Comment/Question:
Some have tried to twist Matthew 18:20 into meaning that it is the Spirit that does the gathering, and it has caused a great deal of confusion. If you read through the chapter, you will find that the Holy Spirit is not mentioned, or even hinted at. Some have tried to justify the absence of any mention of the Holy Spirit by saying that it's because He is “meek and humble” (which is true) and brings all attention to Jesus (which is also true). However, it is a justification.
If Jesus meant to say that it is the Spirit that gathers together a select few of His children, then we can have complete trust that that is what He would have said. God’s Word will never leave us in doubt if we seek His guidance in understanding it. Doubt only emerges when men begin to say that the Bible doesn’t really mean what it says. As soon as we begin making comments like that, we cast doubt on the Word of God. If we cannot trust God’s Word, what can we trust?
Answer:
Firstly, the “some” that this person is referring to—but does not mention—are J. N. Darby, W. Kelly, C. H. Mackintosh, F. G. Patterson, J. A. Trench, W. Potter, H. Smith, etc. (Actual quotes from them could be given to verify this.) These were men of God were known for their godliness and spiritual discernment; many of them were scholars in the Greek. They were gifted teachers given to the Church by Christ the Head to perfect the saints’ understanding of the divine revelation. If we give heed to their ministry, it will establish us in the truth, and we will not be driven about by “every wind of doctrine” that comes along (Eph. 4:11-14).
It is generally accepted (and not just in "Brethren" circles) that these men, and others, were specially raised up and used of God to recover the truth to the Church that had been lost for over 1500 years. If this is true (and we believe that it is), it is hard to believe that people are now saying that what these men have taught is not right. We are not saying that they were infallible. Nor is it a situation where one of them made a questionable statement on some point and the others didn’t agree with him—they all with one accord taught the same thing on this subject! This being the case, should we trust the knowledge and spiritual judgment of a few disgruntled young people rather than that which has been taught by these learned and gifted teachers? To accuse Mr. Darby, et al, of “twisting” the Scriptures is a bold allegation. To set ourselves up as being sufficient to critique and subsequently condemn the ministry of these men is presumptuous. If such allegations are true, it throws a serious doubt on whether God raised up these men and whether there was a recovery of the truth at all.
A Christian friend of ours who enrolled in the Dallas Theological Seminary years ago said that on the opening day of the school year the dean addressed the whole student body. In his remarks he said, “Besides the apostles, in Church history there were two men who were especially used of God to help the Church, for which we ought to be thankful. One is Martin Luther and the other is John Nelson Darby!” This statement came from a man who did not hold Darby’s ecclesiology, but he recognized his gift and spirituality for what it is. Yet among those gathered to the Lord’s name, there are, evidently, those who wouldn’t think twice of denigrating Mr. Darby. Disparaging remarks have been made to that end. One wonders who we think we are in dismissing the teachings of these gifted men whom God has used to bring much precious truth to the Church (1 Tim. 5:17; Heb. 13:7). In the face of this kind of opposition, Mr. Darby himself said, “Ignorance is bold because it is ignorant.” That is, we can make bold statements in matters “where angels fear to tread” because we are naive. We wonder if that is the case here with this first question/comment. Wouldn’t it be better to take a humble position on this subject, and seek the Lord for clarification and answers? To approach the subject with the spirit of inquiry is far more commendable—especially when we are young.
We each need to ask ourselves, “Do I believe there was a movement of God to recover truth to the Church in the 1800s?” If we have taken our place in fellowship with those who seek to support what was recovered by that movement of God, we assume the answer would be "yes." Our question then would be, "If we believe that God raised up men to recover the truth to the Church, then why don’t we accept what they have taught?" Taking our place among those gathered on such principles, yet being opposed to those things, seems awfully hypocritical. If we don’t believe the principles on which we are gathered, why are we in such a position in the first place? What would people think of a person who was avowedly opposed to Nazism, yet he was a card-carrying member of the Nazi party? Or, what would they think of a person who was adamantly against guns and frequently protested against them, but that same person belonged to a gun club? We would have to say that he was terribly inconsistent with his beliefs—and nobody would take him seriously.
For someone associated with those who meet for worship and ministry on the principles of Matthew 18:20, to turn around and attack those principles is illogical. In doing so, he is cutting away the very ground on which he stands ecclesiologically! We are not sure any rational person would want to do that, yet this seems to be the position of our questioner.
The Greek Word for “Gathered”—“Sunago”
Secondly, just because the words “the Holy Spirit” are not mentioned in Matthew 18 doesn’t mean that there is no reference to His work in that passage. Those afore-mentioned brethren have taught us that the work of the Holy Spirit is alluded to in the 20th verse in the words “are gathered.” The word “gathered” in the Greek is “sunago,” and it means “to lead together” (Strong’s #4863), or “to bring together” (Vine’s, p. 482; Wigram’s, p. 712). This word is in the passive voice and indicates that there is a power outside of those gathered that has been involved in their meeting on that ground. This gathering power could only be that of the Spirit of God, who is the divine Gatherer.
If we handled the Scriptures using the rule (suggested by our questioner) that the very words have to be in the text before a certain truth can be seen there, we would have to throw out some important foundational truths of Christianity. It would mean that we should not believe in the Trinity because that word is not found in Scripture. We would also have to throw out the truth of the eternal Sonship of Christ, because that expression is not found in Scripture either, etc. A case in point would be to ask our questioner where it says in Scripture that the Holy Spirit is “meek and humble,” as he says. There is no Scripture that says it.
It takes no spirituality on our part concerning the knowledge of the truth if every specific tenet of truth were spelled out in black and white statements in Scripture. The carnal mind wants a specific code so that there is no need for exercise and the state of one’s soul to be addressed. But God has not written His Word in that way; the truth is given in Scripture in such a way that the state of our souls is constantly tested. A great principle on which He teaches the truth is that there must be a willingness on our part to want it (John 7:17). If we are not willing, we will miss it.
The Lord speaks of this in Matthew 13:10-17. Prior to that chapter, He did not use parables in His ministry, but spoke the truth plainly to the people. But being rejected by the common people (chap. 11) and by the leaders of the nation (chap. 12), He thereafter used “parables” (chaps. 13-25). These were not, as some have thought, to help people understand the truth, but to conceal the truth from those who were rejecters of it, and at the same time, to reveal the truth of “the mysteries of the kingdom of the heavens” to those who wanted it.
This shows that the Lord often presents the truth in a way that those who don’t want it won’t see it. Perhaps this is the case in Matthew 18:20 regarding the Holy Spirit. It seems obvious to some that the verse points to the work of a divine Gatherer, but others just can’t see it. When we don’t want the conclusion that it leads to—in this case that God has a gathering center—then we will not be able to see it. The problem is in the heart. The Lord taught that when the “heart” has “waxed gross [fat],” the “ears” will become “dull of hearing” and the “eyes” will be “closed” (Matt. 13:15).
Paul Wilson said that if we don’t understand a particular part of Scripture, it is because:
We have not read the passage carefully enough.
We have brought pre-conceived ideas to the Word and are attempting to interpret Scripture from those notions.
Our will is at work, and we don’t want the truth.
The Spirit of God Behind the Scenes
The fact that the Spirit of God takes a place behind the scenes in Christianity in order to have all the attention focused on Christ has the support of Scripture in general (John 16:13). There are a number of places in which the Spirit of God is referred to under the figure of an unnamed man working behind the scenes to lead people to Christ (Gen. 24:2; Luke 10:35; 14:17-24; 22:10; John 10:3, etc.). Since we are to interpret a passage of Scripture in the light of all other Scriptures, it is not difficult to see what J. N. Darby et al taught in Matthew 18:20. It is not a “justification” as our commenter/questioner says; it is an explanation—a logical and Scriptural explanation called “exegesis.” It does not “cast doubt” on the Word of God, as he says, but rather, brings clarity of understanding to the passage.
Is Matthew 18:20 Being Over Emphasized?
People who oppose the truth of gathering will often say that we are making too much out of Matthew 18:20. They will tell us that it is only one verse. However, many precious truths are only mentioned once in Scripture—the Lord’s Table, the Lord’s Supper, the Lord’s Day, etc. For that matter, how many times does Scripture record that Christ shed His precious blood—only one? Similarly, the Lord only asked the disciples to remember Him in His death once. Are we to take from this that these things are not very important because they are only mentioned once? The Scriptures were written for hearts that love the Lord and who want to respond to Him in happy obedience. When such is the state of our souls, there is no need of repeated commands to do something. The truth of gathering, in Matthew 18:20, is supported by Scripture as a whole anyway; it is not just found in this one verse. This will be shown as we proceed.
Is the Truth of a Divine Gathering Center a “New” Doctrine?
Some have imagined that the truth of there being one divinely owned gathering center is something that has only come out among brethren in recent years and is a new idea. But nothing could be further from the truth.
H. A. Ironside notes in his book ("A Historical Sketch of the Brethren Movement") that before the Bethesda division (1848) the brethren "were not backward in claiming in some instances the exclusive possession of the Lord's Table." Mr. Ironside doesn't accept this truth, but admits that the one Lord's Table being in one ecclesiastical position on earth was part of the gathered saints' portfolio of doctrine from as far back as the late 1830s and early 1840s—which essentially is from the beginning of the movement when the truth was first recovered.
In 1951 J. R. Gill wrote, “May I mention that sixty years have elapsed since I was first privileged to be at the Table, there to remember Him in His death. Nor have I forgotten how the sense of the preciousness of that occasion stole in upon my heart. I trust the flight of time has deepened that sense! In those days, and earliest of all in England [circa 1891], it was commonly taught and believed there was only one Lord’s Table. I was brought up in that atmosphere; never heard anything to the contrary. Father spoke of it at home, and I heard it frequently in the meetings. It became an article of faith with me: ‘The Lord’s Table’ (1 Cor. 10:10:21); not the plural—‘the Lord’s Tables’—only one!” This shows that it was commonly held and taught among brethren in the 1800s.
Sad to say, there has been a steady departure from this truth, and it stems from brethren not teaching it in the meetings. Mr. Gill went on to say, “Part of the decline among brethren extends to this subject [the one gathering center]. One suggests this with regret. In many circles it is no longer held that there is only one Lord’s Table, only one divine center on earth. The grave consequences that flow from such a truth are more or less ignored today, and seldom discussed. I speak of brethren in general. Yet I note that even in our own meetings little is said as to this great truth, so familiar to our fathers. This may be due to our forlorn condition, and our consciousness of it. Yet we have not renounced the doctrine and will affirm it if challenged.” If the truth of the one gathering center was not taught as much as it should have been among brethren in 1951, how much more so today in 2010! Perhaps this is why some have mistakenly thought that it is a new doctrine.
The Truth of the One Gathering Center Stabilizes Believers
If we give up the truth of the one gathering centre, we put ourselves on slippery ground, and are likely to get drawn away into other ecclesiastical positions. Mr. Gill also said, “The holding of the old doctrine [the one gathering center] tended to stabilize us ecclesiastically. The thought of leaving the Lord’s Table, if there was but one, on a fleshly impulse, or for some unworthy reason, would be appalling—impossible! How shall I leave it, if in a special sense the Lord be there? I would be turning my back on Him and on the Center of His providing. I remember when considerations of this kind fastened on my young heart like a vice. I trust that hold is still there. But if there are many Lord’s Tables—several conflicting centers of equal value—if it matters little where I go, I shall drift the more easily. Petty slights, injuries, misunderstandings and the like may be the determining factors in leading me astray, without such restraint as the old teaching imposed, and, quite obviously, if I be adrift, the new and liberal theology would attract me.”
Summary:
People who struggle against the truth of there being one gathering center will never be happy being in a fellowship with those with who hold that truth. They will be vexed, pretty much on a daily basis, and sooner or later, a “root of bitterness” will spring up and they end up leaving the fellowship (Heb. 12:15).
It is sad, but all such need to adjust their doctrine so that they are in agreement with the truth and those with whom they are in fellowship. We don’t want to see anyone leave, of course, but pray that “God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth” (2 Tim. 2:25). It is our desire that we may all continue on together having one heart and one mind “till He come.” (Rom. 15:6). We can only pray that those who have made such comments will have a change of heart.