on the generality of the brethren the responsibility of deciding certain things. Here they were afraid of Saul. Barnabas did not ask the assembly to come together to bring Saul in; he brought him to the apostles. I think the apostles represent confidence in certain respects. The Lord at the inauguration of His supper had the twelve present, which I think means, among other things, that they were competent witnesses; this as history shows was to be a subject of controversy and it was important to have competent persons to bear witness to what happened. And I think Barnabas understood that the apostles were the ones who could be relied upon to receive what he had to say about Saul and they would of course satisfy the assembly.
MWB You do not think it would be necessary for the witnesses to give testimony before the assembly?
JT I do not think so. It is simpler to render it [p. 201] to the brothers, as those who care for the assembly. The assembly ought to receive what is satisfactory to them, as a matter of confidence.
MWB That is an important principle. I expect some of us will need a little adjustment there. According to this scripture, it is clear that the persons who give definite witness give it to the persons competent to judge, and their judgment is accepted.
JT That is the way it stands here. Of course we have no apostles; the idea is that there are competent persons, persons of reliability. It says, “Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles”. There is no evidence that there was anything further needed here.
Ques “Whom the Lord commends” — whether by actions or words, or both. Is that what comes in here?
JT Exactly; “Whom the Lord commends”, whether by manifest works, as in Acts 2, or by the testimony of a man like Barnabas in Acts 9. It is a question of whom the Lord commends.
CHP Is there not a difference here that Barnabas commends to the apostles, whereas we commend to the saints as called together?
JT But the care meeting ought to be composed of persons of reliability, persons whom the assembly can trust, and their testimony ought to suffice. We are speaking now of testimony, not administrative action.
MWB That is just the point I was raising, whether it is not scriptural to give the evidence before those who are competent to judge, and then on their word the case would be commended to the assembly?
JT It is entirely a question of confidence, whether there are those the assembly can rely [p. 202] upon, and if they are satisfied the assembly should be satisfied.
HFN In regard of the question of reception, would not the assembly enter intelligently into it. I quite see what you are saying, but would you not give an intelligent account so that in the reception we might all receive in affection and intelligence?
JT That is all very well. In Acts 2 it is just adding. I think we ought to pay attention to confidence — whether the assembly has confidence in those who, under the Lord, have the care of it.
HFN I think a great number of us would like to get a little help in that regard. It has been largely the habit of brethren to convey the details at the care meeting to brothers who have the care of the Lord’s interests, and then some of the details have been conveyed to the saints as convened, so that the saints might intelligently receive them.
JT Well, there is no reason why they should not know; things can be found out, but it is a question of confidence. There is not a word as to whether the apostles called the assembly together and told them what Barnabas had said as to the history of Saul’s conversion, nor is there a word as to whether Ananias called the gathering together at Damascus. It seems to me, as matters stand, it is a question of confidence and what is manifestly of the Lord. The apostles represented the Lord, and what would satisfy them would satisfy all in Jerusalem, and I have no doubt that what satisfied Ananias would satisfy the gathering at Damascus. Of course, responsibility is finally with the assembly, but we are speaking of testimony and confidence in those who render it.
PL Although there was an assembly in the house of Philemon there was no word from Paul to put the case of Onesimus before the assembly as a whole. He is told to receive [p. 203] him.
JT Exactly. I am not saying that a group of brothers, which might become a clique, should take on and manage things. There is the general principle of confidence, which love would establish as the brothers come together to inquire into matters. It says, “The apostles and the elders were gathered together to see about this matter” (Acts 15: 6). Competent testimony comes to their attention, and then the assembly is brought in. There is nothing lost in furnishing details to the saints, but the less cumbersome and formal we are the better, and the more we can bring forward the elements of love to one another the better.
JS Saul had no letter, but there was a brother in the meeting who came to bring him amongst the saints.
JT I do not think a letter would have been as effective as Barnabas. I mean, he was a “son of consolation”. The apostles knew Barnabas, had named him, and they would receive all he said. It was a question of confidence. The assembly receives, but I think we ought to establish the idea of confidence and competent testimony. Testimony is a great principle throughout Scripture: “In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every matter be established” (2 Corinthians 13: 1).
JJ Do you regard the care meeting as provisional or final?
JT Provisional. But the judgment of the brothers should be received unless there is some obvious reason for non-reception. The assembly receives, or, rather, the person who is commended by reliable brothers is heartily allowed to break bread.
WCG How is confidence promoted?
JT By love. One commends himself to the brethren. The apostles had the confidence of the brethren in Jerusalem, and those who care specially for the saints now ought to have the confidence of all.
HWS When you speak of testimony received [p. 204] on confidence do you contrast it with the thought of executive action?
JT Yes; executive action belongs to the assembly, and in this respect facts should be presented to it so that the consciences of all should be carried. But allowing a commendable believer to take his place among us is the acknowledgment of a right rather than an executive action.
JOS Are you suggesting that if the brothers decide at a Saturday night care meeting that a person is commendable, that he could break bread on the Lord’s day morning following?
JT Well, yes, as has been pointed out, in the broken state of things, what is done is always to give opportunity for further inquiry. Thus, I think, after his name is mentioned, a short period — a week — should elapse before the brother or sister commended breaks bread. This is wise. There should be no haste. In the assembly all things are to be done “comelily and with order”.