CHURCH RECOVERY
[p. 327] CHURCH RECOVERY
My thought is to seek to show the necessity for the assembly. There is a necessity for it in regard of God’s eternal counsels, which refer to the coming day, and also in regard of testimony down here. I believe it is of great importance for the saints to distinguish between the primary thoughts of God, and His thoughts and ways that have arisen as a consequence of the introduction of sin into the world.
Now, I regard the assembly as a primary thought of God; it is a necessary result of His eternal counsels; it forms part of the eternal scheme, but then it also falls into line in connection with His government here upon earth. The primary thought comes to light in Genesis 2. There were then no conditions created by sin. The necessity for the assembly in God’s mind and counsels arose from the fact that in the type the man was alone. His loneliness had not been caused by the presence of sin; it did not arise from sin having come in, but from the fact that his counterpart had not been created. But when we come to the second type of the assembly, which is Rebekah, she becomes a necessity on account of the result of sin and death; the necessity for Rebekah arose from the death of Sarah. She was for the comfort of Isaac after his mother’s death. Genesis 24:67.
Now, beloved friends, I have referred to these two types as indicating that the assembly takes its place in the course of God’s government in this world, a government which arose from the conditions created in the world by the presence of sin. But all that having been solved, the intricate conditions [p. 328] arising from the presence of sin in the world becoming ultimately adjusted under the governmental hand of God, He reverts to His primary thought in the assembly.
Now, I should like, the Lord helping me, to make clear to you, before proceeding, what is immediately before me, that is, to show the great difference there is between God’s primary thoughts and His government. To suggest to you further what I mean, I would point out that we find God introducing the idea of a city and the idea of a kingdom. Now, God was not the first to introduce these things. The first city mentioned in Scripture is that builded by Cain, and the first kingdom we have in Scripture is that which was established by Nimrod. God did not introduce these thoughts; they were introduced by man, and their introduction greatly enhanced man’s position here in opposition to God. Any one can see in Cain’s city that, as builded, it greatly enhanced his position. He was a vagabond upon the earth, with the mark of a murderer upon his brow; he goes out from the presence of the Lord and establishes himself on the earth in independence of God, and built a city.
Now, that thought has never been given up by the world, but God took account of it. He took note of the advantage that the enemy had acquired by the establishment of a city upon earth. We find that after the flood the thought reappeared, for directly men got together their thought was to build a city and a tower. I allude to these thoughts to show you how the world system was established, and then consequent upon that Nimrod established his kingdom; he was “a mighty hunter” (Genesis 10:9) before the Lord. His fame was widespread; he was a mighty one upon the earth; he was a hero, and he established a kingdom. Now, bear in mind these two thoughts, you have a city, a political centre,
[p. 329] a centre of influence upon earth; and then you have a kingdom, fixed rule established in connection with the city. Now I repeat that these two thoughts were not introduced by God; they were introduced by man. The question therefore arose as to how God was going to meet that? We must remember that God had always a witness here; He had always a people in this world who were in possession of light, and these would feel the character of the advantage that the presence of a city and a kingdom gave to the world. Therefore the question arose as to how God would meet that state of things, and I repeat that He met it, not by the introduction of a primary thought, but by the introduction of a like thought. His people were in the world-system, and He designed to call them out of it; He would deliver them out of it, and to that end He established a city and a kingdom of His own.
Now, there can be no greater thought for us in connection with the presence of sin and lawlessness in the world than the setting forth of God’s city and God’s kingdom. I need not enlarge upon them, they have often been enlarged upon, I only refer to them as showing the greatness of God’s ways in meeting the state of things occasioned by sin, and that the establishment of these two things is for the deliverance of God’s people from the world. We see that both the city and the kingdom have a present existence, and their object is the deliverance of God’s people out of the world-system; God has provided a city for us, He has provided a centre for us, and He has established rule for us in the hands of the Lord Jesus Christ.
These two thoughts are clearly brought to light in the gospels. I would refer to the gospel of Matthew for a moment. Matthew’s great point in regard to the kingdom is, that it was a heavenly kingdom — heavenly rule. Now, there may be a question as to [p. 330] what is the point in that? I believe the idea in Matthew is to show that God had transferred His centre from earth to heaven. Luke deals with the kingdom of God down here, Matthew with the kingdom of heaven; that is, that rule was henceforth vested in the heavens. I want to show you the working out of that historically.
Jerusalem had been the centre on earth in which the kingdom had been established, and it was there also that the idea of a city had taken form. God had placed both testimonies there; that is, a city and a kingdom. He had sent Christ to Jerusalem. The Lord visited that city, He visited it in full divine affection for Israel, He wept over it, He wept over the city, and He said, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!” Matthew 23:37. There was definite refusal to accede to the divine overture; it was rejected; instead of being received there, the Lord was rejected. He entered it as King, for God had a testimony rendered to His precious Son as the Son of David, and He entered the city as King, but He was rejected as an imposter. Such was the city. Such was the power the enemy had acquired in the city in which God had placed these two great testimonies of His in the presence of man.
Did God give up the city? I think nothing can exceed the grace manifested in God’s forbearance with it. The Lord says that “repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name to all the nations”. But where was it to begin? “Beginning”, He says, “at Jerusalem”, Luke 24:47. At that city the gospel of the grace of God was to begin. I do not know anything that so exhibits the abounding grace of [p. 331] God. At the centre, where all evil was concentrated, where the foulest crime was committed that had ever been perpetrated, He began there, He established there in principle another city. He sends down the Holy Spirit to His disciples, in the midst of Jerusalem, where He whom they, the Jews, had murdered, God sends down the Holy Spirit to His disciples in that city. It was in the midst of Jerusalem that the assembly was formed.
Matthew and Mark contemplate the continuance of God’s relationship with Israel; the beginning of the Acts contemplates the continuance of God’s relationship with Israel soon after the giving of the Spirit, hence you will find that the Supper is not definitely separated from the passover in these two gospels. God, as it were, lingered over Jerusalem. The most wonderful thing that had ever been introduced into this world was introduced in the midst of that city. And, beloved friends, we soon discover in the historical course of events, if indeed further evidence were required, what the city really was morally. The presence and energy of the Holy Spirit evidenced God’s grace to man, but what did it elicit from Jerusalem? Well, we see at the death of Stephen, in the attitude of Jerusalem towards Stephen, what God’s grace to Jerusalem elicited from it. The city was in the hands of the wicked power. The Spirit of Jesus, exhibited in His disciples, and manifested so perfectly in Stephen, only drew out the inveterate hatred of the leaders against Jesus and all who belonged to Him. Stephen was murdered; he was murdered in the presence of Saul, and Saul becomes the personification of the spirit of Jerusalem. He left that city as the representative of it; he was the official representative of Jerusalem; he went out of it, we are told, “breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord”, Acts 9:1. It was not simply Saul’s hatred of Jesus,
[p. 332] and His disciples, but he was the representative of that city to which so much grace had been shown.
Then comes a definite break between Jerusalem and God, and the link has never been re-established. The earthly centre was abandoned by God and the heavenly centre established. The christian economy is established from heaven. God, in forbearance with Israel and in grace, brought into that city the most wonderful thing that had ever been introduced, but the rejection of it necessitated a complete break with Israel, and now all is established in heaven. Saul hears a voice from heaven, and that voice brings him down. Saul has now recognised that authority is in heaven, not upon earth. He had come out of Jerusalem armed with the authority of the high priest — plenty of it — he was armed with it. But he hears a voice from heaven, and that voice discloses to him what Matthew enlarges upon, that rule is now in the heavens; hence Saul says, “Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?”, Acts 9:6. He acknowledges the rule that God had established in heaven, and what follows upon that is, that God’s city is introduced. There is no longer any protection for the things of God, to be looked for in Jerusalem. The things of God have to be cared for now from another centre. The high priests are no longer to be depended upon, they are in open opposition to God, and have refused the testimony; God has established rule in heaven, and there is power from thence to protect His interests upon earth. That power is for the support and protection of the things of God upon earth.
Now, beloved friends, that is what I understand to be the establishment of the kingdom of the heavens; it is established in Christ. Saul was the personification of Jewish wickedness against Christ, but God had a complete triumph. Power and authority from heaven subdued him. There we see [p. 333] how God met the world system, the world city. God met it in Christ, in the voice of Christ, and in the power of Christ from heaven. Saul, the great representative of earthly wickedness against God and against Christ, is separated from the power of evil in Jerusalem; he is completely extricated from it, and henceforth he becomes the herald of God’s grace from heaven. Paul brings in the announcement of the Son. His first preaching is to announce the Son of God. We are not told that he was sent to preach, or that he was commissioned to preach in Damascus at that moment, but the fact is stated that he did preach, and his preaching in Damascus was the outcome of the impression made upon his heart. He preached the Son of God. Now what hangs upon that is, that the Son of God must have His own city; Jerusalem is rejected, but He will establish a heavenly city. In Christ exalted we have the idea of rule, and all divine power to support it, so that it becomes effective upon earth, and then consequently we have also a new centre for the affections of His people whilst they are down here. All that takes place outside of Jewish territory, so that the people of God now have an all-powerful kingdom to support them; they have a city established, and they have a new centre to hold their affections, their thoughts, their ambitions and their minds.
I want to say a word further in regard to the establishment of things from heaven. Paul’s ministry established christianity in the order that it had been in God’s thoughts to establish it here upon earth. God’s thought was, as we learn from the epistle to the Ephesians, to have both Jew and gentile in one body. The true thought of the “one body” does not come out fully until the gentile is brought in. The gentile is brought in in a collective way. The Holy Spirit came upon the Jewish remnant [p. 334] collectively, as recorded in Acts 2, and He came in like manner upon the gentiles in a collective way, as we see in chapter 10. You will find that the expressions as to the coming of the Holy Spirit are very similar, with this difference, that in Acts 2 He came from heaven, but in chapter 10 it is simply that He “fell upon” those who were listening to Peter’s preaching (Acts 10:44). So that God had secured His thought, He had brought in a company; the gentile is bound up in one bundle of life in company with the Jew.
And, further, we find that the Supper is introduced in that connection; the Supper is in the economy of christianity. The Lord’s supper is given from heaven. According to the testimony of the gospels it was committed to the Jewish disciples of Jesus. But in Paul’s ministry it is received directly from Christ in heaven; that is to say, it is formally separated from the passover. Luke is the only evangelist who supports that, because Luke invariably supports Paul’s testimony. The Supper is formally separated from the passover, and it is separated from all social connections here upon earth. It is received directly from heaven and committed to the assembly, as established here by the ministry of Paul.
Well, now, when we come to that I think that one may be free to say a word in regard to what the assembly is as a necessity in God’s ways for the present moment, and for the future. It becomes evident that it was a necessity in view of Israel’s decease. The death of Sarah of old, as I have been saying, necessitated the introduction of Rebekah, and now the decease of Israel, the severance of that link, has necessitated that the Lord Jesus should have another companion, and His beloved apostle Paul was the great instrument to bring in that companion.
Now that leads me to refer for a moment to the [p. 335] connection in which we find the feminine idea introduced in the Scripture I have read; one cannot say much about it, but the feminine idea is introduced because man as created was alone. God said of Adam, “It is not good that the man should be alone” (Genesis 2:18), and He assigned that as the reason for bringing a companion to him. God took account of man upon earth, and in His divine wisdom He devised that it was not good that he should be alone. Well, in the gospels wonderful testimony comes to light in Christ. How one could enlarge upon the ministry of the Lord as seen in the gospels! As seen in the gospels, the Lord is alone. He is there the Man. I read the gospels in that light. They present to us the Man; He comes out from God. He is God’s image and God’s glory. But He is alone and without a counterpart. He is alone, and God’s thought was that it was not good that man should be alone.
Well, now, beloved friends, what is so touching is this, that the wonderful grace in the ministry of the Lord gathered around Him a company that was marked by affection for Him, and that affection is represented in the attitude of the women who are given prominence to in the gospel narrative. The record of each evangelist introduces a woman on the resurrection morning. The Lord had been alone upon the earth in His wonderful activity of grace, and now on the resurrection morning each evangelist in his turn enlarges upon the affection that had been drawn out by the Lord’s ministry here. In the early morning before the dawn that affection exhibits itself. In whom? In a woman. The feminine side is in evidence at once upon the resurrection morning. I think it is most touching to see how, figuratively, the counterpart had come to light, the counterpart of Christ. I cannot think of the counterpart of Christ apart from affection. What marks the woman [p. 336] is affection, affection begotten by the Man, and what we see there is affection begotten by the wonderful grace of Christ. I would commend to you the study of the gospels — perfection is there. The gospels present perfection in a Man, perfection marked by divine love, and divine love in activity here upon earth. That is God’s Man. What would God’s Man be in the presence of lawlessness? He would be law-abiding. What would He be in the presence of hatred? He would be marked by love. Thus God’s Man comes to light in Christ.
I need not say that God did not breathe into His nostrils the breath of life. He was a divine Person become Man. His Person could not be altered, and He goes back to heaven as He came out of heaven, a divine Person equal with the Father. But He was a Man upon earth, and He exhibited what man should be upon earth, and the setting forth of that gathered around Him a company that were marked by affection for Him. He begat affection, so that when He disappears in death affection is there, and on the morning of resurrection the woman is seen looking for Him. The apostles went to their own homes, but Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping. There may have been a lack of intelligence there, she ought to have known, but she had absorbing affection for Him.
We read in the prophets of seven women taking hold of one man, that one Man is Christ. There is only one Man in God’s counsels, and that Man is Christ. He begat affection in the hearts of many; there were those who responded to Him, and this affection brings to light the woman; typically the assembly as the counterpart of Christ. Nothing can be of greater interest for the Man than the woman. There was no creature for Adam to be compared with Eve. There was no creature to equal Adam in intelligence, and Eve was equal to be his [p. 337] counterpart. There was no creature like her, and Adam quickly discerns it, and he says, “This time it is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh: this shall be called Woman, because this was taken out of a man”, Genesis 2:23. So you have in type the woman — the assembly as the counterpart for Christ. The apostle Paul had that before him. He says to the Corinthians, “I have espoused you unto one man”, 2 Corinthians 11:2.
Now, I would ask, Where are we in regard to that? I believe the Spirit of God would raise the question in our souls as to where our hearts are. Paul says, “I have espoused you unto one”; that is, I have not espoused you to two, I have not set two objects before you to distract you, I have set one before you. The One he had espoused them to was God’s Son in heaven. That was the Object. The apostle was afraid lest the saints should be beguiled from simplicity as to the Christ. Christianity is essentially simple, so the apostle says, “I have espoused you unto one man”. And in passing on I would say a word as to how the Lord in that sense takes account of the “woman” down here. In Proverbs 31 she is prophetically alluded to as the “woman of worth”, and we are told that her husband safely trusts in her. He commits his things to her.
In connection with this, I want to say just a word as to the form the assembly took in the administration of Paul. The form that the assembly economy took under Paul was that of local assemblies. As I have been saying, the testimony was connected with Jerusalem. In the wisdom of God, Jerusalem was recognised up to a point, but when the full light of the assembly comes out all Jewish influences are forbidden. The assembly of God is then formally separated from judaism which is classified with the world. The apostle mentions the Jew, the gentile, and the church of God. The church of God is thus formally separated from the [p. 338] Jew and the gentile. Then you get in connection with that the formulation of the law by which the church is to be governed, and I take that law to be set forth in the first epistle to the Corinthians. I cannot enlarge upon it, I only suggest it to you. The form the church economy took was that it was to be seen in local companies. The assembly at Jerusalem had a certain metropolitan importance which no other assembly had. You never get the idea afterwards of a general church council. In the light of Paul’s teaching a general council is not right. A church council after 1 Corinthians was written could not be of God. In that epistle we are taught that the principles by which one assembly was to be governed were to be the principles by which “all the assemblies” had to be governed. Privilege and responsibility henceforth took form in local companies. They were not independent companies. Independency is forbidden in the law of the church. Thus you have the working out of the christian economy in the local companies. Whether it be responsibility or privilege, all takes form in the local company. I need only appeal to the statements in the epistle to the Corinthians to prove that.
Well, beloved friends, that raises the question as to faithfulness. Does the Lord see that which He can trust? In the book of Revelation we find that the local companies are not marked by that which marked the “virtuous woman” at the outset. Ephesus, which had been the great result of Paul’s ministry, established in the full light of the heavenly revelation, had left her first love; she had moved away from the position in which she had been placed in relation to Christ; in other words, virtue had gone. The woman of virtue is no longer seen, she had disappeared. Virtue had disappeared in the disappearance of first love. The Lord commits nothing more to her; He exhorts Her to do the first works, but [p. 339] nothing more can be committed to her. Nothing can be more touching than the thought of what it must have been to the Lord to be conscious that that which had been so perfectly set forth, that affection that shone in Mary Magdalene and which marked the early church had disappeared, and with it virtue had disappeared. So that the church’s path has been downward, until it culminates in the wicked woman Jezebel, who had been the personification of wickedness, the very opposite of the woman of virtue.
Now, at the close, virtue reappears. I believe the Lord is earnestly working to bring in virtue ultimately. We live in an awful age. How many voices there are around us calculated to draw away our hearts and divert them from Christ. We are put to the test by the different voices appealing to us, but the Lord’s voice is distinctly heard. You will have observed that in the early part of the book the message is sent through John to the angels of the churches. The Lord impressed upon them how distinctly He felt the declension, and when we come to the last chapter we find in the early part of it that the Lord sent His angel to communicate these things to His bondmen; that is, to make known to His bondmen beforehand what was about to happen.
But the Lord must have His word directly to the churches before the book was closed, and the object of it is to arouse virtue. Do we hear His voice? it is the voice of Jesus. It is the voice that Paul heard, the same voice, the same Person. It is Jesus. It is not John who is speaking. It is the Lord directly announcing Himself to us: “I Jesus”. The same Person who said to Saul of Tarsus; “I am Jesus whom thou persecutest”, Acts 9:5. Now He says, “I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches”. He appeals directly to the assemblies by announcing Himself to them. It seems to me that we have the Lord’s voice now;
[p. 340] the Lord is speaking, and if He is speaking to us, it is to beget what He so well knows how to beget, and that is affection.
I think the most remarkable thing about the Song of Songs is that it is the finest piece that Solomon had composed out of a thousand and five songs. Perhaps no poet had composed so many. But this one was the song of them all — “the song of songs, which is Solomon’s”, Song of Songs 1:1. The point in it is, that it is the Lord’s triumph over the affections of His people, that is what the Lord counts to be His masterpiece, His triumph over the affections of His people; that is what He is seeking to do. He says, “I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star”. That is what Christ is to the church at the close. It is the Man reappearing, as it were, after the sorrowful history of the assembly. He is reappearing to announce Himself to her. He says, “I am the root and the offspring of David” (wonderful testimony), “and the bright and morning star”.
I think we do well to emphasise the deity of the Lord. He is the Root of David. Who can be that but God! but He speaks to us as Man in a voice of affection. He announces Himself in His true deity, He is the Root of David. It is Jesus, the Man of the gospels. Thank God, there is an answer to His announcement. It is the affection of His people that leads them to look for Him. “The Spirit and the bride say, Come”; there is not only affection, but there is full intelligence as to what He communicates. They know the meaning of His words. They know that He is the Root of David, that He is God Himself; and then He is the offspring of David; He is the Heir to everything that David set forth, and He must have His rights as such. Then He is [p. 341] the bright and morning star; that star is JESUS. He is the bright morning Star in the midst of the darkening gloom of the world closing in, and where wickedness is intensified. Has He arisen in your heart? He arises in the heart of the believer to light you into the day. The morning Star appears before the day; it is the herald of the day. He arises in the heart of His own as light, so that they may tread with firm step into God’s day. That is what we get at the close. “The Spirit and the bride say, Come”! Then there is activity for the blessing of others. “Let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come”. Thus there is full church character. There is affection and desire in regard to Christ, and there is activity and interest in regard of the need that exists all around us.
Well, may the Lord lead our hearts to believe that there is a distinct voice speaking — the voice of Jesus. Bear that in mind! The enemy no doubt thought that he had triumphed over Christ in death, but when Christ arose from the dead and went to heaven, the enemy could not touch Him, though he could touch His body upon earth. When Saul left Jerusalem, with his commission from the high priest to try and obliterate the name of Jesus from the earth, I believe the enemy thought he had completely won the day, but the Lord triumphed! Saul says, “Lord”. He recognised the kingdom and the authority that were vested in Christ, and he became the great herald of God’s Son. Now, the enemy failing in that attempt, he has succeeded in corrupting the church, he has brought in Jezebel, but the Lord is not defeated, so that at the close we find the bride is there. The Lord reappears and presents Himself, and so awakens affection toward Himself, hence “The Spirit and the bride say, Come”. Thus the Lord is triumphant; He has His church, in spite of all the efforts of the enemy.