SECOND READING AT VALENCE
SECOND READING AT VALENCE
WJH This afternoon we were looking at two features that marked the assembly at the beginning, first, the certainty of the resurrection of Christ indicated in His remaining and assembling with them for forty days, and secondly, the importance of recognising the voice of the Spirit, rather than being governed by what is going on in the world. The third feature that one would call attention to is, that they were witnesses of His being taken to heaven. It says in verse 9, “having said these things he was taken up, they beholding him”. It is not exactly that He went up, ascending in His own right, which is rather the side presented by John when it is referred to, but that He was taken up. It was the act of God and the act of heaven. The disciples witnessed His being taken up, which would leave an eternal impression on their hearts of how precious He was to heaven, that heaven took Him up. Then it says that the cloud having received Him out of their sight, they gaze up into heaven, indicating, in that way, that the object of their hearts was in heaven, not on earth. I believe that is the third great feature, that the early church had its object in heaven. Not one thing on earth was an object for the church at the beginning, and I believe the Lord would bring that back livingly. The conditions that God is permitting to take place in the world find us out; they discover how much our object has been on earth. When earthly things are disappearing on every hand, our eyes are opened to find out in many cases that our object has been here. What do you say to that?
Rem I am sure that is right. I was thinking of Philippians, where we read of those “who mind earthly things”, Philippians 3: 19. Then, too, in the Revelation judgment comes on the earth-dwellers (Revelation 6: 10).
WJH Yes. I do not think we realise how much our object has been here until we lose something, and God is permitting His people to lose a good deal that they have had. But I believe that is one way in which He is helping us to find our object in heaven, for it says, “the Lord himself, with an assembling shout ... shall descend from heaven”, 1 Thessalonians 4: 16. The One who is our precious object is in heaven and is coming from heaven. I think if we can look at things like that we shall not be so distressed at what the Lord is allowing; we shall see that it is really the hand of love, that He is seeking to get His own place in our hearts.
Rem There is a remarkable verse in Jeremiah where God is speaking of withdrawing His earthly people from all the countries whence they had been driven (Jeremiah 16: 16). He speaks there of fishers as if He would fish them out, and if that does not accomplish His purpose there are hunters, as if He would hunt them out.
WJH That is interesting, but better still is the word in Hosea, “behold, I will allure her, and bring her into the wilderness, and speak to her heart”, Hosea 2: 14. The Lord would, first of all, allure us out. I believe that is why the Supper has been revived in our day, to allure us out. Those other elements to which you have referred in Jeremiah would assist too, but the great thing is that He would draw us out under the influence of His love. And one delights to see in various parts, that this feature is coming to light — brothers and sisters whose real object in life is Christ as the One who has been taken to heaven. We want to come into that feature.
Ques And is that object great enough to hold us together?
WJH That is really what follows, that they went back to this upper room, every one finding an object in Christ in heaven. And they lived together, as it says, “where abode Peter, and John”. They all lived together and it needs one object to enable us to live together. The object of every one in that upper room was Christ, and that is what makes unity. They are all different persons, for they are all named, yet they are together and abiding there.
Ques Do we not see in Stephen that notwithstanding the dreadful circumstances in which he found himself as being stoned, he had his eyes directed towards heaven?
WJH Distinctly — his object was there. So that he never departed from the character of the dispensation, which is grace.
Ques Would you say there is a reproach in the angel’s word, “why do ye stand looking into heaven?”, Acts 1: 11.
WJH Somewhat — in the sense that we do not physically look up into heaven. The way we express that Christ in heaven is our object, is that we devote ourselves to His interests in His absence. That is the proof that He is our object. If I find a brother or a sister with no living interest in the assembly, in that which is precious to Christ, and yet professing to love the Lord, it is doubtful whether it is true. The proof of it would be devotedness to all that belongs to Him. The two men tell them that He is coming back, and then they instinctively return to Jerusalem to the upper room and proceed to care for His interests.
Rem In John 20 the disciples are seen going back to their own homes. Here there seems to be advance.
WJH Quite — they have been through these experiences since then. They have found the Lord, and they have seen Him go up to heaven, they know He is coming back, and therefore they devote themselves to His interests.
Ques Why do the two men refer to the disciples as “men of Galilee”?
WJH That is very good; if we are not called Galileans we shall not have the features of the early church. Until the Lord returns His own are men under reproach. “Men of Galilee” are men who belong to a reproached condition of things, and the Lord intends that to remain until He comes back. If we are not connected with what is under reproach, we are not connected with what is of Christ. The Lord was under reproach here; He was despised and rejected. The wonderful thing is that He accepted that in resurrection; He said, I will see you in Galilee (Matthew 28: 10). In resurrection He says, I will see you there,
not in Jerusalem. The angel says, “he goes before you into Galilee, there shall ye see him.” That is the place where you will see Him; nowhere else. You will find Him in Galilee; that is the place of reproach. And, indeed, the Lord accepts reproach on the throne. Saul of Tarsus said to the One who was in heaven, “Who art thou, Lord?” and He said, “I am Jesus, the Nazaraean”, Acts 22: 8, not “I was” but “I am”. He is still the reproached and despised One, although on the throne of heaven. And that will remain until He returns. Hence the two men say, “Ye men of Galilee.” Nazareth was in Galilee.
Rem There are no theological schools in Galilee. And it says, “Search and look, that no prophet arises out of Galilee”, John 7: 52.
WJH Quite — indeed Nathanael said, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?”, John 1: 46. He thought, Is it possible? But the church will be composed of men of Galilee till the Lord comes. They will not be men of Galilee after that; they are going to judge angels (1 Corinthians 6: 3). So that you have all these names of persons in the upper room living together at the beginning, and I believe the Lord would revive these names. While the persons themselves — the apostles — have gone, the features that they represent are coming back.
Ques Do you think each one suggests some element found in the assembly?
WJH I am sure of it, there were one hundred and twenty names. A name means something. The holy city which is the bride, the Lamb’s wife, has twelve names in the foundation of its wall. The wall rests upon these names, and we shall never have a wall unless it does rest upon these names.
Rem You must explain that a little further.
WJH Well, it says, “where abode Peter”. That is the first name, and Peter is always first. He represents the truth of the kingdom which is the principle of subjection. That is the first principle in the universe of God; it is the first principle in the assembly. You never read anywhere of John and Peter. When the two apostles are referred to, Peter is always first because subjection must be first. Some think they can have love first, but that cannot be. And some say that the gospel ought to be first, but the Lord says Peter is first. When He chose the twelve, Matthew tells us that the names of the apostles are these: “first, Simon who was called Peter”, Matthew 10: 2. And the Lord does not make any mistakes. Subjection to Him in everything is the first principle in the assembly. And the Lord is bringing that feature back; Peter is being revived; the Lord is recovering the true features of subjection. So that it is not a question of what men think; it is not a question of what we thought was right thirty or forty years ago. The great question is, What does the Lord say? Well, knowing that, it is a matter of obedience. That is first, and I believe that is what Peter stands for.
Ques Is not subjection the great subject of Peter’s ministry?
WJH Quite — he extends the principle to children, to servants, to their masters, to subjects of the government, to the younger as to the elder, and then he says, all of you to one another (1 Peter 5: 5).
Then being subject, you can have what John represents. Even in a home you must have Peter first. A father may love his children immensely, but that love cannot flow out if the children refuse to obey. But let the children obey, and the love flows in all its sweetness. So that John is the next name, and John’s ministry is to unfold the greatness of divine love. He stands for the enjoyment of spiritual relationships and affections proper to the family of God, and these are coming back. Our presence here together at this time is a proof that family affections are coming back. I do not know whether we could profitably touch all these names, but that is the idea, that the Lord would bring back every feature that the twelve represent.
Ques Is it important that Judas Iscariot is omitted? He had gone to his own place.
WJH Indeed, and it is important that we should go through this exercise of excluding him. I believe that is one thing we are faced with every Lord’s Day. Is Judas excluded? It says, “In the night in which he was delivered up” Jesus took bread (1 Corinthians 11: 23). Every Lord’s Day morning we are reminded of that night. Have we judged what Judas did? That is the challenge. We must not think it was Judas, and that we could not do it. Every one of the twelve said, “Lord, is it I?” And they say here, “he was one of us”, Acts 1: 17.
We are very often face to face with a crisis like that. A position arises in business, maybe where an unrighteous act would lead to extra profit. Well, if we allow that, we shall lose the Lord; we cannot have both. Which shall we have? I believe we are face to face with that very often. Or it may be an unholy association, or unfaithfulness in the relationships of life. Or perhaps we could have a moment’s self-gratification, or a morsel of bread, like Esau, but we shall lose Christ. Which shall we have? The Lord reminds us every first day of the week, that he, Judas, was “one of us”. He is reminding us of that at the end, that we should not betray Him.
Take a sister — she could have a husband and a home, but he is an ungodly man. If she marries him she will lose Christ, and His assembly, and His precious interests. Which will she have? That is what the Supper brings us to — the night in which He was betrayed. Judas said, I would rather have thirty pieces of silver than Christ. The Lord said, “It was thou, a man mine equal”. He said, “We took sweet counsel together, and walked unto the house of God in company”, Psalm 60: 13, 14. The Lord and Judas had gone up to the temple together; Judas had heard Him pray; he had seen the zeal that cleansed the temple. But he says, I would rather have thirty pieces of silver than Christ. The Lord would take up this matter with us, as here they said, “Lord, knower of the hearts of all”, Acts 1: 24. They said, Lord, look into our hearts — we want a man whose heart is right in place of Judas.
Ques Why did the Lord leave the choice to the apostles? He had been with them for forty days, why did He leave it to them?
WJH Because He wanted them to take up this matter in their souls and to face it out. Then, too, He wanted to bring out another principle that would obtain throughout the whole dispensation, that is, the right that He has to act sovereignly. That is a very testing principle. They brought these two names, and then they cast the lot into the lap; they said, Lord, show whom Thou hast chosen. “The lot is cast into the lap, but the whole disposing thereof is of the Lord”, Proverbs 16: 33. Every time they saw Matthias they might have said, What right has this man to be an apostle? The only answer would have been that the Lord had chosen him.
Rem That would have been enough for any true lover of Christ.
WJH Yes; but it tests us more than we can tell to submit to the sovereignty of the Lord.
Ques Is there any signification in the fact that the one the Lord chose had one name, whereas the other had three?
WJH I do not know, but I think the point is that it was the Lord’s own choice, and that it was His right to choose. If I am subject, I shall not have any difficulty as to the sovereignty of the Lord; I shall welcome it. But if I want my way, and my will carried out, and I find the Lord sovereignly doing something quite different, my will may lead to rebellion. I do not think we realise how we are tested by sovereignty. Supposing the Lord raises up a distinct gift and help to the saints in a neighbouring locality, I wonder what we would think of it. Would we be prepared to bow to the Lord’s sovereignty? Or suppose He raises up one in our midst,
what attitude are others going to adopt? It is going to test the rest. We might say, Why should this one be chosen? But it is not in our hands; it is the Lord’s doing. The brethren everywhere have been tremendously tested like that. But the Lord will do as He likes. As He did at the beginning of the church’s history, so He will do at the end, and our happiness is to bow to His sovereign will.
Rem You would say there must be the twelve names.
WJH Yes, twelve is the administrative number; there must be proper administration in the assembly. Perhaps it might be well to refer to one or two more names. I have greatly enjoyed seeing that Bartholomew is there; he is living in the upper room with all the brethren, filling his part most happily. What does his name stand for? The idea of a name in scripture is renown; what is the renown of Bartholomew?
Rem We do not know much about Bartholomew, do we?
WJH No; that is just the point. That is what he represents — a man who is happy to go on with his service to the Lord unnoticed and unknown, out of sight; a man who serves the Lord in obscurity. Such a man lives in the upper room; he does not ask that his name should be mentioned in any way as doing anything; he is not seeking to advertise himself at all. He represents a wonderful feature, and I would like to encourage all of us as to Bartholomew, for he stands for what marks most of us; that is, he is hidden away, quietly going on with the Lord’s service, happy in the place the Lord has given him, not wanting a better place, not coveting John’s place, nor Philip’s place, but quietly and contentedly filling his own part in obscurity. One would greatly desire that the brethren might continue in the characteristics of Bartholomew.
Then there is Thomas, and if I could read our minds I think I could tell what we are thinking of him; that is, the wrong thing that Thomas did. Unbelieving Thomas; that is how he is known in the world. It will be remembered that when the Lord said, Let us go into Judea again, the disciples said, “Even but now the Jews sought to stone thee, and goest thou thither again?” And Thomas said, “Let us also go, that we may die with him”, John 11. He says, as it were, Let us go and follow Him even if we are stoned. That is the sort of name you want in the upper room, and we should like to have a few names like that, that is, preparedness to follow the Lord even if it means being put to death.
Ques Does he not rather encourage others to go?
WJH Yes; he says, Let us go. He does not talk about himself. He would link everybody with him.
Then there is Judas, not Iscariot; he has a name there. That is another feature proper to the upper room. A good many difficulties would have been saved if Judas had been present. And what marks Judas? Well, the only thing that distinguishes him is that when the Lord said something he did not understand, he did not refuse it and say, It is wrong; he enquired of the Lord about it. Judas, not Iscariot, said, “Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself to us and not to the world?”, John 14: 22. He told the Lord that he did not understand. And so he enquired, and how much trouble would be saved if we enquired; instead of saying we do know when we do not, or instead of saying it is wrong, because we do not understand when the Lord gives light. If Judas is present, we shall enquire of the Lord to teach us. That is a most valuable name; the Lord loves to see His people enquire. I would like the brethren to get hold of the idea of enquiring. The temple is the place in which to enquire, as it says, “to enquire of him in his temple”, Psalm 27: 4. There is much that we do not understand, but the Lord would teach us if we would enquire.
Then we might refer to verse 14 where it says, “with several women”. One rejoices in that, that the women were so formed spiritually that they were equal to being in the upper room; they were fit to be companions with Peter, with John, with Philip, with Judas, with Matthias. The women are there; they represent the hidden subjective state of our hearts — the secret condition as the Lord sees it, but the men represent the public position of light and testimony. Both sides were together at the beginning, and the Lord wants them together at the end, not only that we see what is right according to His mind, but that our hidden state, which only His eye sees, is in accord with Him. I think that is what is going to mark the end, that I am not different secretly from what I am publicly. That is how things were at the beginning.
And then it says, “and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren”, Acts 1: 14. That comes in last of all. Mary the mother of Jesus is last. The natural connection, the link with Christ after the flesh gives her no place whatever above the others in the upper room. The only thing that gives anybody a place there, is the work of God in their souls, and Mary the mother of Jesus is quite happy to accept that. She claims no rights whatever in the upper room. I wonder what we should do if Mary the mother of Jesus or James His brother were to come to the breaking of bread. If we were living in accord with the upper room, we should not make any difference; we should all go on in relation to the work of God in us, as they did at the beginning. Now that, of course, does not affect us literally, but it affects us morally. The rich brother claims nothing in the upper room; the brother intelligent naturally claims nothing, the poor brother claims nothing. You do not claim any special consideration because you are poor or because you are rich; you just accept the place the work of God in you entitles you to. And that makes things simple, yet real.
Rem And it would give us liberty.
WJH Yes; liberty for all that is of God, and the exclusion of all that is of the flesh and of the earth.
Rem It says, they “gave themselves all with one accord to continual prayer”, Acts 1: 14. There was liberty to pray.
WJH Quite so, and Mary was there in prayer. They did not pray to Mary, but Mary prayed to the Lord with them.