THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE TRUTH OF THE ASSEMBLY
[p. 242] THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE TRUTH OF THE ASSEMBLY
Acts 18:1 - 11; Acts 18:24 - 28; Acts 19:1 - 20
JT These chapters, as I understand them, present the circumstances attending the full development of the truth of the assembly; chapter 18 having to do with the tabernacle or wilderness character of the assembly as it was developed at Corinth, and chapter 19 with the assembly as typified in the temple in the land. In the Psalms we read, “When Israel went out of Egypt, the house of Jacob from a people of strange language; Judah was his sanctuary, and Israel his dominion”, Psalm 114:1,2. There the full development of the truth of the house was in view, and was seen in Judah, but then there was the wilderness feature, in which the mind of God was set out. So we have the word of God more in chapter 18 and the word of the Lord in chapter 19. Chapter 20 being based on chapter 19 shows what developed at Ephesus.
I thought it might be helpful to look at the circumstances connected with the development of the truth of the assembly in chapter 18, as suggestive of the catholic or world-wide feature of the assembly. We see how God moved governmentally, as we may say, to permit and pave the way for what the Holy Spirit was developing; the command that all Jews should depart from Rome served to further the work of the Spirit. Two persons from the west appear at Corinth, then a man of Alexandria appears there, all ready to help and contribute; independent contributors, as it were, although joining in most heartily and sympathetically with what the Spirit of God was doing through the apostle Paul. There was the evidence of a general movement of God tending to suggest the world-wide character of that which was [p. 243] being developed — the house of God — the assembly as a general thought.
HFN Would you develop your thought as to the tabernacle and the temple in the land. What are these particular views of the assembly?
JT The assembly as developed at Corinth answered to the tabernacle in the wilderness, whereas the assembly as established at Ephesus had the land in view. As you will observe in verse 11, Paul remained at Corinth one year and six months, teaching among them the word of God, but in verse 10 of the next chapter we read, “This took place for two years, so that all that inhabited Asia heard the word of the Lord”. Then in verse 20 it says, “Thus with might the word of the Lord increased and prevailed”. That, I think, has reference to the conquest of the land, for it goes on to say in verse 11, “God wrought no ordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that even napkins or aprons were brought from his body and put upon the sick, and the diseases left them, and the wicked spirits went out”. Then I think we have, in these Jewish exorcists and the seven sons of Sceva, a reference to the seven-fold power of evil against the testimony, which the conquest of the land brought out. Everything went down at Ephesus before the Lord. No power could lift up its head against the testimony there, so that the assembly was established there in complete superiority to the power of Satan. But the overthrow of the enemy is not so much in view in chapter 18; it is rather to establish what is capable of going through. The word of God, conveying the thoughts of God, is therefore more in evidence.
FSM Would the epistles addressed to these assemblies maintain the thoughts of the tabernacle and the temple?
JT Yes, as I remarked, the epistle to the Corinthians develops the truth of the assembly in [p. 244] the wilderness, whereas that to the Ephesians unfolds the truth of the assembly in the land.
FSM In Ephesians we have the conflict with, spiritual wickedness.
JT I think that is the reason for the connection there. The evil spirits are cast out; we get the effort of the enemy in a seven-fold way, the seven sons of Sceva, to withstand the power of God, but they are ignominiously overthrown and exposed. It says they fled out of the house naked and wounded.
Ques What is the difference between the “word of God” and the “word of the Lord” in that way?
JT The “word of God” unfolds the mind of God. Moses was taken up into the mount, and as we know God unfolded to him His mind. He showed him the pattern of the tabernacle, which represents His mind in regard to the heavens and the earth. It was a pattern, as it says, of the tabernacle, a worldly one; that is, one that represented the holy, universal order of God. That has come into this world. Moses came down from the mount, and had it set up. It was not very great outwardly — an oblong enclosure with a tent in it. It was easily measured and compassed, but nevertheless it represented the mind of God. Inside there were the ark and the cherubim. It was constructed and set up in the wilderness. It was carried about — movement is the feature. But then the purpose of God was that Judah was to be His sanctuary, because the wilderness was only by the way, and was connected with the ways of God, but His purpose was in connection with a fixed abode; “exceeding magnifical”, 1 Chronicles 22:5 as it says. There was to be a vast structure or system of things connected with it — four houses we read of, but the house of Jehovah was to be on a grand scale — to be His dwelling-place. That was what He had in His mind. What came out in the wilderness was on the way to that. For faith they ran together. The assembly,
[p. 245] as seen in Ephesians, was really for faith. It “groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord” Ephesians 2:21. Thus in chapter 19 it is, in the main, the word of the Lord, because the Lord has to deal with the forces of evil arrayed against the truth, and the exhortation to us is, “Be strong in the Lord and in the might of his strength”. Ephesians 6:10. We have to do with “the universal lords of this darkness”, Ephesians 6:12 and we need to know the Lord in the might of His strength, in combating these forces.
FSM Is that indicated in Exodus 15, “the sanctuary, O Lord, which thy hands have established”? Exodus 15:17.
JT That did not refer to the wilderness but to the land. It had Canaan in view. “Thou shalt bring them in and plant them in the mountain of thine inheritance, in the place, O Lord, which thou hast made for thee to dwell in”. Exodus 15:17. So that in Psalm 78:69 “He built his sanctuary like the heights; like the earth which he hath founded for ever”. That is what Judah was to God.
HFN Is there any point in the fact that the chapter opens with the apostle traversing the upper regions?
JT I thought so. It is a suggestion of the heavenly side, I think; and then follows the sure foundation practically in the twelve men who receive the Holy Spirit at the apostle’s hands. We are now approaching the great structure which Paul set up.
Ques Is it in that way the great climax in his ministry? It is completed at Ephesus.
JT Chapter 20 is the climax; then the journey to Jerusalem follows, which is rather another line of things. His work is completed in chapter 20.
HFN It is striking that the first chapter you referred to is introduced by the thought of “tent-makers”, and the second chapter by that of traversing the upper regions. Would they both bear upon what you have been speaking [p. 246] of?
JT Yes, I think so. The circumstances seen in the opening of chapter 18 are designed to be humiliating, to bring the flesh down. The assembly, as in this world as a testimony for God, was never intended to be conspicuous or great, but rather as the Lord Himself said, a “little flock” — outwardly small, but intrinsically precious. Note here how there are three persons lodging together in the most ordinary way, “because he was of the same craft”. It is to bring down the pride of the Corinthians. God had this end in view; He always works with an end in view, and He knew what would develop at Corinth — the pride of the flesh. He knew the architectural reputation of the city — it was a place of fine edifices — man’s ideas of building. And these three people of the same craft dwelt together in one house; their names would be utterly despised if they were mentioned to the leading architects of the city. Tent-makers did not belong to their line; they were occupied with stately buildings of beauty and grandeur. Thus God intended to bring down in the saints all that man could glory in.
Ques Would you connect with that, “not many wise”; “ye see your calling, brethren”? 1 Corinthians 1:26 Yes, surely.
Ques Were they not there in relation to suffering?
JT Priscilla and Aquila had had to leave Rome in consequence of the emperor’s command that all Jews should depart. There is no pretension to anything great in chapter 18; it is all intended to bring down the pride of the flesh and to bring us into reproach. Things that are conspicuous (even large congregations) tend to furnish food for the flesh. We have to be on our guard against that because God will not go on with anything of that kind. He intends the wilderness position to be one of lowliness and obscurity, hence the tabernacle consisted outwardly of an oblong enclosure of one hundred cubits [p. 247] long, fifty cubits wide, with a tent inside it, the boards of which were ten cubits high with badger skins thrown over it, all of which has precious meaning to faith, but to the natural eye nothing at all.
FSM Do you suggest that we have to learn to appreciate the reproach of the cross, and the position of the assembly in the wilderness before we can enter into the dignity of the position?
JT I think that is right. There stood the brazen altar in the court. That meant that suffering was the order of the day. Suffering was suggested in all the outward appearance; the badger skins, and indeed all the skins, indicated that suffering had occurred; so, too, did the altar itself, and the shittim wood — only one kind of wood, the shittim or acacia, which represented power of endurance, not outward grandeur. You can understand how much that is needed if we are to bear the weight of the testimony of the mind of God — no less than that. The mind of God was disclosed to Moses on the mount; he brought it down, and it was set up in figure in this structure. It requires power of endurance to stand and hold that against all the pressure and opposition that there are.
FSM Is that why Paul refers to “Jesus Christ” in the Corinthian epistle?
JT That is in accordance with his point of view. It is what Jesus Christ was here — resisting evil. It is that character of things that has to be built in.
Rem You get the thought that the people should be in accordance with the testimony. They dwelt in tents in the wilderness in correspondence with the tabernacle.
JT It was a movable state of things, but chapters 19 and 20 bring out the state of dignity which belongs to the assembly, so we get the word of the Lord.
Ques Would “baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus”, and also what characterised the Ephesians, “faith in the Lord Jesus”, Ephesians 1:15 fit in?
JT Yes, indeed. That is what you get. Paul said to them that they should believe on Him who should come after John, that is, on Christ Jesus, and then it says, “When they heard that, they were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus”.
FSM There would be a sense in which the two run on together in our souls — the reproach connected with the Corinthian epistle, and the dignity connected with the Ephesian position.
JT Yes, the latter enables to sustain the former. We come together outwardly as disciples of the Lord, and we are ill reproach, but inside we lay hold of what we are before God, which is different from what we are before men.
HFN And that would empower us to take up the reproach connected with the testimony here.
RW Would the two sides come in with baptism? There is no mention of the name of the Lord in chapter 18? Would it just be the side of humiliation, our disappearing here?
JT Yes, I think so. “The word of God” means that one has to expect reproach. The mind of God does not take into account what I am after the flesh at all. I may be a rich man or an educated man, a man of family or what not, but that has nothing whatever to do with the mind of God. The mind of God is to bring in a man fitted to stand in the testimony of Jesus Christ. I have to be formed according to the word of God.
R W. Would the baptism of John indicate the disappearing side?
JT Yes. As you get in Acts 1, the requirements of the man who was to occupy the vacated position were that he had assembled with the disciples during all the time in which the Lord Jesus came in and [p. 249] went out amongst them, beginning with the baptism of John, until the day in which He was taken up from them. That is the kind of man who was to take Judas’ place. “From the baptism of John”, that was the beginning of one order of things; he began there; he was to have assembled with the disciples all the time in which the Lord Jesus came in and went out amongst them. What movements he would see! What utter disregard for the flesh and its pretensions he would have seen in Jesus as He came in and went out among them. That is the character of things we have to learn to fit in with the assembly as set in this world in testimony.
Rem That seems to cover both sides, does it not; the disappearing side in the baptism of John, and then the going up into heaven?
JT Yes. “The day in which he was taken up” Acts 1:22 would suggest that if you have accepted the testimony of what He was here, you come into the dignity involved in His going up. Think of the dignity of His going up into heaven!
Ques Is that why, in Ephesians, the great truth of ascension comes into prominence?
JT Yes; His ascension means our going up too.
Ques Would the baptism of John be the beginning of a spiritual movement, and then the ascension be the completion of it?
JT Yes, quite. The ascension brings out the cedar, that is, the material for the house, or fixed abode. The cedar suggests the magnificence of the house of God, as seen in Ephesus, but we have to learn what the Lord was as coming in and going out among the saints, from the time He was baptised until He was received up. Let us understand what these things mean. The Lord was to be learned in being with Him; and in His assembling, too, with them; Acts 1:21,22.
Ques Would that be equivalent to [p. 250] following the journeyings of the ark of the covenant in the wilderness?
JT Very much. One often feels that we know very little about assembling; “of the men who have assembled with us”. Acts 1:21.
Ques What is the force of that?
JT You see how the Lord acted in assembling. You have to learn how to assemble — how to be in the assembly — from Him. Think, for instance, of the night in which He instituted His supper! how He would act. Those present would take account of every movement and word of the Lord, and what a taste of His love they would get there! They would be governed afterwards by that. Even in breaking the bread, they took account of how He did it, and what He said.
Rem In the forty days after He had risen from the dead He also assembled with them, which would be more spiritual, because He was then risen.
JT I think these forty days would perhaps instruct us as to the assembly in Ephesians. I do not say it would not enter into the other, for it does, and they run together, but we must think of the Lord as risen from the dead, as coming in amongst them, when it says, “He assembled with them”, Acts 1:4.
Ques Does not that give us the true principle upon which we learn the truth of the assembly, that is, from the Lord Himself? It is not simply that we have read it in a book, or even heard about it in ministry; the impressions must be made upon us by the Lord Himself.
JT Yes, the Lord moves in the house of God, and it is for the saints, especially the young ones, to seek to know how He moves, so as to know how to move themselves — what to do; as the apostle says, “that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God”. 1 Timothy 3:15. The Lord [p. 251] had set the way for them. If He is Son over God’s house, we need to consider Him. You say, He is in heaven; well, He is, but He is over the house, and He is priest in the house — the great Priest. We have to apprehend Him as the Son and Priest in it.
Ques How would the movements of the Lord be learned now?
JT Well, I think it is seen in the character of the ministry, and in the grace that He produces in the brethren. As you were saying, “holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord”. Hebrews 12:14. With holiness, you see His movements — what He is doing. It is a spiritual matter, but one can understand how you see the Lord — where He is. That is a good expression, for it means that you observe how and where He is moving. You are not misled. You are not going to be diverted. You know what is of Him.
HFN I think your reference last night to the thought of assembling in Matthew 13 was very helpful — the Lord coming into the house and His disciples coming to Him. In answer to their inquiry He gives an explanation of the parable. We would not only like the Lord to assemble with us in the breaking of bread, but that all the ministry of the house of God would come under that head.
JT Yes, it is well to see that the house is a general thought; so, as I was remarking, “from the rising of the sun unto the going down of the same the Lord’s name is to be praised”. Psalm 50:1. The whole administration of the house is in His hands. All the priests are under Him, all the Levites, and all the shepherds and elders. Grace has been given to all “according to the measure of the gift of Christ”, Ephesians 4:7 so that everyone of us is under the Lord.
FSM It may be a different simile, but the bride in the Canticles observed every movement of the Bridegroom. Would not affection notice the way in which the Lord does things, as well as what [p. 252] He does?
JT She could give an account of Him, where He was gone. One who loves the Lord can give an account of Him — where He is and also His beauty. She outlines His features. One has known believers who do not move about by reason of physical infirmity, but they know what He is doing and where He is. While the Lord was moving about those forty days, Mary of Bethany would undoubtedly know about it. After He appeared to above five hundred brethren at once, she would know about that too. It is remarkable how you get to know of His things and movements when you love the Lord.
HFN Do you suggest that if the Lord give us the forty days of assembling, coming in and out amongst us, there is a sense in which He always gives us the ten days?
JT I think the ten days suggest the opportunity we have for proving what we have learned. We have seen the Lord, what He has been doing, now we are allowed to act. Our movements now prove whether we have learned the lesson or not. During the ten days they continued in prayer. The disciples having seen the Lord go up, returned to Jerusalem and went to the upper room. That was instinctive. He had not told them to go there, showing that they had learned something. The upper room was in keeping with the ascension. Later those who represented His authority were there; Peter, James and John and all the apostles, Mary the mother of Jesus and His brethren. Then the question arose about this vacated apostleship. That was a test for them. What should they do? They had recourse to the Scriptures. Then Peter stood up among the brethren, not yet with the eleven, showing how he had learned to recognise the brethren. The next time it says, “with the eleven”, Acts 1:26, Acts 2:14 because he was going to preach publicly, but in this matter of taking counsel as to the mind of God, he stands up among the brethren. He quotes [p. 253] Scripture and they have recourse to prayer, and then to the lot, meaning that they did not know. It is a good thing to admit that we do not know. That brings God in. God is given an opportunity of deciding the matter. All this shows of what material they were.
Rem What you are saying seems to connect also with Corinthians, “temple of God”, 1 Corinthians 3:16,17 and Ephesians, “holy temple in the Lord”. Ephesians 2:21. Would you say a word as to the difference?
JT I think the temple in 1 Corinthians is what the saints are characteristically. It is what they are now as having the Spirit. We are entirely independent of the world and the wisdom of man; the mind of God is among the saints. One proves it constantly. You get the things of God unfolded. They are made more enjoyable in the company than they are in your own room or closet, not that you cannot study them in your room, or pray there, but the idea of the temple is that you are among the saints, where the Spirit of God is. The fact that the Holy Spirit is with the brethren to whom you are speaking involves that light comes out. Things are seen in relation to Christ. I am sure we have found this in our experience.
It grows unto an holy temple in the Lord; that is in view of the land — the millennium. When the Lord will have subdued everything by His rule, everything will be seen to be right. The temple sheds its light upon everything. All will be in keeping with the temple.
Ques What is the primary spiritual thought in connection with the temple?
JT It is where God is to be inquired of. “And to enquire in his temple”, Psalm 27:4. It is where His mind is disclosed.
Ques Did I understand you to connect that thought with “Israel his dominion”? Psalm 114:2.
JT More with Judah being His sanctuary, which.
[p. 254] I apprehend, means that it was the purpose of God in taking a people out that there should be a temple in Jerusalem — not only a tabernacle in the wilderness, which was to be temporary. His purpose was a fixed abode, and that is what I understand by Judah being His sanctuary, because Judah was not His sanctuary in the wilderness; it was more Levi. See Psalm 114:2.
Ques Does not the tabernacle present what is holy and heavenly, and spiritually greater than the temple in the land?
JT It does as to what it represents, but its outward appearance is very small. It is for testimony, but the temple is permanent. In the millennium the assembly will be the vessel of the rule of Christ. The light of the temple will make all plain.
Ques Does Simeon coming into the temple (Luke 2), throw any light upon that?
JT I think so. He had the mind of God, and he expressed it — “a light for revelation of the Gentiles and the glory of thy people Israel”. Luke 2:32 Would you say a word about the temple in 2 Corinthians 6, as to how it is introduced. Is it in connection with the building where the Lord can walk?
JT There the point is that God dwells among us and walks among us, and this calls for holiness; not so much that the light is there, but that God has a place in which He dwells and walks, and this becomes very searching, for if God walks there, He sees what is going on.
Rem Referring to Luke 2, we get in the first two chapters the Holy Spirit referred to seven times altogether: in relation to John, Zacharias, Mary, Elizabeth and Simeon, but as regards Anna He is not mentioned. Anna was in the temple day and night. I think we get in Anna one who was the product of the Spirit of God, something on the line [p. 255] of Colossians, for instance, where the Spirit is mentioned only once — “your love in the Spirit”. Colossians 1:8.
Ques Will you say a word in regard to Exodus and Leviticus?
JT Exodus is the establishment of things, and God coming to dwell, and then the benefit of that to me is in the way I take it up, and become active spiritually in drawing near as in Leviticus, in the appreciation of the offering of Christ. Priesthood is available for drawing near. Then Numbers is the thing in public testimony and the order that becomes it.
Ques Did Stephen take up the two thoughts you suggest to us? He speaks of our fathers having the tent of testimony in the wilderness, and then goes on to David, and Solomon building Him an house.
JT Yes, I think those two thoughts are put together by the Spirit of God.