RIGHTEOUSNESS AND THE PURSUIT OF IT
[p. 484] RIGHTEOUSNESS AND THE PURSUIT OF IT
JT What came before us previously was that in Romans righteousness in the believer flows from the revelation of God made good in his soul. It says, “righteousness of God is revealed” (Romans 1:17) that is, that kind of righteousness, and its applicability is to the one that “is of [the] faith of Jesus”, Romans 3:26. He has in his soul the faith of Jesus, which involves that order of Man, I apprehend. Now that leads to practical righteousness in the Christian as a matter of moral sequence. In Romans he has obeyed from the heart the form of doctrine that was delivered to him, so that in chapter 6 the truth is wrought out on moral grounds, and one’s body is yielded to God, and one’s members as instruments of righteousness to God. It is a moral result, so that Christ becomes Head in Romans on the same ground; that is, on moral ground. He proves Himself qualified to be Head. In Colossians He is Head in right of His own Person, He is Head on the ground of what He is personally. In Ephesians He is made Head, but in Romans He is Head on moral grounds.
GWW You are referring to the end of Romans 5.
JT Yes, things are all put on moral grounds in Romans, whereas in John’s epistle they are the result of generation, of our being born of God. He says, “If ye know that he is righteous, know that everyone who practises righteousness is begotten of him”, 1 John 2:29. It is on the ground of birth, so that as born of God we practise righteousness.
GWW That has become characteristic of us.
JT So Abel is introduced as the typically righteous man, and Cain as the opposite.
WLP Why do you bring in headship in connection with [p. 485] righteousness?
JT I was referring to Romans 5. The “one man” by whom righteousness and life are made effective for all men is necessarily Head. The Man through whom men are blessed, and in whom they are blessed and established. In 2 Timothy recovery is to Paul’s line of things, so that this epistle runs parallel with Ezra and Nehemiah. What would be observed in Ezra and Nehemiah is that David’s ministry and headship are made prominent. Moses is of course assumed, but David is specially brought forward.
JS Why do you mention Paul’s line?
JT His ministry is the test; it has been the test throughout, from the time it was introduced.
It becomes a question now of the genealogical register, and of each one proving his genealogy. As regards the generality of saints, we have to admit we do not know them. Paul formally states it here; “the Lord knows those that are his”, implying that others may not, but each one can prove his genealogy. I think this letter shows how each one can prove his title.
JD-s That remark is made in regard of the Jews in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah.
JT One great point was that the genealogy of each should be established; having been down in Babylon, who could have told what alliances they had formed?
WLP A Christian should not compromise his genealogy by any alliances that are contrary to Christ.
AFM What you are remarking in regard to genealogy is very striking, in Ezra and Nehemiah.
JT I think Ezra would be what you might call the genealogical editor of the Old Testament. Certainly there was such an one as that. It was an important point throughout in the writings that genealogies should be kept. In Genesis 10 the families of Noah [p. 486] are given to us to show how each nation had its origin. “These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations. And from these came the distribution of the nations on the earth after the flood”, Genesis 10:32. In 1 Chronicles the genealogies bring out, we may say, the relation in which each one stood to David.
BP Those that name the name of the Lord prove their genealogy?
JT I think that is it. That is the first feature of a Christian’s genealogy, that he names the name of the Lord, and as doing so he withdraws from iniquity.
BTF Would you give us an illustration of that? Was Onesiphorus one who proved his genealogy? Being in Rome he sought out the apostle and found him and was not ashamed of his chain.
GWW You mean to say the moral characteristics of Christ came out in him? A man proves his genealogy because he shows he is morally in accord with Christ.
JT It is remarkable that the apostle says, “The Lord grant mercy to the house of Onesiphorus”, 2 Timothy 1:16.
BTF The fact of his searching the apostle out proved that the divine nature was there, that he was born of God.
JT Quite right. And now that iniquity has found a place among those that call professedly on the name of the Lord the question is how true Christians are to be brought to light.
AFM I suppose iniquity refers to the condition of things that obtained in Babylon?
JT Yes, so withdrawal from it would be the proof that one was genuine.
AAT If you saw a supposed Christian withdrawing from iniquity and following righteousness,
[p. 487] faith and love, you would have no doubt as to his belonging to the Lord.
JT I think in that way he would establish his genealogy, that he was of the line. It is remarkable how the Lord in going into the house of Zacchaeus established Zacchaeus’ genealogy. He gave him a remarkable genealogy, saying, “he also is a son of Abraham”, Luke 19:9. That was his genealogy.
BTF Does that mean morally?
JT It was because he had faith; he wanted to see the Lord Jesus. Abraham rejoiced to see the Lord Jesus and Zacchaeus got up into a tree to see Him. He wanted to see Him.
GWW Then I suppose what we get in Ezra about their seeking their register in the book of the priesthood would correspond to the Lord knowing them that are His? We may not be able to trace the genealogy of all the saints, but He knows them. The only ones we can accredit are those whose genealogy we can trace. Is that the thought?
JT Quite. The priest with Urim and Thummim could find out what was of God in any man, whereas the principle on which natural religion goes would preclude many being discovered. Zacchaeus would have been shut out in spite of the fact that he had faith, whereas the Priest being there, He saw that he was a true son of Abraham.
BP Is there any connection with Ezra and Nehemiah, in regard to this firm foundation standing sure? I was thinking of what they came back to in connection with the wall.
JT I suppose the foundation was there. The gates, it appears, had the same names after they were reared again as they had before.
AAT Coming back to Zacchaeus, how does his righteousness come out?
JT He said he had given half his goods to the poor. It was more than a tenth, and if he took anything [p. 488] away from anybody fraudulently, he restored fourfold. He does not mean to imply that he would continue taking away by fraud. He meant that he had done so, but wherever he had taken it he restored it fourfold.
GWW Do you think that was his declaration in consequence of grace touching his heart, that it was what he then and there confessed before the Lord? Grace touching his heart, he saw that the injustice had to be put right.
JT It seems that he states it as characteristic of his dealings. “I return [him] fourfold”, Luke 19:8. It is what he did. I think it is on the principle of the practice of righteousness. Of those that were present, it says, “all murmured” when they saw it, saying, “He has turned in to lodge with a sinful man”. But Zacchaeus stood, and said to the Lord; “Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor, and if I have taken anything from any man by false accusation, I return [him] fourfold”, Luke 19:7 - 8. The Lord immediately says, “Today salvation is come to this house, inasmuch as he also is a son of Abraham”. There is the genealogy of the man plainly stated by the Priest, and it is in connection with the evidence of righteousness. Now if it were simply conforming to legal requirement he would have restored what he had taken away. There was no need of his giving any of his goods to the poor, whereas he gives half of them. He is on the line of the righteousness of God, the righteousness which is of faith.
GWW All even the law would have demanded would be to add a fifth part thereto, but he exceeded all that.
WLP I suppose the Lord wants to bring His person before Zacchaeus, so as to attach his faith to him.
JT Yes. I think he represents a Christian [p. 489] who is delivered. There are many who have really good desires but they are not regulated by Christ. There was nothing out of the way in his going up the tree, you might say, because he had a good intent in going up into it; but it was his own idea; it was not by the Lord’s direction, so that he has to come under the direction of the Lord. So He says, “Come down” However good your intention, everything must be regulated by Christ in your relations; “for today I must remain in thy house”, Luke 19:5. It seems to me as if the Lord would bring him under His regulating influence first, and then He says, “I must remain in thy house”; and as in his house He says, “Today salvation is come to this house”. It is in the house of a son of Abraham.
AP On account of faith it is practical righteousness.
JT Faith was there, but the Lord does not say here, “Thy faith has saved thee”, Luke 7:50. He does say this earlier in the gospel in chapters 7 and 8, but here it is more what the man was, and the evidence of his genealogy.
ANW Why does the Lord go beyond righteousness and say, “Salvation is come”?
JT Righteousness in itself is not salvation; practical righteousness is what you do, salvation is what God effects.
GAT Would you say Zacchaeus got adjusted before that through his own confession?
JT I think he was adjusted outside the house. He went in and received the Lord joyfully, it says.
AFM “Today salvation is come to this house” involves more than forgiveness. The Lord meant that there was to be complete deliverance from the power of the enemy.
JT There was power in His presence for that. The kingdom was there.
AP What would that house [p. 490] include?
JT The family. There are many things that arise in the domestic circle that Satan can act upon, and the first great point is to have righteousness there and having righteousness, you find the power of God supporting you. Thus salvation is realised.
AAT We were speaking this morning of the sinner in Luke 18, who went down to his house justified. The house is mentioned there also. He was a justified man in that house, but was he saved?
JT You would not go so far. You see he went down to his house justified, it does not say that the Lord sent him there. It simply says he went down justified, he went down a different man from what he had been. But in the fifth chapter the Lord sends the paralytic to his house carrying his bed, as if to imply that He could commit Himself to this man now.
AP But going down to his house justified, his family would come in for the benefits of that, would they not?
JT Quite. The children would have a righteous father now, and the wife would have a righteous husband.
Ques Would that not imply salvation to that house?
JT Well, the groundwork of it is there, but salvation is a question of God’s power, “With [the] heart is believed to righteousness; and with [the] mouth confession made to salvation”, Romans 10:10. As we confess with the mouth the Lord Jesus, we get the support of God.
AAT In Zacchaeus’ house there are two thoughts; the Lord says, “I must remain in thy house” (Luke 19:5) and then, “salvation is come”. Does one follow on the other?
JT Salvation was involved in His presence there. I do not say it always depends on the Lord’s presence, but this was so while He was down here.
[p. 491] Now it is effected through the Holy Spirit. The kingdom of God is Christ exalted and the Holy Spirit here, and we come into it by believing on the Lord Jesus Christ. But Zacchaeus would learn by the presence of Christ in his house how to deal with sin in the house afterwards.
AAT Is there a practical application of that today?
JT I think there is. I think we must learn how to cope with sin if it manifests itself, in those relations.
AAT And in the measure in which we do we are fit to rule in the assembly.
JT I think we are able to rule in the assembly in that way. A man must have a good conscience in his own house before he can count on Christ to support him in it. That is, his own spirit must be right. Then in Luke 5 the man is sent to his house by the Lord Himself, which is another matter. I am now to represent Him there. It is a serious matter to have to represent the Lord there. He has given me power to go there, for in carrying my bed back into the house obviously I have power. It is for me to continue to use it now.
WCR You spoke of Onesiphorus and the apostle asking that he might have mercy shown to his house. Why is his house mentioned?
JT Paul knew how a right minded man regarded his house. Of Noah it is said that he “prepared an ark for the saving of his house”, Hebrews 11:7. No doubt Paul knew the exercises Onesiphorus had as to his house, hence his deep and tender desires in regard of this dear man who had shown himself so true when others were turning away from the apostle. Notice that Paul after speaking of his house continues: “The Lord grant to him to find mercy from [the] Lord in that day”, 2 Timothy 1:18.
Now in 2 Timothy 2:19 this acknowledgment of the Lord in withdrawing from evil is of the greatest [p. 492] possible importance for us now, as proving our genuineness in the midst of so much unreality.
GAT You get the principle carried out in the sons of Levi, in connection with the golden calf. Moses called for all on the Lord’s side to come out to the tabernacle.
JT Yes “Who is on the Lord’s side” (Exodus 32:26) he says. It is what you do that proves your reality.
BTF Do you limit this to the ecclesiastical position?
JT The apostle refers especially to the evil that had come in amongst these that were calling on the Lord professedly. He says, “But profane, vain babblings shun, for they will advance to greater impiety, and their word will spread as a gangrene; of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; [men] who as to the truth have gone astray, saying that the resurrection has taken place already; and overthrow the faith of some”, 2 Timothy 2:16 - 18. It evidently refers to evil introduced among the people of God.
GWW Yes; and the only man that can cope with it is the man that is really of the genealogy of the One that hated lawlessness. If lawlessness comes into that which has the responsibility of being the house of God, the only one that can deal with it is the one who is of that genealogy. Christ hated lawlessness.
JT In calling on the name of the Lord, you are committed to all that is in that Name.
JS In the first place I suppose it is a question of His authority; and in the second place, our withdrawal from evil as hating it.
JT So that it is in that way consistency. Consistency is a great feature of Christianity; consistency with the principles we hold, with the truth we hold.
GAT When does this take place in my soul?
JT When you make a definite break with evil. It is the breaking off of relations with those that you [p. 493] have been allied with that is the test. As was said to the sons of Levi: “Who is on the Lord’s side?”, Exodus 32:26. Are you prepared to take the sword, so to speak, and use it against your brother? That requires spiritual energy, because you have to do violence to natural feelings.
AFM In Romans 10:13 it says, “Every one whosoever, who shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved” Here it is “those that call upon the Lord out of a pure heart”.
JT I think emphasis is laid on consistency and transparency in this chapter “Let everyone who names the name of [the] Lord withdraw from iniquity”, that is consistency. It is but consistent to withdraw from iniquity if I am calling on the name of the Lord, but I may be apart from outward lawlessness as professedly calling on the Lord and yet not have a pure heart. Calling on the Lord out of a pure heart, I think only of Him and His interests. I am simple and transparent in my motives and actions.
ANW Iniquity is a strong word. What is your thought about it?
JT It expresses evil or unrighteousness. Of course the Christian must judge and refuse it in himself; but withdrawal from it implies that it is accepted and practised by others, so that in withdrawing from it you have to withdraw from them.
BTF What about false creeds held in religious systems around?
JT I suppose they are what is called “systematised error”.
GAT As a rule, do we not understand that as having withdrawn from “system”, that is all the evil we have to withdraw from?
JT We have a specific case here, of men saying, “the resurrection has taken place already”, 2 Timothy 2:18. That is a concrete ease of iniquity. It takes other forms now, but we are called upon to judge it in its varied features and [p. 494] withdraw from it as inconsistent with the Name upon which we call, the Lord Jesus Christ.
JD-s What we have to do, therefore, is to separate from those who, like Hymenaeus and Philetus are in any way practising or identified with evil.
JT Yes, so the apostle goes on to say, using the figure of the vessels: “If therefore one shall have purified himself from these, [in separating himself from them], he shall be a vessel to honour, sanctified, serviceable to the Master”. Evidently the separation is from persons.
JD-s Just so. Would you give us the force of the expression we have in the New Translation, “Let every one who names the name of [the] Lord”?
JT I think the Lord’s name implies His renown, all that came out in Him; that is what you are committed to in your profession.
JD-s That is, to use profession in the proper sense of the term; if you profess the name of the Lord and all it involves, in that way name the name of the Lord, it is for you to separate from evil as seen in men such as those we have here before us.
GWW It is important to bear that in mind. You separate from persons only by reason of their identification with what is evil. That has to be borne in mind to convey the right thought to people from whom we do separate. There are some who are not personally evil, but because they are identified with evil principles we are compelled to separate from them; that puts us on right ground. People may say they are Christians as much as you are, they are children of God, but because they are going on with principles contrary to the name of the Lord we have to separate from them.
JD-s It says, “[The] Lord knows those that are his”. That is our refuge.
JT We leave them with the Lord. We cannot say whether they are genuine or not, but [p. 495] He knows.
WLP Do we not think a little too much sometimes of the company separating from evil, instead of us as individuals separating from evil?
JT It is individual here.
WLP We often use the thought of withdrawing from evil in a collective sense.
JT Basing our position on this scripture, the principlenow is withdrawal.
AAT It is not “putting away” exactly.
JT In Corinth the assembly prerogative is formally recognised, and there was power in the assembly to deal with the person who was guilty. Instead of withdrawing from him they put him away.
BTF Do you withdraw from vessels to honour, or is it only from vessels to dishonour?
JT “These” are the last mentioned. “If, therefore, one shall have purified himself from these [in separating himself from them]”. “These” would be vessels to dishonour.
BTF There might be vessels to honour in systems that you might have to withdraw from.
JT All are to prove their genealogy, you see. You do not know. The fact that they say they are true does not prove it. The test is, do they separate themselves as naming the name of the Lord. As a matter of fact it is consistency with the truth of Christianity, that is the test. What I think should be pressed as much as anything is consistency, and following upon that transparency. In Revelation the real ones are seen on a sea of glass; things are all transparent. We know, however, thank God! that there are many pious ones in the several denominations, but we cannot walk with them because of their associates.
JS If the assembly was in power there would be no need for withdrawal. There would be power to deal with evil by putting away those who practise it. Now it is a question of withdrawing from it.
[p. 496] JT That is the principle now. Whatever words we may use, we should make it clear that while we do not pretend to be the assembly of God, we must maintain the order and holiness which marks it.
JD-s This instruction is for the servant, is it not?
JT The epistle affords instruction for all for the last days, but especially for the servant or man of God. In verse 19 we have “every one”.
GAT Another scripture says, “they went out from among us, but they were not of us”, 1 John 2:19. Is that another side?
JT They went out from the apostles.
GAT My thought was that if a company were in a good spiritual state the wicked man would go out himself. Would you agree to that?
JT We have to deal with evil, however, when it manifests itself. It will not do to leave it to remove itself.
GAT Only in Corinthians do you hear of one being “put away”.
JT Yes, but evil may exist without any overt acts, and you have to wait for an overt act in order to exercise discipline. Even in the case of Judas, there was no overt act until he went out to betray the Lord. He was allowed to go on. The antichrists John speaks of probably would not commit anything in an outward way that would be regarded as a sin; being servants of Satan, they would avoid that.
GAT I thought, that if the Lord’s presence were known amongst a company, you find evil going out. In the second chapter of John’s gospel the Lord drove it out, but I thought if the rights of God were maintained amongst us, and the Lord had His place amongst us, evil would go out of itself.
JT No doubt there is some truth in that, but we have to deal with it. We judge those within. There has to be that [p. 497] principle.
BTF You would say there should be priestly discernment, but you cannot go beneath the surface.
JS It would not do to assume apostolic authority.
JT I think the principle of withdrawal is what holds. It may be asked as to those calling on the Lord out of a pure heart, What will they do with evil? I would say, if it is there we must deal with it, but the ground each individual takes in his own soul is, that if it is not dealt with he cannot go on with it. That is the ground to take: you cannot go on with evil.
WHF Would you think that for putting away you must have the assembly to do it? You have the authority in Scripture not to go on with evil but to separate from it? In the present time the assembly is in ruin, there is failure, so that, if evil arises you have to separate from it.
JT The question is what is within and what is without now, 1 Corinthians 5:12. It was very clear when Paul wrote to the Corinthians that “those without God judges”, 1 Corinthians 5:13. That was simple enough because it referred to anybody outside the assembly at Corinth; but when you come to the “great house”, what is within and what is without? They are all inside of it, the good and bad vessels.
WHF Then the point is, vessels to honour and vessels to dishonour, and, “if therefore one shall have purified himself from these, ... he shall be a vessel to honour, sanctified, serviceable to the Master, prepared for every good work”.
JT That is still inside, all are inside.
WHF We have been a great failure in assuming to be the assembly, and all that.
JT As far as I see, “inside” today as always, is the sphere of Christian profession, and “outside” is heathendom or Judaism. What do you say about that?
[p. 498] J.D-s, I have great difficulty. I quite realise that 2 Timothy 2 is what would stand. We used it years ago and would use it now, there is no change in that respect, but what I see is that there is serious danger of giving up and excluding from our thoughts principles that actuated the assembly of God in the beginning; given in apostolic times, but given, in my view, for the guidance of the assembly of God in all times, and for me to do that would be peril.
JT The first thing is to determine what is to govern me primarily, in the ruined state of things. Now if you take Israel, the immediate word that governed them in their recovery was the decree of Cyrus, which had no place in the law of Moses. It had no place in David’s instructions, nor in any that followed. Now that was an extraordinary situation, but Cyrus’ command was the immediate word that was to govern them. After they were governed by that they were gradually led, in principle at least, into all the light given to Moses and David; but then, they had to come in, so to speak, by that gate. It was a very humiliating gate. It meant their utter shame, that they had sinned, that God had to take up a Gentile monarch to tell them what to do. But afterwards they reached a height spiritually that exceeded even David’s day or anything subsequent to that. In other words, if we come in by the appointed way, all that God has for us is before us. There is not a bit of it that is not open to use. I think 2 Timothy is the gate of entrance now to what is of God, but as children of wisdom we recognise the altered conditions and act accordingly.
WHF I can understand that it is our privilege to walk individually in the light of that which was set up at the beginning, but I see the danger of assuming to be anything in the way of the assembly.
JT You do not assume to be anything in an outwardly formal or official way, although cherishing [p. 499] the light of the assembly in your heart, and conforming to it as far as conditions admit.
J.D-s We often say that God permitted a number of things to be arranged in apostolic times, that we might have guidance in these days, and, while I am quite sure that we are in 2 Timothy times, and I am quite clear that what you say is correct, that we must approach things in that way, still I would be sorry myself to see the principles that underlie the epistle to the Corinthians, for instance, given up or in any way belittled.
JT I am sure every one would say Amen to that, but the question is how you approach them. As I remarked, the Jews came back to Jerusalem by the decree of Cyrus, and it was also to build the house, but when they came back they set up an altar. That was what they did before they laid the foundation of the house. They reared up an altar. Cyrus did not tell them to do that. He simply, as it were, opened the gate for them, and it was a very humiliating one, but it led to the feast of tabernacles, which exceeded what was in David’s time. So there is nothing to fear on these lines. You will get Corinthians, and Colossians, and Ephesians if you go in by the appointed way.
JD-s If that is clear I have nothing more to say; but I am not so sure that it is in some people’s minds.
JT It is humbling to have to acknowledge that what was once owned of God is now a “great house” in which vessels to honour and dishonour are present. Good and bad are admittedly there, and whatever our exercise and zeal for God, we cannot get out of this great house. We are not called upon to leave it, but to separate from vessels of dishonour. Each one has to do this, and then follow righteousness, faith, love, peace with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart. This is the gate of recovery;
[p. 500] going in by it, all that God has for us is available. All the light of Paul’s epistles, of all Scripture indeed, is for our furnishing. But as children of wisdom saints in such a position would use Scripture soberly, always having the sadly altered conditions in mind.
GWW If evil arises in the midst of a company of saints who are walking together in the light of divine principles it can be no more tolerated than it was at the beginning, the evildoer must be dealt with. That is clear. Therefore that company, without assuming any corporate position at all, does act collectively in reference to that evildoer.
JT You and I act together if we can, but the principle that governs us both is that we cannot go on with evil. All should surely have this judgment and be of one mind about it; and so act together in dealing with it. At the same time, we do not assume to be acting with the authority of the assembly, nor do we use any formula that would imply this.
AAT You do not assume the power to put away the evildoer.
JT You cannot go on with the evil. There can be no question that evil has to be judged and refused as really as it was at the beginning. Here 1 Corinthians 5 helps, as showing how the apostle judged it as affecting the saints, and how he sought to get them to judge it and clear themselves of it. But what has ever to be before us is that no company of saints now can occupy the same position as the assembly at Corinth, and so we cannot act formally as they were commanded to “put away”; then such an act was from the assembly, indeed from the sphere of Christian profession.
ARS Do you mean that if there is evil in a meeting and the rest of the assembly do not see it, you would be responsible yourself to withdraw from it?
JT That is the ground you take. Of course [p. 501] you would seek to exercise the others so that there might be united action, but at any rate, you cannot go on with the evil.
ANW In Thessalonians Paul says: “If anyone obey not our word by the letter, mark that man, and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed of himself; and do not esteem him as an enemy, but admonish [him] as a brother”, 2 Thessalonians 3:14 - 15. Would not that apply today?
JT I think it would. Such an one is not regarded as a “wicked person”, however.
GWW Here in Corinthians it is a wicked person with whom we are going to walk no more. He has ceased to follow righteousness.
JT That is the judgment you have come to in your soul, and, as walking with you, I have come to it too, so we act together in judging the sin or the person who has sinned; but we do not assume to act as the assembly. But at the same time, as seeking to maintain the holiness of the house of God, the Lord supports us in a very real way. As there is power there would be moral authority present, and this would make itself felt. But there is no claim to assembly authority.
GWW I suppose what we do is we declare that that man is unfit for any Christian company.
JT You do so far as your act is concerned, but that would not alter the man’s outward position ecclesiastically. He is in the great house and you cannot alter his position as there. You are altering you own position as regards him. Although there may not be much to object to as to the manner of dealing with sin arising among the saints, we do well to inquire, where is a person put away from, and, inferentially, where to?
ARS To go back to what happened in the Bethesda trouble years ago, when the question of [p. 502] false doctrine came up, Mr. Darby, as I understand it, took a very decided stand with regard to a certain man and exercised the consciences of others about it, and the result was that they withdrew. Then that caused division amongst the saints. The action did not put that man out of the great house, did it?
JT It did not alter his position at all in that sense. Mr. Darby separated, and so altered his position as regards the others, and those with him.
JS You mean altered his position as regards vessels of dishonour.
JT That is, he kept himself clear. The “vessels” are all in the great house. “In a great house there are not only gold and silver vessels, but also wooden and earthen; and some to honour, and some to dishonour”. You cannot get out of the “great house” unless you become an apostate. But although there is no claim of assembly position or prerogative, if we act against evil to keep ourselves pure as in the light of the house of God, as having part in it indeed, the Lord will be with us, and whatever judgment is arrived at will carry the consciences of all exercised persons. Indeed I believe the action will be ratified in heaven. The principle of binding and loosing will be there. This will be known to those who are with God. It will not be assumed in any formal way, however. In a word, things are on moral ground.
ANW Your point is to make clear that the iniquitous system has become a great house.
JS You would be exercised in respect of others in the company so that all might be on this ground.
JT So gradually, as governed by the truth, you come to realise the power of God, and you are led into all the blessings of Christianity in this way but it is a most humiliating state of things. We are beset all around by people who call upon the Lord as we do, but they are not consistent. The ground [p. 503] you take is that they are there and you cannot help it, but you cannot ignore the fact.
WLP Had the great house been formed in the apostle’s day?
JT I think he suggests that it already existed. In writing this letter he speaks of certain things that happened that had brought about the change: “Of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus”. The sin evidently had not been dealt with.
BTF Would naming the name of the Lord be simply profession?
JT That is what it is, but everyone that does it proves his genuineness by separating from evil.
GWW We find that we can follow righteousness, faith, love, peace, with certain ones, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart. That would seem to be our charter for the moment, so to say. Very well, if one of those ceases to follow righteousness, I want to know how far does collective action come in in respect of him. I am not saying anything about corporate action, but we find ourselves in the presence of very definite directions given in Corinthian days, showing the mind of the Lord about His people going on with an evildoer. Well, we say, it is not God’s will that we should walk with an evildoer. I see it; I see that His people should not walk with an evildoer, but you see it too, and others see it. His evil doing is plain. Therefore we say, This man is unfit for Christian company. He is a wicked man. Is that so?
JT Yes, certainly, so long as you just leave it that way. The great thing is to bow to the actual situation, and act in keeping with it. As we draw nearer to the end the way becomes more perilous, and hence the need of adhering strictly to divine principles.
GWW What we want to get at is that the point must be reached that the company is kept pure;
that it is not God’s mind that any company of His saints should be found walking with an evildoer.
JT That is the definite attitude you take up in spite of the ruined condition of things that exists.
GWW That is, you do not assume to act as though the failure had not come in. We admit that. Although the failure is present, it is not the mind of the Lord that His people should be found walking with evildoers.
JT 1 Corinthians 5 affords light as to this. It is thus to be before us, although as children of wisdom we see that we cannot act on it literally.
GWW You have the light of 1 Corinthians.
JT Only the circumstances have changed. In 1 Corinthians days without was heathendom and within was the Christian circle, where the Spirit was. Today the outward continuation of that has become a huge distortion; it still bears the name of Christ, however, and you cannot get outside of it. You do not attempt to.
GWW But the thing we discern from 1 Corinthians is that the Lord never expects His people to walk with an evildoer.
JT That is truth of the last importance.
GWW We know He is going to support us if we refuse to walk with an evildoer.
JT We are children of wisdom and much is left to us as to how it is done. Instead of saying that such a one was put away, it is better to keep to the principle of withdrawal, which is embodied in this letter. And you do not sacrifice the light of 1 Corinthians.
GWW That is really our ground of withdrawal.
JT It is this one letter that makes so much of Scripture. “From a child thou hast known the sacred letters which are able to make thee wise unto salvation, through faith, which [is] in Christ Jesus”, 2 Timothy 3:15. All scripture is given of God, and first Corinthians, of course, is included, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof and for correction and instruction in righteousness. So 1 Corinthians is a wonderful scripture today.
GAT Do I understand from what you say, that we cannot act as the Corinthians did?
JT While we cannot take the same position, the principle remains the same as theirs. We cannot go on with evil. It must be refused.
BTF What would you say in that connection about the loaf representing the circle of fellowship?
J .T. We certainly include in our affections every saint. The apostle does here in principle in saying, “The Lord knows those that are his”. We include all the saints in our hearts in the breaking of bread. The others are just as precious to Christ as we are. The sorrow is that they are not available to us. You go on with those that are available.
BTF That is the thought, so the breaking of the loaf would bring a soul under a solemn sense of responsibility.
Ques The question then comes up. If we declare a man unfit for any Christian company, and he refuses to be subject, but says, ‘I will come here and break bread next Sunday morning no matter what you say’, what is to be done?
JT Leave him; even leave the room to him. You maintain the principle of separation.
Ques Such a one would be eating and drinking judgment to himself, would he not?
JT Yes; but you can always withdraw. The proverb says, “It is better to dwell in a desert land, than with a contentious and irritable woman”, Proverbs 21:19. If there is that sort of thing amongst the saints of God you would rather be alone than go on with it. The happy thing is you do not need to go [p. 506] on with it. It is sometimes assumed that you cannot help it, but you have always the resource of withdrawal.
GWW And in regard to one guilty of sin, and who does not judge it, we do not deal with him simply as affecting a few in a given locality, but the whole Christian company. We take the ground that such a man is not fit for the fellowship of Christians.