THE KINGDOM OF GOD (4)
[p. 79] THE KINGDOM OF GOD (4)
1 Corinthians 1:10 - 16; 1 Corinthians 4:17 - 21; 1 Corinthians 5:1 - 13
JT So far in the pursuit of our subject, which is the kingdom of God, we have considered Romans. It is now thought that we should look into 1 Corinthians so as to see how the kingdom affects the assembly as such. It will be found here that the relation of the kingdom and the assembly is very definite — the one bearing on the other; that is, the kingdom bearing on the assembly and the assembly bearing on the kingdom. The idea of the kingdom is more general. In any given country the kingdom includes the whole realm, whereas the idea of the assembly would be represented by the administrative capital; if we keep these things in mind we shall proceed more smoothly. We will see how the kingdom will assist us in functioning in the assembly and, on the other hand, that the assembly will help us in functioning in the kingdom. It will be noticed that the kingdom is referred to in this section, and it is said to be “in power”. In Romans in a similar way it is said to be “righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit”. But the idea of power evidently is the leading thought in this section, and it is in view of conditions that existed in Corinth — that had got out of hand. Lawless conditions had arisen and they had to be dealt with in authority, with a rod; at least, that was what the apostle suggested. Therefore, when such conditions arise, what is needed is what is represented in the word rod; that is, chastisement, or, in some sense, punishment; not exactly penalty, but that which effects subjection and restraint. The judgment rendered on the incestuous man, chapter 5, is representative of that principle. Before that we have stated the evil of division among the brethren in Corinth. It is the first complaint the apostle has; indeed, in which he uses the word exhort in dealing with it. “Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all say the same thing, and [p. 80] that there be not among you divisions; but that ye be perfectly united in the same mind and in the same opinion”, chapter 1: 10. The name of the Lord Jesus being brought in here is an allusion to the kingdom; that by which His administrative authority is wielded here below; hence, we have in Matthew, gathering together to the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. “For where two or three are gathered together unto my name, there am I in the midst of them”, chapter 18:20. His authority and all else in the sense of administration is carried on in His name; His name taking the place of Himself. He is in heaven personally, but His name here represents Himself, the Spirit in us supporting it.
AAT Is Matthew 18 kingdom truth?
JT That is just what it is. The passage has been often quoted and spoken of, but to illustrate that it is kingdom truth, we have only to refer to the opening part of the chapter. It is said, “In that hour the disciples came to Jesus saying. Who then is greatest in the kingdom of the heavens? And Jesus having called a little child to him, set it in their midst, and said. Verily I say to you, Unless ye are converted and become as little children, ye will not at all enter into the kingdom of the heavens. Whoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of the heavens; and whosoever shall receive one such little child in my name, receives me”, verses 1 - 5.
WR You spoke of the administrative capital of any realm. What did you have in mind?
JT Spiritually, that is the assembly. The assembly as down here is the administrative representation of the Lord in heaven; therefore, the word is, “If also he will not listen to the assembly, let him be to thee as one of the nations and a tax-gatherer”. He is lawless.
CAM We often speak of Matthew’s gospel as being the assembly gospel. Would it be right to say that the assembly is really in a kingdom [p. 81] setting?
JT It is; just as we have been saying about the idea of the capital. Jerusalem, for instance, was the administrative centre of the kingdom of Israel.
CAM I was glad of your allusion to Matthew’s gospel, because the two great thoughts come into it.
ANW Could you make a practical suggestion as to how the assembly bears on the kingdom? It is dear as far as I can see that the kingdom bears on the assembly, but you made the remark that the assembly bears on the kingdom.
JT I think it is illustrated in this case of discipline in Corinth. It is an administrative procedure; therefore, the question of evidence comes up at once. In the administration of authority in the assembly bearing on the whole kingdom, the question of evidence immediately comes up, as in chapter 5. “It is universally reported”, it says, alluding to the necessity for evidence in the administrative function of the assembly which affects the whole kingdom. And in chapter 1 we have a like suggestion as to the house of Chloe. The report on which the apostle went was said to have come from that house. “For it has been shewn to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of the house of Chloe, that there are strifes among you”, verse 11. There is, therefore, stressed in this section the necessity for evidence in carrying out assembly administration in the way of discipline, or whatever else it may be, but especially as to discipline.
APT Is the capital movable?
JT In a way it is, because it is pretty much illustrated in Samuel’s circuit. He judged Israel on the principle of a circuit. Names of the places where he judged Israel are given. The centre of authority now would be the nearest local assembly.
AR Is that why Matthew speaks of Jerusalem as the city of the great King? It is also spoken of in Matthew as the holy [p. 82] city.
JT That shows how the truth was held, and that those who arose from the dead after the Lord was raised, entered into the holy city and appeared unto many. They would be there in testimony.
EMcK What is stressed in the expression “universally reported”, chapter 5:1?
JT I think Paul had in his mind that the sad conditions that had come about in Corinth were known among the brethren generally. What helps in that, I think, is that in the second letter he says, “known and read of all men”, chapter 3:2. The writing in the hearts of the Corinthians corresponded with the writing in Paul s heart. Paul had the saints in Corinth in his heart and he brought the thought of Corinth out wherever he had opportunity. Wherever he had opportunity, he brought it forward; so that all men, meaning all the saints, had an opportunity of reading and knowing conditions at Corinth. They were good conditions at the tune of the second letter, but in this epistle what is reported would be of a sorrowful nature, but the saints would be concerned about Corinth; as if God would have it to be so, that one meeting is so prominent in the economy of God here below that the brethren are talking about it. And it often happens from our own observation that certain sections of the world are before the brethren. Something has happened that occasions concern and the brethren are praying about it.
ANW Are you stating that the universality of the report was in the assembly?
JT I would think so. It would be a public matter. We have to judge from the context who would talk about it, although the worldlings in Corinth itself might speak of the conduct there, but I would think it was the concern of the brethren through common report among them. Paul would not attach importance to others than those who were really brethren.
AAT I am wondering about the extent of [p. 83] the concern the assembly at Ephesus or the assembly at Colosse might have had about the exercises at Corinth. Could they interfere? Could the saints at Ephesus adjust the difficulties at Corinth?
JT We should go by what we have before us now. It would be a question of common report. If there is such report, then there is good ground for brethren to interfere, not in the sense of correction or setting things right; that belongs primarily to the local brethren, but in the sense of the general truth of the body of Christ and the unity of the Spirit; it is a universal matter. There is only one assembly in the full thought, and if there is anything wrong in a place, it is the concern of all. So that I think what is just before us helps. Paul is dealing with something that was wrong in Corinth and being reported commonly, it became of universal concern. You might say. What have they to do with it? But they have to do with it, because each of us is concerned about things being right. We love the Lord; we love the brethren; we want to see things right for the Lord’s sake and for the sake of the truth and the brethren; and pray about them.
AR There were gifts at Corinth. Was there the gift of government?
JT That is another point. Government is a gift and, of course, the gift is universal. It can be applied anywhere. It can be applied wherever it is needed, just as an evangelical gift can be used. I think that is important to keep before us.
AAT I just want to get clear as to how far brethren who are not local can adjust, or try to adjust, difficulties in a nearby meeting.
JT That is important, because it is just in that sense that Paul speaks here. Paul certainly was not in Corinth. He was outside. He had been resident at Corinth but had left it, nevertheless he certainly had a hand in what was going on [p. 84] in Corinth now.
AAT But he was an apostle.
JT Quite so; we have none now; and yet if there is a brother who has the gift of government, for instance, he has power; more power than the ordinary, and that ought to be used. There are many other things that can be said too, as to what can be done in the way of prayer and taking counsel, advice, etc. I would like to be clear about what is in your mind. I should not like to say anything that is not fair. You had better tell us something more if you think there is anything going on that is not according to the mind of God.
AAT I would like to get dear just how far outside brethren can give judgment on a local matter.
JT It cannot be final, but yet we are to have a judgment — at least a general judgment of what is current in the assembly. Wherever a thing happens, it is a concern to us all and then, of course, to the adjacent brethren. For instance, in the types measurements are taken; according to Deuteronomy 21, where anything serious happens, measurements are taken to the cities round about, and the nearest city is particularly involved. That chapter has important instruction in the matter we have before us.
FSC Paul speaks about his spirit being gathered together with the Corinthians, chapter 5:4. Do not the spirits of the brethren have an effect on the adjoining gatherings?
JT Quite so. After all, there is only one body; “There is one body and one Spirit, as ye have been also called in one hope of your calling”, (Ephesians 4:4).
EAL It might seem that while it is recognised that gift is universal the difficulty sometimes is that a certain area might not recognise this principle, or discriminate against particular ones. Paul would be recognised anywhere in virtue of his ministry.
JT As an apostle he would be. We have to analyse what we are saying as to the accuracy of it. Paul, of [p. 85] course, was an apostle as our brother says, and he speaks with authority here, but at the same time he is concerned about the accuracy of the information that was being circulated; besides, the state of the assembly at Corinth stood in the way of the Spirit — it hindered the administration of discipline, hence the apostle’s reproof here: “And ye are puffed up, and ye have not rather mourned, in order that he that has done this deed might be taken away out of the midst of you. For I, as absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged as present, to deliver, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ (ye and my spirit being gathered together, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ), him that has so wrought this: to deliver him, I say, being such, to Satan for destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus”, verses 2 - 5. The word being is interpolated there to give the sense, but the fact stressed is that the matter is really so. That is what he means by being such. I thought I would mention that, because evidence and accuracy are regarded by the apostle as so important, especially in cases involving discipline. Therefore, Paul asserts here that the man is really guilty. So we ought to be sure that whatever is given as a cause of discipline in a local gathering is really so. If there is any question about it brethren elsewhere are right in inquiring.
WR “For I, as absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged as present”. It would seem that Paul covered the whole situation in his soul.
JT He stressed this point: “being such”. It was not in his mind a matter of doubt, it is a principle that he is keeping before us.
FNW Is not the gift of government set there by God to reflect back on Himself in the way of glory? Do you think what might enable a locality to receive outside help would be to ask. Is it for the glory of God?
JT Yes, and the general principle of unity must enter into it, for after all, in the full sense there is only one assembly, as we have said: “There is one body and one Spirit, as ye have been also called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in us all”, (Ephesians 4:4 - 6).
RWS You alluded to the words: “that there be not among you divisions; but that ye be perfectly united in the same mind and in the same opinion”. Does “the same opinion” go farther? Is that a stronger idea than “the same mind”?
JT The exhortation is to exclude divisions of judgment. The word mind is now being compared with the word opinion: the latter word conveys what is active, what is arrived at in the mind. The mind is basic, involving the faculty of thought. The brethren ought not, characteristically, to have different opinions. (Philippians 2:1 - 4), although having the same end in view, has stronger and finer feelings than the exhortations before us.
ANW Referring to verse 5 of chapter 5 again, you would not deny that the power of delivering such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh was exclusively an apostolic act. Is that not entirely an apostolic act?
JT It is, but it synchronises with another action, which has to be borne in mind: “Remove the wicked person from amongst yourselves”, verse 13. That is the same thing; only the first is apostolic action, including Christ’s power — “with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ”. It is a question of divine power. We have already remarked that in this section the idea of the kingdom of God is power. That is the word used. And that is the point that is made in the delivering of the person to Satan. Paul had determined to do that, but it was in accord with the dispensation, for the man’s ultimate salvation was in view. At the same time Paul did not do it by himself; the judgment was also the action [p. 87] of the assembly. The removal was by them — “from amongst yourselves”.
ANW What I wanted to get further help on was our brother’s point. You spoke of having a judgment. Paul said that he had judged. I wondered whether that is allowable for each one of us, so that we may have unified judgment about the matter. But if I am outside of the locality how do I operate to make my judgment known where the case is questioned? I think that is the exercise.
JT That brings up the question of the body. The unity lies in the assembly and normally there is an influence bearing on that going on all the time, and if we are at all assembly brothers and sisters we will have an ear for tidings affecting the saints, so that the Spirit of God says, of a great work at Antioch, “The report concerning them reached the ears of the assembly which was in Jerusalem”, (Acts 11:22). We have the idea of assembly ears; and everyone of us, if he loves the Lord and loves the assembly and loves the brethren, ought to have ears for such reports. The apostle refers here to a report of sin in Corinth that was common, and it was right for the brethren to inquire about it, for it was in the assembly. The next thing would be. Can I help? That is what Paul was doing.
RWS Division and disorder at the Lord’s supper were not sufficient in themselves to cause the saints to sit on the judgment seat, so to say. Did the Lord have to allow conditions to go as far as this to make the saints judicially minded at Corinth?
JT It would seem so. In chapter 6 they are told that even if they had to adjust ordinary matters among them it should be done by those little esteemed in the assembly. That does not mean that that person is the least thought of. It means that he is at least of the assembly. Chapter 6 is that the person is of the assembly and hence he is capable of judgment. He is “little esteemed”, but still he is esteemed; he belongs to the assembly and, therefore, is destined to judge the world, and even angels; he is qualified to judge. That places matters that seem ordinary on a high level. It were well if we were all more concerned about these matters and prayed about them, and if we have any advice to give let it be done in a comely way; for we are told that “in the multitude of counsellors there is safety”, (Proverbs 11:14). And yet, there is the importance of the local idea in the assembly, especially as to discipline, for the case before us shows that they are to act — to remove the wicked person from amongst themselves.
ANW What would you suggest would be a comely way to give advice? Privately?
JT Take the house of Chloe. We do not know who it was; whether it was the sister herself or one of her children, or one of her servants. I would say it is illustrated in the types. We usually can find something in the types to help us, and so there was a matter that had to be accepted as information in regard to Nabal, the husband of Abigail. Nabal misbehaved. He rudely insulted David. One of Nabal’s servants came and told Abigail. He did it in a comely way. That is as good an illustration as you can get of the house of Chloe. Let us look at it. It is said in (1 Samuel 25), “And one of Nabal’s young men told Abigail, Nabal’s wife, saying. Behold, David sent messengers out of the wilderness to bless our master; and he has insulted them. And the men were very good to us, and we were not hurt, neither missed we anything, as long as we companied with them, when we were in the fields. They were a wall to us both by night and day, all the while we were with them feeding the sheep. And now know and consider what thou wilt do, for evil is determined against our master, and against all his household; and he is such a son of Belial, that one cannot speak to him”, verses 14 - 17. That is what I would consider a messenger who can give information in [p. 89] regard to assembly matters; indeed Abigail is a type of the assembly.
EMcK The house of Chloe would be a right or godly house. Evidence from such a house could be relied upon.
JT It would look as if Paul meant that, and knew she was reliable.
AR A local meeting is not independent by itself.
JT No. That is most important. We are not formed on the principle of what is called Congregationalism. That means that each assembly is independent of all the others. That is not of God at all, but it is what Congregationalism means; whereas the epistle to the Corinthians shows that whilst there are local assemblies, they are all inter-dependent and should in a comely way help each other.
WFK In the type all Israel stoned Achan with stones.
JT And so the man that blasphemed in the camp — those who heard him laid their hands upon his head and all the congregation stoned him. (Leviticus 24:14).
APT In Revelation 2 the message to the angel in Thyatira is, “All the assemblies shall know that I am he that searches the reins and the hearts”, verse 23. Would that indicate that no local assembly is inviolate in this sense?
JT Yes. They are all to know what the Lord does. And here Paul is saying that they all do know this matter at Corinth. I think that is important.
APT What our brother suggested is in my mind as to whether a local company is inviolate in itself. I think that is where we need help, as to how far we can go, as our brother is raising the exercise.
JT We cannot claim to be independent because if my house is on fire all the neighbouring houses are in danger. They cannot sit there and do nothing.
JTJr Would not the sequel of the issues at Glanton [p. 90] and Bethesda be that the saints should know what happened at those points and be clear in their souls as to the issues?
JT Just so. Bethesda opened the door to evil, and it was the concern of every brother in fellowship to see into that.
JC What has been brought forward is something in which there had not been any judgment arrived at Would the same principle apply after the judgment had been arrived at in the local assembly?
JT Well then, another question arises; Was the judgment arrived at correct?
JC I just wanted to know if the same principle would apply.
JT It would apply, because that is just what happened at Bethesda. Bethesda was in the city of Bristol and Plymouth was one hundred or more miles away. Well, Bethesda being in Bristol opened its door to evil in Plymouth; the action was taken, and hence it became the concern of all the saints: that door must be closed. That is what I was thinking as to what is before us now; whether the present judgment arrived at is correct. If it is not right it is damaging to the whole assembly. That is the principle of it.
JC I just wanted to get clear on that point.
JT I am sure we would be all thankful to get your mind, because I know our brother is referring to what you are referring to, and we are all here and we are linked up with each other, and we want to help each other, because that is the idea of these meetings You say the judgment was rendered: well, was that judgment right?
JC I just wanted to know if the same principle applied if the actual judgment was arrived at, and as long as that is clear I leave it.
ANW Having gone so far, would you mind saying a word more as to what you were stressing as to a certain [p. 91] matter being dealt with by a few, professedly in the Lord’s name, and whether that might be a wrong action and need to be nullified?
JT That very thing happened with most sorrowful and extended results fifty-five years ago: what was called the Bexhill action. In a small meeting in a town called Bexhill, a letter of commendation from Greenwich was refused: the action was wrong, but the claim that was made was that the assembly had acted and, therefore, the saints generally must bow. But that was wrong. How can we bow to what is wrong? But many accepted it and became lost to the testimony. In this way an assumed assembly action may become an instrument of the enemy.
RWS In Leviticus 4 it says, “And if the whole assembly of Israel sin inadvertently”, verse 13. Could that be applied, as a type, to assembly judgments which might be wrong today?
JT Certainly. Inadvertently means the assembly has committed itself to an action that is not right, but they did not know about it. When it is brought to their attention they have to deal with it because they had sinned.
RWS I wondered if the inadvertence would give credit for a right desire but sin was actually committed.
JT It is a sin nevertheless. If a thing is not right it is not right, and we are to pursue righteousness, (2 Timothy 2:22).
DP In 2 Samuel 20 when Sheba rebelled against David and Joab was sapping the walls and the wise woman there went to all the people in the city and had a judgment about Sheba and dealt with him — would that bear on what you are saying?
JT Quite so; that is quite apropos of what we are saying. Joab was intending to destroy the city, and it was a question of her wisdom. The woman by her wisdom delivered the city. That is the point — if there is [p. 92] anyone in the nation like that. Of course, she happened to be in the city itself, but even if she were not, and if she were able to give the word of wisdom that would deliver the city, why should it not be acted upon?
AR Paul says, “... with all that in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ”, (1 Corinthians 1:2). In every place. There should be the same gate, as it were, in each local assembly.
JT That is important to bring up, because the constitution of the assembly is indicated in the opening of the letter. You are quoting the beginning of the letter to Corinth. “... with all that in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both theirs and ours”. That is universal; the universal link between us. At the same time, the apostle did not direct all the gatherings to put the man away. He directed only the local gathering at Corinth to do it. The word in chapter 5 is, “Remove the wicked person from amongst yourselves”, verse 13. That was only directed to Corinth, and the other meetings, of course, would fall in with that, because it was manifestly right. Suppose it was rumoured that the man in question was innocent; I mean, that the removal was not just. That would be another matter, and Paul was very particular about that, to show that it was just.
EWS What should my attitude be in relation to a man that I might think is innocent and have evidence that he is innocent? Do I abstractly accept the judgment or do I say I do not think the judgment was right?
JT Certainly if the man is innocent, he is innocent. That is the fact, but then others may think differently, and it therefore becomes a question of acting wisely so as to get them to see what you see; that is, what is right. Therefore, the question of evidence must come into it. This section of 1 Corinthians raises the whole question of evidence; the truth or falsehood of anything that is alleged.
ATD Nabal’s young man so spoke that Abigail hasted. Would you say that that has a bearing on the whole matter?
JT Just so. The thing was done; carried through.
EWS Our hearts and our actions should be in accord with each other. We should be acting and speaking outwardly in relation to what our convictions are inwardly.
JT Our acting and speaking should agree with what is spoken of in the book of Revelation as a sea of glass. That is a transparent position. If my mind is contrary to my actions then I am not transparent. Therefore, the matter of evidence has to be gone into, and let it all be on a transparent basis, because after all we are brethren. We are of the assembly, we have the Spirit, and if there is anything that is to be known, well, let it be known simply. Let us be on the principle of transparency and confidence. There is no reason why we should not tell each other of what affects the assembly; if necessary make inquiry as to any specially important matter, and look into the facts. I suppose that is what you have in mind. Is it not possible to obtain the truth?
EWS If one has a right exercise in relation to what has taken place in another place; if we are clear and steadfast and open in what we have to say, we may become a rallying point for what is right.
FNW A few years ago there was ministry that was helpful in this area relating to the movements of Elijah and Elisha. You stressed at that time that it was necessary to be in the place in which a particular thing happened to obtain correct information. Is that related to this matter of evidence?
JT That is right too, but it does not carry fully. You can get information otherwise. You can get accurate information otherwise than by being in the place; I mean, by competent witnesses. We should have the truth, because there is so much that become [p. 94] current in a matter of the kind now in mind that you cannot be sure of what you hear. Things are said that you marvel how they can be said, because of want of facts. The principle is: “In the mouth of two or three witnesses ...”. The importance of witnesses is immense. That point is developed in Matthew 18 also. “In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every matter be established”, (2 Corinthians 13:1).
RWS Would you say something about assembly action that does not go so far as removing the wicked person from amongst us?
JT That is another matter. That is to say, whether it be two stripes or five stripes. The Scriptures contemplate graded evil, so many “stripes” are administered according to the gravity of the case, Luke 12:47,48. Now, your question is whether matters involving discipline must always require withdrawal. No. For instance, in 2 Thessalonians 3:6, the saints are enjoined to shrink from a person. In chapter 5 here we are not to mix or eat with a wicked person, but in 2 Thessalonians 3:14 a case is contemplated where we are not to treat him as an enemy but exhort him as a brother, although to shrink from him on account of a certain course; if he is behaving badly, that is, if he fails to work or earn his living. His conduct is objectionable but yet he is not withdrawn from. I think that is an evidence of what you are saying. There are different cases. We have shrinking from a person in 2 Thessalonians and then in Romans 16:17,18 withdrawing from those that are causing division, contrary to right doctrine, turning away from them; and then in 1 Corinthians 5, a man put away for open wickedness.
ANW In our chapter where the apostle says, as you have emphasised, “being such”, is he by that statement putting the onus on Corinth to prove that he is that before they act?
JT Well, he is implying that he is such as is alleged;
[p. 95] and inferentially in every case of discipline the guilt should be clearly established.
APF One more question on the subject. Are we to accept the judgment of a local company in withdrawing from a person even if we think it is not right?
JT Well, it would be a question of the facts you are dealing with.
APF I am not referring to such a severe judgment as the apostle Paul speaks of here, but we sometimes hear that certain brethren have withdrawn from such-and-such a person. Perhaps it is a small company, very few and weak. We accept that judgment as being right, and yet others have serious misgivings.
JT As I said, the question is of facts. If there is serious cause for doubt there should be investigation. Will may be at work. Therefore, the question is whether we can arrive at the truth. I am certain that as depending on the Lord we can arrive at the truth in every case. It is necessary to do it. If there is evidence that the person withdrawn from is innocent or partially innocent, there should be diligent investigation, Deuteronomy 13:14; but if he is withdrawn from rightly, it is our responsibility to bow to the action.
JC I like what you said about care being exercised by those outside the locality. How do you think that should be done? Should they inquire of those who are responsible or any in the assembly before they pronounce a judgment on it themselves? Do you think that would be the correct way — to go and ascertain the facts as far as they can before they have a judgment themselves?
JT I should not like to assume that the brethren were wrong in what they have done unless there was some evidence that they were wrong; so that we ought to have confidence in one another, that what we do is done for the Lord’s sake and for His name. But if something comes to your notice that is questionable, then, of [p. 96] course,
the thing would be to inquire from the brethren.
JC If something comes to your notice that would seem irregular, the next thing would be to contact the brethren involved and ascertain the facts from them so that you can form a proper judgment.
JT I would say that fully, assuming that their testimony is adequate and without prejudice.
AAT I was going to ask about this brother at Corinth — they were not unanimous about his case, were they?
JT No, they were not. Paul says, “This rebuke which has been inflicted by the many”; many of the brethren were in it, but some were not. That is to be noticed too, because if the thing is to be done the brethren ought to know that it is to be done, and it should be done even if some are dissenting, otherwise we should never arrive at a judgment, or discipline in some cases. We cannot assume to get unanimity. You go by the facts of the case, and act before God as to them. He will support what is right.
JAP Some of the facts that enter into a case might not be brought out, such as the state of the person. There may be facts of failure, but what is the state of the person? Is that not important?
JT What state the person is in is very important.
JTJr Would Timothy’s position in Corinth be such that he could minister as God gave him the word? Although it might not carry the opinion of the local brethren, yet he had to minister what God gave him.
JT That is what you get here — Timothy and his ministry in Corinth — what he might say in the way of advice and what he might minister in Corinth. It is said, “For this reason I have sent to you Timotheus, who is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, who shall put you in mind of my ways as they are in Christ, according as I teach everywhere in every assembly. But some have [p. 97] been puffed up, as if I were not coming to you; but I will come quickly to you, if the Lord will; and I will know, not the word of those that are puffed up, but the power”, (1 Corinthians 4:17 - 19). If Timothy is in Corinth, what is his status? and if he ministers, what is the importance of his ministry? Is that what you have in mind?
JTJr Yes, exactly. If he were there on the basis of a Levite, he would necessarily minister what God gave him, not what the people would expect him to give.
JT Yes. That is a principle governing Levitical service. Timothy had a place locally at Corinth in measure, as Paul would have. Paul sent him for that purpose; so that they might learn in him Paul’s ways as they are in Christ.
AR It would have a universal bearing. It is the same truth wherever he goes.
JT Quite so. The idea of catholicity is important. If a principle is right in one place, it is right everywhere. It was thought that the kingdom in its relation to the assembly is one of the most important matters that could come before us, and I hope the Lord will help in what has been said. But there is much more that really needs to be said as to this matter of evidence, because there is such a proneness amongst us to say things trivially and loosely, and they turn out to be not the truth, and people repeat them and thus keep the brethren in a ferment.
WFK You could not take up a matter unless there are witnesses.
JT We need witnesses in all questionable cases. “In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every matter be established”. Therefore, if anything is said and brethren have their attention called to it and it is shown that it is not true, then to continue in it is wickedness and destructive of the fellowship.
JAP Is Paul specific in his words here? He says, “If any one called brother be fornicator, or avaricious, or idolater, or abusive, or a drunkard, or rapacious ...”
[p. 98] chapter 5:11. Those people have not committed just one act; they are constitutionally marked by the things stated.
JT Yes.
CAM Would you say that what Paul stands for authoritatively, and what the household of Chloe and Timothy represent, are in principle existent today? If I understand it, Timothy stands for a characteristic personage that goes right on to the end of assembly history, so that that element would be present with us today, would it not?
JT I believe that is right.
CAM I mean men of God. We are not without them.
JT That would bring up the question of who the person is, and whether he has Timothy’s characteristics.
APT Timothy’s commendation is that he cared with genuine feeling how the saints got on — not went back!
FNW You would be governed by what Paul says to Timothy in the first epistle. “I testify before God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels, that thou keep these things without prejudice, doing nothing by favour”, chapter 5:21.
JT Yes. Timothy and Titus have a peculiar place and it is important to discover just what they do represent; what can be spoken of now as carrying their features through.
WR Would you say that it is really the qualities of a priestly judgment functioning in cases of difficulty? It is not judgment in a cold, callous way.
JT The true priest is a reliable man. In the law of leprosy, which enters into what we have been speaking of — assembly administration — the priest is supposed to be always there. It does not say; he is there. He is supposed to be there.
Rem All of these things of which we have been [p. 99] speaking, if operating in the assembly, would have decided effect on the kingdom.
JT That is true, because the kingdom comes in especially in these disciplinary matters. The kingdom comes in with authority. The kingdom and the assembly act and react upon each other. To use a figure, the kingdom is like the policeman. That is the idea. The kingdom implies power. The kingdom of God is in power; one in it characteristically can deal with a man even if he is unsubdued. You can deal with him.
Question. Does that imply the name of the Lord Jesus? It is said, “No one can say. Lord Jesus, unless in the power of the Holy Spirit”, (1 Corinthians 12:3).
JT The power for maintaining order and discipline in the assembly lies in the Holy Spirit. The idea of enforcing the thought of the assembly is in the power of the Spirit, kingdom-wise, and that exists in persons.
APT At the end of 1 Kings 3 it says, “And all Israel heard of the judgment which the king had judged; and they feared the king, for they saw that the wisdom of God was in him, to do justice”, verse 28. I wondered whether Solomon would suggest the way administration is carried on?
JT He established his qualification to rule by the wisdom he showed in that judgment. He said, “Bring me a sword”, he would use it. He had power to use it, and that implies what we have been saying as to the kingdom. In the kingdom of God power is combined with wisdom, and that is illustrated in Solomon’s reign.