SPIRITUAL FORMATION FOR ASSEMBLY SERVICE (6)
[p. 106] SPIRITUAL FORMATION FOR ASSEMBLY SERVICE (6)
Colossians 3: 18 - 25; Colossians 4: 1 - 18
JT The personal side, a feature of Christianity, is peculiarly in mind in these sections of this epistle. There can be no doubt that these meetings that we have had are intended to strengthen the personal side, especially as to those who, in their formation, are calculated to influence the position of the testimony and the saints in it. The Lord would put forward such as are faithful and, in their faithfulness, are influential for good. This reaches down, not to the full thought of the family, as we get it in Ephesians, but to certain relationships, such as wives and husbands and children. John has liberty to speak of certain persons in a dignified way, on account of their status as amongst the saints. Thus he speaks of “the elect lady and her children” (2 John 1), and Luke also refers to Theophilus on the same principle. There can be no doubt that these meetings, such as we are having now, and also what are called week-end fellowship meetings, are intended to promote personal acquaintance and characteristics and influence, so as to bind the position. In taking up Paul, it is pretty clear that the Lord intended to make him specially distinguished on the personal line as one to be trusted. Paul therefore takes on that in the way he speaks here of certain ones in this closing chapter, such as Tychicus, of whom he says that he is “the beloved brother and faithful minister and fellow-bondman in the Lord”. He evidently was linked up personally with Paul whom, he says, “I have sent to you for this very purpose, that he might know your state, and that he might encourage your hearts”. Then again, Onesimus is linked on similarly and, particularly, Epaphras who is spoken of as combating and as one of the Colossians. All this tends to promote the idea of a community, as it were, in us all and thus promotes [p. 107] confidence.
PL Are these a little like the golden taches of the tabernacle?
JT Just so, for the tabernacle is in view here. The whole position is in mind that it might be kept, as it were, in a tidy way, as having a finished character. Like the hem of the garment of the high priest, it is a finished idea.
PL “This one and that one was born in her; and the Most High himself shall establish her”, Psalm 87: 5.
EG “Rejoicing and seeing your order”. Would that be connected with the taches?
JT Just so. “And the firmness of your faith in Christ”. He puts that in early in the letter, in view of what he was about to open up for them; that is, the idea of the service of God. It is important that the order in which they did things should be kept in the front.
WH Is there anything very important in the fact that Paul desired the saints at Colosse and elsewhere to be constantly maintained in touch with what he was doing and ministering?
JT I thought of that, in mentioning this side of the subject. So we have the expression, “I Paul”, and also the way he would inform them of himself, as he says, “Tychicus ... will make known to you all that concerns me”. The leading servants are of prime importance in heaven, and although what is going on there is not visible to us, it is to be understood through our communion. He speaks in Romans of certain things by “the love of the Spirit”, which is a real thing and enters into what we are saying. It is not only the love of the Father and the Son, but the love of the Spirit, and that would bear on what we are saying as to Paul. He enlarges on the same thing in Romans, as taking up the basic position, but here in Colossians it is the thought of finishing and binding up things, so that they should not hang loosely or give place to the devil. For instance, if the relations of a wife with her husband were estranged, the devil would easily get a footing, and talk would be spread abroad to disintegrate the whole position. We must therefore not [p. 108] give place to the devil, as is done if things are held loosely by us. So it says, “Wives, be subject to your husbands” (the word “own”, apparently, is not there as it is elsewhere), “be subject to your husbands (or to husbands), as is fitting in the Lord”. The stress would be on wives and husbands; for them it says, “Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them”. That an apostle should condescend to such suggestions and admonitions is worthy of note.
FCH Does the expression “one another”, just preceding this, lay the basis for these specific things?
JT Quite so. When you have references to wives and husbands, then the possibility of bitterness against the wives is remarkable. It would bear on what we have remarked, from time to time, as to the attack and how Satan may attack us through the relations between husbands and wives.
JSE Why is the weaker put first? Does it show us how we can, in our several relationships, be on the line of prevention of further invasion?
JT Yes. ‘Further invasion’ is an expression that may well be used, because the expanse is wide and varied and affords conditions for the devil. The expanse in Genesis 1 is not said to be good, by the Creator, because it affords so much scope for the enemy for invasions and for attacks. At the same time it is never given up and it is used. The idea of the heavens, I suppose, would come down to the lowest point, extending to the earth itself. The expanse was evidently added after the primal creation, as if God would use it in His ways for His operations, and yet it was not included in what He designed originally. I mean to say, He does not say that it is good, although it affords these things that we are speaking of and we have to keep it in mind.
LOL In Psalm 36 we have “Jehovah, thy loving-kindness is in the heavens, and thy faithfulness reacheth unto the clouds. Thy righteousness is like the high mountains; thy judgments are a great deep: thou,
[p. 109] Jehovah, preservest man and beast. How precious is thy loving-kindness, O God! So the sons of men take refuge under the shadow bf thy wings”. Does that refer to the heavens and what is available in them?
JT Yes. It shows the extent of the expanse and how varied are the things that may be found in it. But then God is in it for it is His creation. In fact, it is among the many things that are called good in general, but it is not specifically called good, and therefore it seems that the enemy has a peculiar way of attacking it and that God has allowed that.
PHH Would the reference to the anointing in Psalm 133 be a kind of counterpart of that; the brethren dwelling together in unity being like the precious ointment, descending finally to the skirts of Aaron’s garments? Would that be a preservative against the inroads in the expanse?
JT I would think that. There is variety of space, because the word expanse means that it is a large matter, and evidently Satan took advantage of it, gradually getting into the position of government.
ANW Can your remarks, in that connection, be extended to the relationship of children to their parents, as well as to wives and husbands?
JT Well, we have “Wives be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord”. That is to say, it is to be just what is fitting or suitable to a woman in the relation of a wife. It is clear that polygamy is not in mind in these letters; it is the primal thought of God in the relation of man and woman, that is, as husband and wife. So it goes on, “Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them”. Why that should be added is a matter for consideration. “Be not bitter against them”. Why should there be alienation to that extent? We can see that alienation might happen, and be even permanent, where the bitterness of a husband towards a wife is in any way allowed.
PL [p. 110] If the first tie is weakened between husband and wife, is the next tie, between children and parents, weakened?
JT That would be the result, I suppose. If relations become dislocated the condition of the house would be somewhat marred. But then it says, “Husbands, love your wives and be not bitter against them”. And then, “Children, obey your parents in all things”. Whatever there may be as to the children, the word “obey” is clearly imperative, “for this is well-pleasing in the Lord”. Then, “Fathers, do not vex your children”, showing that we are on somewhat lower ground than in Ephesians, although on higher ground than in Romans. No reference is made to the family in Romans, properly; whereas it is here, and also in Ephesians. “Do not vex your children, to the end that they be not disheartened”. How the apostolic mind, moved by love, extends down even to the feelings of a young child in a family and the possibility of such a one being disheartened by the attitude of his father!
AHG Why is there no reference to the family in Romans, and why is it introduced here and in Ephesians?
JT I think it is because Romans was not intended to go the full length of formation according to Christ. It is just to deal with the fundamentals of Christianity, making a basis for the gospel, although, as we know, it leads on to the assembly.
PL Is every element here, down to bondmen as well as the children, mobilised, so to speak, to resist the invasion?
JT That is the idea, I would say, because we are where an invasion is possible at any time. Now, of course, it is greatly accentuated in the added modern thought of associations and the lawless combinations of men. Many of these are lawless and utterly unfair, because there is a robbing of men’s rights, as in this country. The principle of the Magna Carta involving liberty is just thrown to [p. 111] the winds by certain combinations of men. All these tend to give the enemy a place, and invade even the Lord’s people. Some of the Lord’s people have given way to these combinations of men, for supposed personal advantage.
EAE Why are the wives addressed before the husbands, the children before the parents, and the bondmen before the masters?
JT I think it is that Satan finds his point of attack in the weaker elements. The strong elements, therefore, ought to see to that, and not afford opportunity for the attack. Thus it is for the husband to love the wife, who is the weaker, and the father not to provoke the children, who are weaker than the father, because if the children are disheartened, they are exposed to the devil.
Ques Is it interesting that Paul in his first movement into Europe at Philippi secures these right conditions in the jailor’s house? It says he “rejoiced with all his house, having believed in God”, Acts 16: 34. It is as though you have the firstfruits of this great thought there.
JT It is remarkable that a jail should be the place of the disclosure of divine consideration for men, and that in the position there should be the thought of the house. It is remarkable that the house, where the wife and children reside, should be spoken of in the jail. So the word is, “Believe on the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved, thou and thy house”. The use of the pronouns thou and thy would arouse the family idea in the jailor, who is the person in question. The facts show that he was a hard man, unduly hard as a jailor; but then he had a house, and how would the hardness of the jailor comport with the affections that belonged to his house? The great thought was that the gospel could meet that situation, and so what he saw there in the jail would bring out what Colossians promotes. It says, “Paul and Silas, in praying, were praising God with singing”. They were creating an attractive condition so that the gospel was commended in the jail, but commended in [p. 112] relation to the house, for the jailor’s house would be taken care of in the gospel.
WSS Is it your thought that all these relationships are to be so held that the truth opened up to us in Colossians finds expression in persons who are found in these relationships?
JT That is just the thought and links with what we had this morning. It is a question of the new man, which bears on woman as well as man, and on children too. It is what is new and fresh, and it is to work out in these relations. Hence the apostle is led to move from the passages we had this morning to verse 18, which deals with wives and husbands, children and fathers, and then servants. It is in view of all these relations being available for the promotion of the new man. The new man in the wife, and the new man in the husband, and the new man in the children and in the fathers, and then the new man in the bondmen. That the idea of the new man should be in the bondmen, of course, should certainly bear on, what we have been remarking as to the lawless combinations of men. Trade unionism is utterly foreign to the idea of the new man.
AMh Would Boaz illustrate this? “And behold, Boaz came from Bethlehem; and he said to the reapers, Jehovah be with you! And they said to him, Jehovah bless thee!”. Would that be on the level of this exhortation?
JT Very good. It shows the happy relations existing between his reapers and himself, and that Ruth should be brought into these circumstances. It is all to promote the idea of the new man, and the new man is a creation. It is, as it were, God doing things over again, but in men; under the heading of the word “man”.
Ques You have spoken of trade unionism. Would verses 23 and 24 be over against the so-called advantages? “Whatsoever ye do, labour at it heartily, as doing it to the Lord, and not to men; knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the recompense of the inheritance”. Is [p. 113] that not better than anything that could be gained, or thought to be gained, by the associations of men, and would it not be an incentive to stand aside?
JT Quite so. “Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the recompense of the inheritance; ye serve the Lord Christ”. The inheritance is on a higher level, of course, for the Spirit is the earnest of it.
Ques I wondered whether it linked on with what you were saying as to the truth that is opened up in Colossians; whether the inheritance is in view and ability to go into it promoted?
JT Just so. It is a question of who is to go into it; that is to say, it is the idea of the new man.
Ques Had not Paul given a right lead in the matter of masters and servants when he sent Onesimus back to his master, Philemon, in righteousness?
JT It is remarkable that he comes in here, and he is included in those that are spoken of favourably. It says, “Onesimus, the faithful and beloved brother, who is one of you”. He was one of the Colossians but he was a convert of Paul’s, and Paul’s treatment of him is a guide for us as to persons in those circumstances. It shows how Christianity lifts us up from any spirit of slavery which might invade the family and the home. Circumstances of slavery might invade the family, not only in the wife, but in the servants, and slavery is not suitable for Christianity. Therefore the reference to Onesimus would lift Onesimus from the position of a slave into that of a “brother beloved”, which is an exalted thought.
EB When the Lord Jesus came down from the mount, the enemy brought forward a child completely under his power, as much as to nullify, if he could, what had marked the scene on the mountain. Is it not often the case that domestic circumstances tend to mar or detract from what we may have enjoyed in a spiritual sense?
[p. 114] JT Very good. No doubt the brethren are all conversant with the incident. Matthew records it as a case of lunacy in this child. The Lord, in a remarkable way, avoids hastening the matter of the recovery of the child and He delays to ask the father about him and how the thing happened and so on. It would look, from the facts, as if the father was a real father, and he says to the Lord, “If thou couldst do anything ... help us”. But then the Lord does not hasten to meet the situation. He saw the crowd coming, running up, but the crowd will not help the family, nor the condition of lunacy in the family, and so the Lord proceeds to cure the child and He commands the demon to go out of him. Thus the Lord would meet these family conditions. There is nothing said about the mother and what she may have thought of it. It is the father only, but, as we have said, it would seem as if he were a real father, and he besought the Lord for his child. The disciples could not help and that is another matter to be thought of. The father tells the Lord that he brought his son to the disciples and they could not help, and the Lord attributes the want of faith to everybody. It was not only the crowd but the disciples too, but then He meets the situation Himself. We can thus count on the Lord to come in in all these circumstances. It is a question of prayer, so that the man says, “If thou couldst do anything ... help us”. The Lord says to him, “The ‘if thou couldst’ is ‘if thou couldst believe’”, that is to say, it brings in the thought of faith in such circumstances.
Ques Would we have a contrast in Deborah? The conditions were rather unsettled, but the household conditions there were right. She is spoken of as “the wife of Lapidoth”. The blessing then, so to speak, went right through the tribes.
JT Yes. She did not use her office, as we may call it, of a prophetess to exalt herself; she retained her place as a wife. The name Lapidoth, I suppose, would show that light was there. This epistle to Colossians is to give [p. 115] light both to husbands and wives. Deborah behaved well, both in regard of her husband and also in regard of Barak, although she is not commended in Hebrews 11 amongst the persons who had faith, as Barak is.
AS Why does the apostle refer to the Lord so much in this part of the epistle: it is more “Christ” in the earlier part?
JT Well, no doubt it is a question of the authority of the Lord that enters into this hortatory part. So we have, as you say, the Lord used more frequently than Christ. It is just to bring out, I suppose, the authority that was needed. When it becomes a possibility of bitterness in the husband or insubjection in the wife, then we have to bring the Lord in.
HFN Might we have some help in regard of these distinctive servants such as Tychicus, Onesimus and Epaphras?
JT Leading up to those, we already alluded to bondmen or slaves. Then we have masters, in the beginning of chapter 4, “Masters, give to bondmen what is just and fair”, which is a very important matter. Although there are fewer masters now and fewer servants than there used to be, yet the idea of fairness comes into these relations. “Give to bondmen what is just and fair, knowing that, ye also have a Master in the heavens”. That brings up the position of the Lord as our Master, as it is said. “I therefore, the Lord and the Teacher”, John 13: 14. We have to look to Him for the fairness that is suitable between master and bondmen or servant. The Lord is the model in all these cases; but Paul helps us in what he teaches, and it is very striking how he can descend to the smallest things, family relationships and bondmen and so forth.
Ques Is it significant that he brings in the thought of government? “For he that does a wrong shall receive the wrong he has done, and there is no respect of persons”. Does it not bear particularly on this situation?
JT Just so. “No respect of persons”, for God is God and man is man, and we have to do with the Lord Christ. Then the thought of prayer is the next important matter. “Persevere in prayer, watching in it with thanksgiving; praying at the same time for us also, that God may open to us a door of the word to speak the mystery of Christ”. So that it is not only what prayers may be, or should be, for the servants, but the truth that they actually minister and whether they go in for the full thought, that is to say, the mystery. He says, “Persevere in prayer, watching in it with thanksgiving; praying at the same time for us also, that God may open to us a door of the word to speak the mystery of Christ, on account of which also I am bound, to the end that I may make it manifest as I ought to speak”. We have already noted that his enemy spoke of the contemptibleness of his speech, but then he was concerned that he should speak as he ought to speak. It is not simply his power of speaking as to what men might think of it, but “as I ought to speak”, he says; that is to say, what the subject required.
PHH Is the idea that even in the speaking of one like Paul, the enemy might get no advantage, so that the ministry is not to be beclouded or the level of it lowered?
JT It is how he ought to speak. No doubt he would assume that he would know himself how he ought to speak, but it is thrown out in this general way and it is for each of us. It raises the question as to whether we are given over to the thought of the mystery in our ministry. How many of us are? Mr. Stoney, as far as I have heard of him, gave himself, in a great measure, over to the truth of the mystery; so that it should be known. But the question is whether that subject by itself is much treated of now; “the mystery of Christ”.
PHH Do you mean you think it should be?
JT I think it should be, because we can never really arrive at the full thought except in the sense [p. 117] of the mystery.
WSS Should it not be the background of all speaking; whether ministry among the saints or the ministry of the glad tidings?
JT Well, it says here that they were to persevere, but he adds as to himself, “praying at the same time for us also”. One is thankful that one does not feel the need of asking the brethren to pray, because the volume of prayer that goes up for any one who is in trouble is wonderful. It is due to the brethren that it should be said that the volume of prayer is wonderful and it is answered, too, for the answers have come. But why should Paul have to ask for it? That is something to think of. In certain circumstances a brother may be neglected. Why should it be? Did Paul’s prison condition cause indifference or weakness in the saints as to him? It is well worth inquiring why he asked so often for prayer. He does in Ephesians, and here, and elsewhere. He stresses the thought here of persevering in prayer and that it should be with watching and thanksgiving, but he adds, “praying at the same time for us also”. But then, why? Because, he says, “that God may open to us a door of the word to speak the mystery of Christ”. He enjoins on Timotheus to preach the word, in his second letter to him, and he says here “that God may open to us a door of the word to speak the mystery of Christ, on account of which also I am bound, to the end that I may make it manifest as I ought to speak”.
AMh Do you think that this exhortation to persevere in prayer, following the exhortation in the latter part of chapter 3 and chapter 4, might be carried forward into our homes so that prayers for the divine interests and the Lord’s servants would have a great place with us?
JT I am glad you mention that because of what we have often referred to lately; that is, the prayers for the gospel in the households of the brethren, and how the custom is teaching the children. They are being brought up with the thought that there should be prayer [p. 118] and if they have households, in time they will have prayer in them. Prayer for the gospel on the Lord’s day, I think, is of very great importance, because it elevates the character of the preaching and leads to the thought of the truth of the assembly, and the young people coming into the assembly, involving the mystery. So I think it links on with what we are saying. Paul is concerned that they should pray in regard of the mystery that a door should be opened to him. He says, “that God may open to us a door of the word”, which is a remarkable form of expression, “a door of the word to speak the mystery of Christ, on account of which also I am bound, to the end that I may make it manifest as I ought to speak”. It is all in view of the preachers having a higher level of ministry where not many unconverted people are present, but where the children of the saints are sure to be. The children should thus be brought up to understand this, and to acquire the habit of prayer for the gospel, for the testimony; not only for ordinary circumstances, but for the testimony.
GHM You emphasise very much this prayer before the gospel. Would it not be an advantage before a reading meeting or other meetings?
JT Well, I am only speaking of what is. As far as I know, the households of the brethren generally are employed in prayer immediately before the gospel on Lord’s day evenings, and I believe it is pleasing to the Lord, pleasing to heaven. The question now is whether we rise to the full level of the testimony, because here it is a question, not of the gospel, but of the mystery. The brethren, and even the little ones, may bring the thought in, because if there are young ones who are in the family and they are actually in fellowship (or even if they are not, if they are known to be Christians) they should be made accustomed to prayer for the testimony.
Ques Is it not striking that in the opening of Acts 21, where Paul departed, it says, “all of them accompanying us, with wives and children”? Is that [p. 119] not a beautiful and touching expression of the thought of the households in relation to Paul? They all went down to the ship.
JT That is a very touching passage, showing how the young ones are brought into the thing. In fact we have already had it, how the children would make inquiry why the twelve stones taken out of the Jordan were set up in Canaan. They were supposed to be in Canaan, and the children in principle ought to be in Canaan and have understanding and be able to inquire as to the twelve stones, which would mean the unity of the brethren. Why is it needed that the brethren should be united? Children should be brought up in the thought that the brethren should be united.
Rem At the entering of the testimony into Europe, it says, “we went outside the gate by the river, where it was the custom for prayer to be”, Acts 16: 13.
JT That has often been commented upon, and very profitably too. It was a question of Europe, and God pointing westwards, but pointing to the fact that Europe was in His mind and that it was to be the sphere of the truth as to the assembly. The governmental condition in Asia does not afford conditions really for the truth of the mystery, for the truth of the assembly.
AHG You spoke of the attack by way of speaking. Would the counteracting influence be in this speaking?
JT Quite so. I think that is right.
LES Could we have a word on the end?
JT It is only in a cursory way we can refer to it. We have spoken of Onesimus; then we have Aristarchus who is said to be a fellow-captive, and then Mark, Barnabas’ cousin, is spoken of. It says of him, “concerning whom ye have received orders (if he come to you, receive him)”. It would look as if there was a doubt about Mark, and the apostle is taking account of that. Then he says, “These are the only fellow-workers for the kingdom of God who have been a consolation to me”. It shows that he was thinking of himself and the need of [p. 120] consolation in his fellow-servants, which is perhaps not always thought of. Then Epaphras has a peculiar place. We have already alluded to him in the whole epistle, as a man intended to dominate the position because of what he was, and how he was concerned about the Colossians. Now he is combating for them as it says, “salutes you, always combating earnestly for you in prayers, to the end that ye may stand perfect and complete in all the will of God”. That is a very fine phrase, “perfect and complete in all the will of God”. It is not simply in the mystery, or in the gospel, but in “all the will of God” and Satan was against that.
CC Would that involve the will of God according to Ephesians 1, “the good pleasure of his will”, “the mystery of his will”, and “the counsel of his own will”?
JT Quite so. It is a strong reference to the thought of “the will of God”.
Ques What would be the difference between Paul’s reference to Epaphras in chapter 1 verse 7, “faithful minister of Christ for you”, and in this chapter, “the bondman of Christ Jesus”?
JT Well, the word “bondman” is striking here, and is just in keeping with what we are saying; he is a fellow-bondman. We hardly know, in our time, what bondmanship is in the sense in which it is spoken of here, for Paul himself was a prisoner, a bondman. The book of Revelation is in that setting, which is also important. The Lord received it from God and it was evidently late in the history of the testimony that He received it. Then He sent and signified it by His bondman John, “who testified the word of God, and the testimony of Jesus Christ, all things that he saw”. So that the idea of bondmanship came in then, and it is, perhaps, little known now, although there must be something to correspond with it in what some may be suffering in view of the testimony.
Then reference is made to a brother called Nymphas, “and the assembly which is in his house”, which is [p. 121] another thing not to pass by. Then it goes on, “And when the letter” (I would take that to be this letter), “has been read among you, cause that it be read also in the assembly of Laodiceans”. That shows that Laodicea was still intact, but it shows also that letters to assemblies may be interchanged, but at the same time the letter should be intact. The letter should be just what it was as written to Colosse, or as written to Laodicea, because there were two letters. He says, “When the letter has been read among you, cause that it be read also in the assembly of Laodiceans, and that ye also read that from Laodicea”, as if there was interchange between the local assemblies, because they were near to each other; they were adjacent to each other, but yet they were not viewed as one assembly. There has been a need in late years to enlarge assemblies, adding gatherings that are adjacent as recognising that they really belong to the local position and should rightly move together in local government and administration. But then we have here an indication, I think, that ought to be in mind, that we must not extend thus too far. The question is whether the position is local. The local position should never be set aside; it begins in Corinth and it runs through. So here, the local position of Colosse is not interfered with by the local position of Laodicea. Colosse was not one of the assemblies that is mentioned in the book of Revelation, yet Laodicea is, and therefore it has a distinct place as a local assembly.
EuR Would the interchange of letters tend to the spiritual compactness of the universal situation so that the enemy is kept out?
JT Just so. The word compactness is good and it enters into this epistle.
Then there is the word to Archippus; “Take heed to the ministry which thou hast received in the Lord, to the end that thou fulfil it”. That is, a brother may not be fulfilling his ministry (which may have a voice to some of us), for there may be a retirement to an easy [p. 122] position, to a watering-place, or the like. We are to be alive as to the service that may be committed to us, and to see that we fulfil it, because Paul uses the word “fulfil”. It was given to him “to complete the word of God”; it is the idea of completing a ministry. If the Lord has given us something to do, let us see that the thing is done, and not simply to take it easy because we are old, but to see that the thing is done. Carry on when you can and as long as you can.
AMh Would you say that his ministry would not be only local but would go outside what is local? “Take heed to the ministry which thou hast received”.
JT Whatever it was, he ought to know what he received from the Lord, and to see that it was fulfilled. I believe that is the point and it is a feature in this epistle. Paul says that he completed the word of God. He did not leave it open; the thing was finished. We have already alluded to the hem of the garment in Psalm 133, which I believe conveys the idea of a finished condition.