Questions Young People Ask Regarding the True Ground of Gathering: Good Questions That Deserve Good Answers, Volume 2
Stanley Bruce Anstey
Table of Contents
A Prefatory Note
The comments/questions in this publication have been downloaded from the Internet and forwarded to us with a request that some Scriptural answers would be given to them.
Trusting that we have the mind of the Lord in undertaking this task, we notice at once that they are of a different spirit than those given to us in the first volume of “Questions.” Very few of these remarks are in the form of questions; they are more like statements and judgments. This makes us wonder whether the people who have made them are really searching for the truth. Having stated in the sub-title of the book that our object is to answer “good” questions, we hope that these questions are just that. If they come from “an honest and good heart” (Luke 8:15), they are good questions. Since love “believeth all things,” and “hopeth all things” (1 Cor. 13:7), we hope and pray that there is indeed an honest and teachable spirit with each one who has made the remarks.
Some of the comments/questions that have been submitted to us have been condensed for the purpose of this publication, but we have sought to preserve the very words as much as possible, so as not to misrepresent the persons who have given them (Matt. 12:27).
April 2010
Introduction
It is good to search out and hash over things having to do with the principles of assembly order and function, so that we come to a Scriptural conclusion concerning the ground of gathering. The Bible says that the Bereans were “noble” because they “received the Word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so” (Acts 17:11). What was so commendable about them is that they “received the Word” before they searched it out in the Scriptures. This shows that their faith saw Paul and Silas as messengers sent from God, and therefore, they readily received what they said. When they searched those things out in the Scriptures, they found that what their faith already had accepted from those men was true.
Sad to say, we do not see the spirit of the Bereans among Christians today much. People generally want to challenge and argue over various points of doctrine before they will receive it. And even then, it has to be a “black and white” statement from Scripture—a principle from God’s Word is not enough. We are not suggesting that people should gullibly swallow everything that someone tells them, but the Bible says, “Knowing of whom thou hast learned them” (2 Tim. 3:14). Our point here is that God raises up gifted men to bring us the truth (Eph. 4:11-14), and we need to be in a spiritual state (as the Bereans were) to recognize it and receive what they have to give us. When we know those who have given us the truth, we should have faith to accept it prima facie, and then diligently search it out in the Scriptures. This is a commendable spirit to have in seeking the truth.
Scripture says, “Buy the truth, and sell it not” (Prov. 23:23). There is no better time to do this then when we are young. Scripture also indicates that we are to “receive with meekness the engrafted Word” (James 1:21). This means that humility is very much needed in this exercise. But in looking over these comments and questions that have been given to us, we wonder whether they are from those who are truly seeking to “buy the truth,” because the spirit of “meekness” seems to be lacking. There is more of a challenging spirit than the spirit of inquiry.
A cursory glance at the Table of Contents will give the reader to see that most, if not all of the complaints people have in regard to the truth of gathering, revolve around Matthew 18:20. It seems that the whole thing is a straightforward attack on that verse. Perhaps the sub-title of this book should be, “Answers to Attacks on Matthew 18:20.” It is distressing to learn that some of these comments and questions are from older ones who have been exposed to the truth of gathering and have seemingly embraced it for years. You would think that they would have had these things settled in their minds long ago. And what is even more disturbing is that they have acted somewhat like the old prophet of Bethel (1 Kings 13) and have encouraged the younger ones in their opposition to the truth. It may be that these older ones have had these questions for some time and are glad to hear them expressed by the younger generation. But in encouraging this sort of thing, they could very well “overthrow the faith of some” in things which are “most surely believed among us” (2 Tim. 2:18; Luke 1:1).
What has made matters worse is that well-meaning brethren who stand for the truth have tried to answer some of these questions and complaints, but they have inadvertently made unwise and unguarded statements. This has only exacerbated the problem and frustrated the younger brethren who are looking for answers. We are conscious that we could do the same. Therefore, we feel much cast on the Lord as we embark on this second volume of Questions.
We realize that there may be some in whose hands this book will fall who have no desire to learn the truth of gathering, and they may seize upon an unintentional blunder (imagined or real) and magnify it in an attempt to set aside the truth. But in doing so, they will only manifest their true spirit. The old rhyme—“A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still”—is as true today as it was when it was penned long ago. Therefore, we do not want to get drawn into fleshly arguments with those who are disgruntled and who do not want the truth. A proverb says, “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him” (Prov. 26:4). We take this to mean that we are not to answer this kind of a person in the same spirit in which he makes his fleshly challenges; to do so would be to sink to his level. But the very next proverb says, “Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit” (Prov. 26:5). This tells us that to allow foolish and unlearned statements to go unchallenged without rebuttal only strengthens the fool in his self-assurance. This is one reason why this second volume is now sent forth. A higher reason, of course, is that we would like to help those who want the truth.
Therefore, we will seek, to the best of our ability, to state the truth and leave it for those who want it. We trust that the Lord will make these things good to the soul of every honest seeker.
Chapter One: The Supposed "Twisting" of Matthew 18:20
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.
Chapter Two: The Greek Word for "Gathered" in Matthew 18:20
Comment/Question:
Ever since I can remember, the ministry from “our” fellowship on Matthew 18:20 has been that people don’t gather themselves to meet around the Lord, but that it is an outside force, as a person gathers eggs into a basket, and the eggs don’t gather themselves. I find great help in studying the word meanings found in Strong’s Concordance. So I looked up the meanings of the word “gathered” in the New Testament and I found several different meanings of the word. Matthew 18:20 uses the Greek word (#4863). If you read the meaning of that word, you might be surprised! It directly states that those people gathered themselves together! Other words, that that Greek word came from do imply an outside force, but #4863 is used in many other scriptures, such as “great multitudes gathering together,” “Pharisees gathered together,” “whole band of soldiers gathered” and many more! My question is, that if that same word is used for all these ungodly people gathering together, how can we use it and so precisely dissect the meaning so as to imply that only a minute few in the entire body of Christ would be the only ones who are “gathered by an outside force”—in this case the Holy Spirit—and not any others in the body, who do not see certain Scriptures as “we” do?
Answer:
We are thankful that this person has heard the truth; it is an indication that it is still being taught. To go into the Greek, in Matthew 18:20, in an attempt to show that the original language supports the rendering of modern translations, such as the NIV, which says, “come together,” is an old argument. But is it correct?
“Are Gathered” or “Come Together”
Much of the confusion that people have in regard to this may come from seeing or hearing one side of the truth only. It is not that the Spirit of God sovereignly gathers people to the Lord’s name and that they have no exercise about it; that would not be the whole truth. Scripture presents two sides of being gathered together where the Lord is in the midst. One is in Matthew 18:20, where the Spirit is seen as the gathering force. He brings Christians to “where” the Lord is “in the midst.” When Scripture speaks of the truth of gathering from this side, the Greek word “sunago” is used, which means, “to lead together” or “to bring together.” The other side is in 1 Corinthians 11-14. A number of times, Paul speaks of the saints coming together for the breaking of bread or for ministry from the Word (1 Cor. 11:17, 18, 20, 33, 34; 14:23, 26). When Scripture speaks of gathering from this side, the Greek word “sunerkomai” is used, which means, “to come together” or “go with.” This involves the volition of the saints in coming together. It is something they do. It seems that our questioner would like “sunerkomai” to be the word used in Matthew 18:20, because it fits with his or her doctrine. However, Scripture does not use that word in Matthew 18:20.
Vine’s dictionary points to Matthew 2:4 as an example of the use of “sunago” having an outside force involved in gathering people or things. It says, “When he [Herod] had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together ... ” The point is that someone does the work of gathering. It could be the Lord, or men, or the devil. In the case cited, it was Herod.
In giving us the meaning of “sunago” in the original language, our questioner does not seem to be altogether honest in emphasizing the rare third and fourth alternate meanings in Strong’s concordance when the first and main meaning is “to lead together.” In the 62 times where “sunago” is found in Scripture, it is only translated “came together” 6 times in the KJV. In each of these six references there is no difficulty in seeing that there was a power in action outside of those who gathered themselves together—be it the Lord, or men, or the devil (Matt. 27:62; Mark 7:1; Luke 22:66; Acts 13:44; 15:6; 20:7). It seems to be (we hope it isn’t) a deliberate attempt to find another meaning for the word to support the idea of it being the volition of men gathering themselves together. And why not emphasize the fifth alternate meaning, which is, “lead into,” which also points to an outside power being active?
The references that are brought forward by our questioner where the word “sunago” is used—“great multitudes gathering together,” “the Pharisees gathered together,” “the whole band of soldiers gathered”—do not set aside the possibility of a gatherer working behind the scenes. In the light of Psalm 18:4, which says, “Torrents of Belial made Me afraid” (2 Cor. 6:15) and Psalm 22:21, “Save Me from the lion’s mouth” (1 Peter 5:8), it is clear that Satan was active in whipping the crowds into a frenzy and bringing them together against the Lord. He was behind the gathering together of those wicked people.
An important principle that we should always remember when handling the Scriptures is that we should never bring our pre-conceived ideas to Scripture, but rather, take our thoughts from Scripture. This was the habit of the Apostle Paul. It says that he “reasoned with them out of the Scriptures” (Acts 17:2). Note: he didn’t reason into the Scriptures, but out of them. We are afraid that this is the problem here. When a person does not want to believe that God has a gathering center in Christianity, and he takes that thought to the Scriptures, he will try to make the Scriptures support his idea. He will go to great lengths trying to make his point—even to taking the third or fourth alternate reading in a Greek lexicon or dictionary—but such is a work of the flesh (Eccl. 10:10).
Summary:
We are not Greek scholars, so to imagine that we are better equipped to translate Matthew 18:20 than J. N. Darby and W. Kelly were, is a mistake. We need to accept their understanding and scholarship. We know that the word “sunago” means, first and foremost, “to lead together,” or “to bring together,” which points to a power outside of those gathered being active. This ought to be enough for the willing mind to accept.
Chapter Three: Practical Applications of Matthew 18:20
Comment/Question:
Why has Matthew 18:20 been robbed of its blessed simplicity? Christians around the world (most especially those being persecuted) draw a great deal of peace and comfort from that verse. They take it at face value (aka. meaning exactly what it says). They are free to enjoy the “simplicity that is in Christ” (2 Cor. 11:3). The promise of Jesus that He will be wherever 2+ Christians come together for fellowship has encouraged many a group of persecuted Christians over the centuries. To know that Jesus is right there with them cannot but heal up the broken in spirit and bring blessing upon those who trust in His Word (Psalm 119:50). Why do we not have that same comfort? Are we truly so carnal as to rob the Word of God of its power? (Col. 2:8)
Answer:
The problem here is misunderstanding the difference between the interpretation and the application of Scripture. If we substitute one for the other, we will run into trouble.
The Interpretation and Application of Scripture
When teaching the truth of Scripture, we are responsible to give the meaning of a particular verse under consideration in the context of the whole passage. This is called the interpretation of the passage. The “workman” who is approved unto God will do this; he will “rightly divide the Word of truth,” giving the meaning of a particular passage in its proper context (2 Tim. 2:15). But in doing this, he by no means restricts the use of the passage in its various applications. When it comes to application, the Word of God is “exceeding broad” (Psa. 119:96). It has many applications to many people in many circumstances. Setting forth the meaning of a passage does not set aside the many applications to which the passage could be applied. This is something that our questioner has evidently misunderstood.
Matthew 18:18-20 has to do with the local assembly acting in its administrative capacity in binding and loosing disciplinary actions. The authority for such actions comes from the fact that the assembly (which could be as small as two or three persons) has been gathered to the Lord’s name by the Spirit of God, and the Lord is in its midst sanctioning the ground upon which they are gathered. The context has nothing to do with two Christians in the mission field needing comfort. But does this mean that Christians in the mission field can’t use this verse for comfort? No, they most assuredly can. The Bible says, “All [every] Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16). If someone can get comfort in the midst of their sorrows in regard to their dying mother from Genesis 1:1, then let them do it. Who would want to take that away from them? But does that mean that Genesis 1:1 has to do with comfort in circumstances of sorrow? No, it is not the meaning of the verse.
In teaching the truth of a particular passage, we do not want to take away any practical application that a person may get from it. But, as we said earlier, interpretation and application are two different things. Those who “rightly divide the Word of truth” will recognize this. An example of this is found right in this passage (Matthew 18). Verse 19 has been applied to a prayer meeting. It is not the meaning of that verse, but if someone can get help and comfort from it, we wouldn’t take that away from them. The verse is really speaking of the assembly invoking God to bind in heaven what they have bound on earth.
It is a mistake to think that those who teach the proper interpretation of Matthew 18:20 are “robbing” the verse of its “blessed simplicity.” The problem is that when we live on applications of Scripture without ever learning the true meaning of a passage, when the proper interpretation of it is given, it sounds like strange doctrine. For example, Matthew 11:28 says, “Come unto Me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” This verse is used in the gospel, and we have all come to know and enjoy it in that way—and there is nothing wrong with that. It is taken to mean that the Lord is calling sin-laden sinners to Himself for salvation. But this is a gospel application. The correct interpretation and teaching of the passage has to do with the Lord, not calling sinners ladened with the burden of their sins, but believers in the Mosaic economy who were burdened with trying to keep the law. Their burden resulted from trying to do right things, not from doing wrong things (sins). In fact, the more fastidious they were in trying to do those right things enjoined upon them in the law, the greater their burden became, because it was not possible to fulfill them. The Lord was calling a remnant of believers out of the nation to be part of a new thing that He was about to begin—the Church (Matt. 16:18). In coming to Christ, He would deliver them from that yoke of the law (Acts 15:10) and give them another “yoke” that was “easy” and “light” (Matt. 11:30). This probably sounds like strange doctrine to many, having never heard the true interpretation of the passage.
We would encourage our younger brethren to “fully follow up” on these subjects and passages in God’s Word—especially those that have to do with the truth of gathering. Then we will each be “a good minister of Christ Jesus,” able to accurately set forth the truth in an orderly way (1 Tim. 4:6 – J. N. Darby Trans.).
Summary:
Applications of Scripture to various situations in life are fine, but we must not confuse those applications with the interpretation of the passage.
Chapter Four: The Divine Gatherer in Matthew 18:20
Comment/Question:
The entire problem with the whole argument is that by stating that the “Spirit Himself gathers,” there are suddenly two groups of Christians (which in itself contradicts the Word of God—we're either IN CHRIST or we're not. Do a search for the exact expression “in Christ”—you’ll be amazed). There are those who are gathered, then there are those who aren't gathered. So, what is so special about those who are gathered? Those who believe in this “teaching” of Scripture will say that there is nothing special...but they just say that because they know it’s the right thing to say, even though they don’t believe it. The elitist attitude that has sprung up in many gatherings gives proof of this. An elitist attitude is not of the Spirit of Christ and such teachings lead to a wrong spirit. How can anyone make the argument that such is of God? My mom was (and is) always saying, “We don't go because of the (hypocritical) people; we go because the Lord is there.” Well, last I checked, God is always with me. “Your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who IS IN YOU...” (1 Cor. 6:19). So if I were to meet another believer, and we were to share in all that we have enjoyed in our relationship with Christ, you can bet that Jesus is going to be right there with us (two temples of His), smiling away and thoroughly enjoying our joy in Him. Furthermore, if the Spirit were to actually gather believers, you can guarantee that where the Spirit is truly present, those who have been “gathered” are going to imitate the Spirit—which is the Spirit of Christ. By the way, Bible-believing churches (Baptist, Calvary Chapel, etc.) draw no distinction between believers; it is only the cults (Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses) that do so.
Answer:
The reasoning here is that if the Spirit of God has led some Christians to gather in the Lord’s name in separation from all other organized Christian groups, then the Spirit has divided the flock of God. Since this is something that He would never do, it proves that there is no such thing as the Spirit gathering believers to the Lord’s name, as brethren have taught.
Separation in the House of God
What our commenter/questioner objects to is the truth of separation in the house of God (the Christian profession). He evidently believes that such a thing does not exist in Scripture, but he has overlooked some important passages in the Word of God.
Most Christians don’t have a difficulty seeing separation when it comes to what is outside the house of God—i.e. in regard to people who are not saved. But if separation is mentioned in regard to those within the house of God, they strenuously object to it. Their reason for insisting on this is because the New Testament presents the Christian community as one happy family that walks together in unity. In their minds we shouldn’t walk in separation from any true believer, because, in doing so, we are dividing the flock of God and furthering the sad state of the Church’s testimony.
The problem with this is that we have not taken into account where we are in the Church’s history. We are not in Pentecostal times, or even in times of great revival; we are in “the last days” of the Church’s history on earth (2 Tim. 3:1). The Apostle Paul said, “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron’’ (1 Tim. 4:1). He also said, “This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.” “The time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables” (2 Tim. 3:1; 4:3-4). When such a condition of irremediable ruin has come upon the Christian testimony, separation in the house of God is called for. Paul also said, “Let every one who names the name of the Lord withdraw from iniquity. But in a great house there are not only gold and silver vessels, but also wooden and earthen; and some to honour, and some to dishonour. If therefore one shall have purified himself from these, in separating himself from them, he shall be a vessel to honour, sanctified, serviceable to the Master, prepared for every good work” (2 Tim. 2:19-21).
God most certainly desires that all His people would walk together practically as one happy family. But, He has also told us that when the Christian testimony would corrupt itself, and ruin would come in, that we are to apply the truth in the New Testament in the modifications given to us in what we might call “the relief epistles”—i.e. the “second” epistles in our Bibles. These epistles order the Christian’s path in times of such departure. There are two things that are prominent in each of them:
The evidence of departure from true Christianity in doctrine or in practice. Various aspects of breakdown in Christian responsibility are considered in each epistle.
The importance of the believer separating himself from the corruption and error—not just in his personal life, but also in matters of collective fellowship.
Our commenter/questioner evidently has been reading his or her Bible without reference to these “second” epistles. So, while it is true that God desires all the members of the body of Christ to be together in practical fellowship (Eph. 4:1-16), and since irreparable ruin is everywhere in the Christian testimony, the “relief” epistles indicate that we are to take a position of separation from the error and confusion (2 Cor. 6:14-17; 2 Thess. 3:6-15; 2 Tim. 2:19-21; 2 Peter 3:17; 2 John 8-11). If we didn’t have these “second” epistles in our Bibles, we would have no authority to separate; we would be forced to go on with the mass in the Christian profession in its confusion.
Thankfully, all the truth of God, as found in the main epistles, can still be practiced today, but it will only be in a remnant testimony that is separate from the confusion and error. (This was taken up in detail in our first volume of “Questions.”) Withdrawing from “unrighteousness” (Darby’s German Elberfeld Trans.) and resorting to a remnant position where we “follow ... with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart” is an ecclesiastical separation in the house of God (2 Tim. 2:22). It is an immensely disliked aspect of separation, but something that is necessary because of the ruin. It is not an “elitist attitude,” but simple obedience to the Word of God. There could very well be an “elitist attitude” among the gathered saints (we will address this later), but acting on the truth of Scripture, in 2 Timothy 2:19-22, cannot be wrong.
Separation From Real Christians
It is simply not true that the Spirit of God wouldn’t lead a Christian to separate from another Christian. If a believer is unconcerned about the principles and practices of sin in his or her life, Scripture clearly indicates that we are to separate from that person—regardless of whether his problem is moral, doctrinal, or ecclesiastical (1 Cor. 5:11; 2 Thess. 3:14-15; 2 Tim. 2:19-21;2 John 10-11, etc.). Since the Spirit of God leads according to the principles in the Word of God, a Spirit-led Christian will be led to separate from those who are connected with evil because the Word of God clearly indicates it.
Perhaps it is conceded that separation should be practised in regard to individuals who are not going on in holiness or who are unsound doctrinally. But brethren gathered to the Lord’s name have been charged with separating from true, morally upright, and doctrinally sound Christians. It is a proof to those who make this charge that we who are thus gathered don’t love other Christians, and that our position of ecclesiastical separation is an unchristian thing.
We believe that there could be a misunderstanding here. Firstly, let us make it abundantly clear: no one among the gathered saints wants to separate from true believers, but obedience to the Lord and His Word must take precedence over fellowship with other believers in their unscriptural churches. The principle is simple: we are called to separate from the disorder in the house. If true believers are content to go on in fellowship with the error and confusion there, then we have no choice but to separate from them too. This is a painful thing to do because we love all our brethren, but it is a real test of our willingness to act on Scriptural principles. We actually prove our love for our brethren who are scattered in the various denominations by our obedience to God. 1st John 5:2 says, “By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep His commandments.” The best thing we can possibly do for our fellow Christians is to go on in obedience to God. To join them in what is clearly unscriptural will not help them. So, obeying Scripture and withdrawing from the ecclesiastical error and confusion in the house of God is not a proof of the lack of love for the people of God, but a proof of our genuine love for them.
Secondly, the saints gathered to the Lord’s name meet in separation from error in the house, but if godly Christians want to join us, we would gladly receive them. We do not separate from such people. The problem is, many such Christians do not care to join us in fellowship at the Lord’s table. They are quite happy to remain in their unscriptural church denominations. What then? Does this mean that we should abandon the position of being gathered to the Lord’s name to be with them in their unscriptural churches? It seems that this is what our commenter/questioner would like us to do.
Furthermore, we do not separate ourselves from godly Christians on an individual basis. It has been said that we, as gathered to the Lord’s name, want to touch as many Christians in the community as we can—without compromising principles, of course. Then, if the Lord stirs up an exercise in some as to the truth of gathering, since they know who we are and what we hold, they are going to seek our advice and help in the truth.
The Difference Between Position and Practice
Notwithstanding, our commenter/questioner accuses those who hold and practise the truth of gathering of making a “distinction between believers”—even though all they are trying to do is obey Scripture and meeting on a clean ground in the house of God! The first proof that is brought forward to negate ecclesiastical separation is that all Christians are “in Christ” without distinction, and therefore, all Christians are to walk together without distinction on earth.
In a perfect world this would be true, but to insist on it today is to disregard the fact that there is an irremediable ruin in the Christian testimony. This erroneous reasoning stems from mixing up position and practice. As far as position is concerned, all Christians are “in Christ.” Our commenter/questioner is quite right in stating this. “In Christ,” is a term used in Paul’s epistles to denote the believer’s individual acceptance before God in Christ’s very place. The term indicates that we are in Christ’s place before God. This is our position before God in heaven; it does not refer to our responsibility among men on earth. To misunderstand this is to confuse position and practice.
An example of this misapplication of position and practice is, since we are all “in Christ,” where there is “neither male nor female” (Gal. 3:28), we do not need to observe those distinctions in the Church. Hence, women can be preachers, etc. However, as mentioned, “in Christ” is our position before God in heaven; whereas, “Let your women keep silence in the churches [assemblies]” (1 Cor. 14:34), is among believers on earth. These are two different things.
The Moral State of the Saints Gathered to the Lord’s Name
As a second proof that there is no such thing as ecclesiastical separation in the house of God, our commenter/questioner states that if the doctrine of being gathered by the Spirit to the Lord’s name were really true, then those who are thus gathered would “imitate” the moral features of Christ. The reasoning given for this is that the Spirit of God is “the Spirit of Christ” (Rom. 8:9), and if He has been working with believers, He would surely leave Christ’s imprint on them morally. Since those who believe in being gathered to the Lord’s name do not display those moral graces of Christ (to his or her approval), but rather manifest an “elitist attitude,” it proves that there is no such thing as being gathered to the Lord’s name, as the brethren teach.
The mistake here is making the moral state of those gathered to the Lord’s name the criterion to judge whether the ground they are on ecclesiastically is right or wrong. It is possible to be in a right position ecclesiastically but in a wrong condition spiritually. We don’t mean to justify the low state among the gathered saints, but it does not prove that the ground on which they have been gathered is wrong.
From as far back as 1910 people have had this erroneous idea. A case in point is when the brethren from the continent of Europe sent five men to inquire at Tunbridge Wells about the sad division that had occurred there in 1909, they carefully interviewed both sides and came to the conclusion that since the Lowe party spoke more graciously to them, they must be the right ones. Upon returning to the continent, they encouraged the brethren from France, Germany, Switzerland, Holland, etc., to side with the Lowe company. Their motives and intentions were right, but their principle for judging the situation was wrong, and consequently, they were misled.
There may very well be those among the gathered saints who have a proud, “holier than thou,” "elitist" attitude (Isa. 65:5). Perhaps some boast of being in a favoured place ecclesiastically and look disparagingly on those who have not been thus gathered. This is sad, but it doesn’t change the truth that God has a gathering center. It just means that some who are associated with that testimony are in a poor state. We can be assured that the Lord will act to take the pride out of those who boast in this way, because it is not in keeping with a remnant testimony (Zeph. 3:11-12). If the gathered saints are a testimony, they are testimony to the fact that the Church has failed in its responsibility. Those who are connected with such a remnant testimony today must be marked by humility. It may be one of the reasons why there are divisions and siftings among those gathered to the Lord’s name. But it does not negate the fact that God has a gathering center on earth.
The gathered saints have been incredibly patient with those who have attacked the ground of gathering. Is not this “the patience of Christ?” (2 Thess. 3:5; Rev. 1:9) They have also manifested “the meekness and gentleness of Christ” (2 Cor. 10:1) toward such who have these erroneous ideas in trying to correct them. Our commenter/questioner accuses the gathered saints of not having the spirit of Christ, but have his or her comments been made in that spirit? They appear to be accusations that border on railing—which is an outright moral disorder (1 Cor. 5:11). The last remark this person makes is an example. He or she insinuates that the gathered saints are on the level of the cults!
The Denominational Churches Are Not the Model
As a third proof that there is no such thing as being gathered to the Lord’s name in separation from the confusion in the house of God, our commenter/questioner sets before us the model of the denominational churches, such as Baptist, Calvary Chapel, etc. If he or she had their way, it appears that they would have us copy the unscriptural practices of these denominational groups and receive all and sundry, without question. To refuse a person to the breaking of bread because there is some Scriptural hindrance does not seem to enter into this person’s consideration. To him or her, it is dividing the flock of God.
It is quite true that these groups do not practise separation in their church fellowships. They do not have reception principles, as do the brethren. Such groups are usually open to all and sundry without any questions asked as to whether a person’s life is upright, or his doctrine is sound. But is this the model for us to follow? The result of such practices is that anything that is unclean in the house of God could come in and defile an assembly. To point to those man-made denominational systems as a model for a Christian assembly shows that this person has little understanding as to what constitutes a Scriptural assembly.
Summary:
There is such a thing as ecclesiastical separation in the Word of God (2 Tim. 2:19-22), even though our commenter/questioner is opposed to it. By obeying Scripture and practicing separation in the house of God, in his or her thinking, the gathered saints have aligned themselves with cultic practices!
We need to realize that there will always be reproach connected with this kind of separation. Hebrews 13:13 says, “Let us go forth therefore unto Him without the camp, bearing His reproach.” Isaiah spoke of the same thing. In recounting the sins of the nation of Israel, one of the things that he fastens on is that the godly man was assaulted for practising separation from evil. “He that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey” (Isa. 59:15). We cannot expect that things will be any better in our day. Therefore, we must be prepared to endure reproach for practising the truth of gathering.
Chapter Five: The Context and Interpretation of Matthew 18:20
Statement/Question:
Matthew 18:20, as I read it in the proper context, say from vs.15 to vs. 22, if I am not mistaken, this is addressing a situation where two persons in the Body of Christ are having a dispute over a matter, or one has wronged another, this is the Lord’s instruction, both individually and collectively, on what to do about it! And it continues to vs. 22! It seems to me, and I am open to be corrected, that we have drawn out vs. 20 from right in the middle of it, and use it, (or perhaps very sadly MISUSE it to apply suddenly to the Breaking of Bread or The Lord's Table, and have built an entire doctrine around it! I honestly don't understand why. I would really like to have a clear answer from the Word of God alone on this!
Whenever I’ve been discussing these things with various individuals, and they take a verse out of context in order to support their claims, I'll point that out. They tend to shrug and say, “Yes, but the principle still applies, does it not?” So, a couple years ago, when I was thinking about that, I realized that it was a means to justify taking Scripture out of the context it is given to us in, and “massage” the Word of God to mean something else entirely.
Answer:
We find this comment/question a little amusing because what this person finds fault with is the very thing that our questioners have been doing—that is, taking the verse out of its context.
Context, Context, Context
Someone said that in buying real estate there are three important rules you must follow to insure the best investment of your money. The first rule is location, the second is location, and the third is location. Similarly, in correct Bible interpretation the three most important principles are: #1) context, #2) context and #3) context. What we are saying here is that context is vital to understanding Scripture.
To say that Matthew 18:20 refers to Christians in the mission field, or having a social visit at a coffee shop, etc., is to take the verse out of its context. This is what our questioners have done. As mentioned earlier, Matthew 18:18-20 has to do with the local assembly acting in its administrative capacity in binding and loosing disciplinary actions. The Lord is there in the midst sanctioning the ground upon which the assembly is gathered and authorizing its administrative actions.
When a person makes an application from a particular verse in the Bible, he takes it out of its context and setting, and applies the principle of it (loosely or otherwise) to another situation altogether. This is acceptable, as long as we remember that it is an application and not the interpretation of the passage. As stated already, we will run into problems if all we ever hear is the applications of verses; we could begin to think that they are the interpretations. If we have a steady diet of this—which our generation has unfortunately had—we could lose the sense and meaning of the passage altogether and begin to build doctrines from it that have no connection with the context. One of the problems that we see today is that there are too few people who have put in the time to learn the truth of Scripture in its context.
If someone has taught that the context and interpretation of Matthew 18:20 is the breaking of bread, they are wrong! We have never heard anyone teach that this verse is referring to the breaking of bread, as our questioner says, though many times it has been read as an application in the breaking of bread. Perhaps hearing it read so many times in that meeting, he or she has thought that that is the meaning of the passage—but this is an assumption on the questioner’s part.
In speaking of interpretations and applications of Scripture, someone rightly said, “An apple never falls far from the tree.” Similarly, an application should not “fall” too far away from the interpretation of the passage, or it will lose its power. Matthew 18:20 being read in the breaking of bread would be an example of the apple falling under the tree. The principle in the verse has to do with the Lord being in the midst of the assembly to sanction the ground upon which the saints are gathered. Since this is true of all assembly meetings, whether it is a meeting for administrative actions, the breaking of bread, a prayer meeting, etc., the verse could be used to emphasize the fact that the Lord is in the midst on those occasions. On the other hand, to make an application from Matthew 18:20 for the comfort and encouragement of a couple of Christians who run into each other on the street or in the mission field is a bit like the apple falling down the road from the tree. It is somewhat of a stretch in the application, because those situations have nothing to do with an assembly meeting of any kind. But, as we have said earlier, if someone can get comfort from it, we wouldn’t want to take that away from him.
So then, to make this perfectly clear, the brethren who read Matthew 18:20 in the breaking of bread are not using the verse in its strict interpretation. And it is quite acceptable to do this, as long as we understand that it is an application that is being made for the occasion. The problem is that our questioner evidently hasn’t understood this. This person has assumed that the brethren are teaching that the verse has to do with the breaking of bread. And in checking it with the context, he or she has thought that it has been misinterpreted—but all the person who read that verse in the breaking of bread meeting was doing, was referring to the principle involved. He was making an application. So, it is not a “misuse” of the passage, but a misunderstanding on the part of our questioner. This shouldn’t be difficult for our questioners to accept because they have no problem making applications from that verse for all sorts of far out situations.
Eating the Sin-offering
But why is it that these people have misunderstood this? Can we rightly put all the blame on them? It may very well be that there is a moral hindrance on their part, resulting from not wanting the truth. But we believe that the brethren need to take some of the blame too. We need to “eat the sin-offering” in regard to this (Lev. 6:26). The Israelite who failed in some way was to bring a sin-offering to Jehovah to be forgiven and restored. When he did, the priest who offered it was to eat the sin-offering in the holy place. Even though it was not the priest who sinned, he was still to eat it, thus signifying the owning of his part in it. This is because the priests in Israel were responsible to teach the people what was necessary for them to go on with the Lord (Deut. 17:8-13; 31:11-12; Mal. 2:7); if someone failed in this, the priest was partly responsible, and therefore, he was to eat the sin-offering.
Similarly, in a Christian gathering, those who are older are responsible to see that the younger generation get the truth. If the younger brethren don’t want it, that is another thing. But sad to say, many of the comments that are being made in our Bible reading meetings in recent years are merely applications and clichés in connection with the passage under consideration, rather than the real teaching (interpretation) of the passage. This is partly because those who participate in the Bible meetings may not have been diligent to learn the true meaning of the passage, so they default to some “nice little thought” that they have enjoyed. The result is that we have a whole generation (or maybe two) that has grown up around us that is quite untaught as to the true interpretation of many passages in Scripture. Perhaps those of us who are older need to take some of the blame for this.
Summary:
To say that Matthew 18:20 has nothing to do with the ground upon which the assembly is gathered is altogether wrong; it is the strict interpretation and teaching of the passage. Matthew 18:18-20 is the first mention of the local assembly in the Bible; it is seen acting in its administrative capacity in binding and loosing.
Chapter Six: The Lord's Presence "Collectively" in Matthew 18:20
Comment/Question:
We read in the very last verses in Matthew Jesus commanding: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: AND, LO, I AM ... WITH YOU ALWAY, EVEN UNTO THE END OF THE WORLD. AMEN!” Earlier in this discussion I mentioned how in studying the Greek meaning for the word “gathered” (see Strong's #4863) I found it not consistent with what is often thought. (Besides the fact that in context this text is about what to do when there is a disagreement between people, and NOT the Lord’s table)! When asked about this, it is often said, “There is a difference between the Lord being ‘in the midst’ collectively, and Him being there individually.” I would appreciate getting FROM SCRIPTURE where that comes from!
Answer:
Sometimes certain phrases are used so frequently in our Bible readings that we grow accustomed to hearing them, and we never stop to consider what they mean. Many of these phrases are not Scripture, but they are Scriptural. The “ground of gathering” would be an example. Scripture doesn’t use that exact phrase, but it doesn’t mean that it’s unscriptural. “Ground,” used in this sense, simply means the foundation principle or principles of something. If someone said, “the ground of marriage,” we probably wouldn’t have a difficulty understanding what was meant. The person is obviously referring to the foundation principle(s) on which marriage is based. It’s just the same when it comes to the truth of the assembly. When we speak of “the ground of gathering,” we are referring to what constitutes the foundation principles of Christians being gathered together in assembly for worship, ministry, and administrative actions.
Two Ways the Lord is With His People—“Individually” and “Collectively”
As to the question about the Lord's presence being with His people, there are two different ways in which Scripture speaks of it. Brethren have used two terms—which are not found in Scripture but are Scriptural—to distinguish these two ways. There is the Lord’s presence “individually” and the Lord’s presence “collectively.”
Firstly, the Lord’s presence is with each one of His redeemed people, as individuals. Perhaps we could call this "personally." He is with believers, in this sense, to help them and to protect and comfort them, and for communion with them. The Lord said, “Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world” (Matt. 28:20). He also said, “I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee” (Heb. 13:5). Even if we don’t sense it, He is still there with us. For example, Luke said, “Jesus Himself drew near, and went with them. But their eyes were holden that they should not know Him” (Luke 24:15-16). It simply cannot be denied that wherever the Lord’s people go, He is there with them. “Whither shall I go from Thy Spirit? Or whither shall I flee from Thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, Thou art there: if I make my bed in hell [sheol], behold, Thou art there. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; even there shall Thy hand lead me, and Thy right hand shall hold me” (Psa. 139:7-10).
Since the Lord is with us wherever we go as individual believers, if a group of individual believers were to convene in some place for some purpose (religious or secular), the Lord would be there too. Although there may be a group of Christians gathered together in such a situation, this is not what is meant when brethren speak of the Lord’s presence being with His people “collectively,” as in Matthew 18:20 and 1 Corinthians 5:4.
The second way Scripture speaks of the Lord’s presence with His people is in the sense of sanctioning, authorizing, or approving them in some way. This is the sense in which His presence is spoken of in Matthew 18:20 and 1 Corinthians 5:4. He is there in their midst to sanction the ground upon which He has gathered Christians together, and to thus authorize their administrative actions of binding and loosing.
The Lord's presence being “in the midst,” as in Matthew 18:20, simply cannot be said of all Christian groups. He does not sanction with His presence the ground on which every Christian group meets for worship and ministry. If He were to do so, He would be sanctioning the divided state of the Christian testimony—for these groups meet separately from one another. The Lord would then be responsible for the sad divisions in the public testimony of the Church! This, of course, is something that He would not do, for it would deny the fact that there is a center of gathering. It would be a practical denial of what the Lord Himself prayed for in regard to believers on earth—that we would all be "one" in thought, aim, and purpose (John 17:11), and in testimony (John 17:20-21). The New Testament is replete with texts that tell us that God desires Christians to move together without divisions.
Moreover, if the Lord were “in the midst” of the denominational churches of Christendom, in this sense, then He is condoning and authorizing the unscriptural order on which those churches function. We refer to the clerical order that can be found in almost every place where Christians meet—the appointing of a clergyman (a so-called Pastor or Minister) to lead the meetings in worship and ministry. J. N. Darby said that it is "dispensationally a sin against the Holy Spirit," because in practice it denies the headship of Christ and the presidency of the Holy Spirit. It also interferes with the true priesthood of believers and the free exercise of gifts in ministry in the meetings (1 Cor. 12-14). Also, these places have orchestras and choirs, etc., that have been borrowed from the camp of Judaism, from which we are told to leave (Heb. 13:13). There are also many other unscriptural things connected with the ecclesiological order in those places.
Since this is the case, how could the Lord possibly sanction an order of things that is clearly contrary to His Word? Mr. Potter said, “Suppose the Lord gave His presence now to the different denominations, what would He be doing? He would be sanctioning what is contrary to Him. He can’t do that.” Mr. Potter also said, “You don’t mean to imply that the Lord is not in the midst of any others in the same sense? Decidedly He is not.” Mr. Darby said that if the Lord were in the midst of the various Christians fellowships according to Matthew 18:20, then “it would be sin in me not to go there.”
Furthermore, how could the Lord be in the midst of the brethren gathered to His name on Scriptural ground, sanctioning that position, and at the same time, be in the midst of the denominational churches sanctioning those positions? The ground the brethren gathered to the Lord's name take in separation from the churches is that of a "practical protest" (W. Potter) against the unscripturalness of denominational order. If the Lord were in the midst of both, sanctioning both, then He would be taking a position of against Himself! This shows how that misunderstanding Matthew 18:20 can lead to confusion.
Matthew 18:20 has to do with the assembly acting in its administrative capacity in binding and loosing disciplinary actions. The authority the assembly has for such actions comes from the Lord Himself being there in the midst sanctioning the very ground on which the assembly stands ecclesiologically. (This does not mean that the Lord’s presence in the midst sanctions their state—for it may be terribly low—but the ground on which they meet.) Perhaps a better word to use to indicate this collective aspect of the Lord’s presence would be, “corporate.” He is there “in the midst” corporately. “Corporate” comes from the Latin word “corporatum,” and refers to people being formed into a legislative body for some specific purpose. In this case, it is for worship, ministry, and the authorizing of administrative decisions.
Two Ways the Lord is “in the Midst”
Hence, the Lord's presence in the midst of His people is seen in Scripture in two different ways. Firstly, He walks among “the seven golden candlesticks,” and thus, is “in the midst” of the whole Christian profession at large (Rev. 1:12-13; 2:1). In this sense, He is with all Christian groups. He is in their midst assessing the state of things as a Judge.
Hence, if someone were to ask us whether we believed that the Lord was in the midst of the various Christian groups in Christendom, or that He was only in the midst of one, we would have to say that that it depended on which aspect it was. If it were in the aspect presented in Revelation 2-3, we would say that He is in the midst of all such Christian groups because they are all part of the public profession of Christianity. But, if it were in the sense of Matthew 18:20, we would say that He is not.
To summarize our remarks regarding the two aspects of the Lord’s presence, we could say that since the Lord is with Christians individually or personally, if a group of individual Christians were to get together in a church building, then He would be there with them too. But He would not be in their midst in the sense of Matthew 18:20. Some, however, have a difficulty with this. They say, “How can He be there in the midst, and yet not be there in the midst?” They conclude that it is pure nonsense. But the simple answer is that Scripture speaks of the Lord’s presence in two different ways. And, as discerning Christians, we are to “approve the things that are excellent [differ]” (Phil. 1:10).
Paul speaks of this other sense in which the Lord is "with" His people near the end of his epistle to the Thessalonians. He said to them, "The Lord be with you all" (2 Thess. 3:16). Why would he say that when he knew that the Lord was always with His people? Obviously, he was speaking of it in a different sense. He was referring to the Lord's giving His support and approval to their testimony and service in that region. Similarly, we might pray that the Lord would be with a brother in his preaching. We mean that the Lord would identify Himself with the brother in his preaching, and thus bless it. Compare 1 Chronicles 15:2.
The Lord Was Not With the Ten Northern Tribes
There is a type in the Old Testament that we believe helps us to understand these two aspects. When Jeroboam separated the ten tribes from God’s center in Jerusalem in a sad division, he set up two alternate centers for the departed tribes to worship in—one at Bethel and another in Dan (1 Kings 11-12). He erected two new altars in these places in separation from the “one altar” at Jerusalem (Deut. 12:27; 2 Chron. 32:12). However, it is significant that the Shekinah glory cloud, which is the visible symbol of the Lord’s presence (Ex. 13:21-22; 16:10; 40:34-38; Lev. 16:2; Num. 11:25; 14:10), did not go and rest on those new places, but remained in Jerusalem at the temple (2 Chron. 5:13-14). It stayed there until the people were carried away into captivity many years later (Ezek. 8:3-4; 9:3; 10:4, 18; 11:23; 3:23). This clearly indicates that the Lord did not own (sanction) those divergent places with His presence.
Some years later, as the divided state in Israel continued, Amaziah, the king of Judah, hired the army of Israel (the ten tribes) to go with them to war. But a prophet came to him and said, “O king, let not the army of Israel go with thee; for the LORD is not with Israel” (2 Chron. 25:7). The Lord was “not with” Israel in the sense of sanctioning their divided position, and thus, it would not be for blessing. This shows that the passage of time didn’t change the fact that the ten northern tribes were on a wrong ground having divided off from the divine center in Jerusalem.
Though that was the case, it is plain to see that the Lord loved the departed ten tribes and helped them—even the wicked king Ahab (1 Kings 20). He also sent prophets to minister to them—i.e. Elijah and Elisha. This shows that, in another sense, the Lord hadn’t given them up. So, in one sense, the Lord was not with Israel, but in another sense, He was. This is not a contradiction; it is just two different things.
There are, then, two different ways to look at the Lord’s presence in Christianity. Firstly, He is “in the midst” of all Christian groups, as Revelation 2-3 indicates, assessing the state of things as a Judge. He is there because He is with all Christians wherever they are (Matt. 28:20; Heb. 13:5). Secondly, the Lord is also “in the midst” of those whom the Spirit of God has gathered around Himself according to Matthew 18:20. He is there in this sense to sanction the ground upon which they have been gathered and to authorize their administrative actions. This is not difficult to understand if we want to know the truth.
The Presence of Holy Spirit in Two Ways—“In” and “With” Christians
The Lord’s presence with His people is not to be confused with the presence of the Holy Spirit. There are also two ways in which the Spirit of God is present with us: He dwells in every Christian, and He dwells in the professing house of God with Christians. The Lord first indicated this in John 14:17. He said, “He [the Holy Spirit] dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.” When the Spirit of God came and formed the Church on the day of Pentecost, this is exactly what happened—He “filled all the house where they were sitting,” and He also “sat upon each of them and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:2-4). See also 1 Corinthians 3:16 and 1 Corinthians 6:19. This second aspect explains how an unbeliever could come in among Christians and partake of the outward blessings and privileges that the Holy Spirit has brought to us, without ever being saved and indwelt by Him (Heb. 6:4).
The following comment is from “Help and Food.” “This presence [of the Lord in the midst] must be distinguished from the presence of the Holy Spirit in the saints or in the assembly as the house of God at large. The Holy Spirit is always in the saints and in the assembly of God at large unconditionally, as to any principle of gathering whatever; and His presence therefore does not sanction the gathering as such. This should be as plain as it is important, for it shows how God can work in His grace amid all the confusion of Christendom, without sanctioning the discordant and sectarian principles which prevail in the least. Christ’s presence in the midst, on the other hand, is sanction (not, of course of the state of the assembly).”
Since the Holy Spirit is in Christians, and also among Christians, if they were to meet in a church building the Spirit would be there with them. Though He may be there, He will be grieved because of the clerical principles in practice there, which displace His presidency in leading and guiding the proceedings. Though He may be blocked and hindered to some degree, He will work where and when He can. Thus, souls are saved and instructed in the Scriptures in these places. But the fact that the Spirit of God is present in the various church organizations has nothing to do with the Lord being in the midst to sanction the ground that those man-made sects are on.
Summary:
While the words “individually” and “collectively” in connection with the Lord’s presence are not found in Scripture, the truth that they are intended to convey is. Unfortunately, some have stumbled over the meaning of what brethren have called, the Lord’s presence “collectively.” Therefore, we have suggested the word “corporately,” to signify His presence in the midst of those He has gathered to sanction the ground upon which they are on. It is completely different from the Lord being with individual believers.
Chapter Seven: The Old Testament Principle of the One Gathering Center in Matthew 18:20
Comment/Question:
For those who wrongly apply the Old Testament principle of “one place” (in complete and intentional ignorance of what is expounded to us in John 4:21-24), have them look at Jeremiah 7:1-15. I'm going to venture a guess that IF (hypothetically, of course) the “assembly” was at one point THE “place,” then it no longer is.
Answer:
Our commenter/questioner objects to the thought that the Lord has a gathering center on earth in Christianity. He accepts that there was one in Old Testament times but believes that John 4:21-24 proves that there is no center of gathering today in Christianity. He says that anyone who does not see this is in “complete and intentional ignorance!”
But does John 4:21-24 say this? In this chapter, the Lord states that there would be a cessation of an earthly geographical center or worship. Earthly centres such as “this mountain” (Gerizim) and “Jerusalem” would no longer be owned of God (Gerizim never was) because a new order of things was coming in. But the Lord did not say that there wouldn’t be a gathering center in Christianity. If this passage says that there is no gathering center in Christianity, then let our commenter/questioner give us the words of Scripture that state it. Since such words cannot be found, it is clear that it is an assumption or a fabrication on his or her part. It is a serious exegetical mistake to infer things into Scripture.
The Lord mentioned three significant things that would mark the change from the old order of worship in Judaism to the new order in Christianity. He said, “Woman, believe Me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship Him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth.”
Firstly, there would be a cessation of an earthly geographic center for worship—whether in Gerizim (“this mountain”), or in “Jerusalem.” Hebrews 8:2; 9:11, 23-24; 10:19-22, indicate that Christians worship in spirit in the heavenly sanctuary in the immediate presence of God, but it is not mentioned here.
Secondly, there was a new revelation of the Person worshipped. In Judaism, God was worshipped as Jehovah, but now in Christianity He is to be worshipped as “the Father” of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Thirdly, there would be a new character of worship. The worship in Judaism was earthly and tangible, carried out through a system of rituals and ceremonies, but the new order of approach to God in Christianity would be purely a spiritual thing. Believers now worship the Father in “spirit” and according to a new revelation of “truth.”
But notice: in all that the Lord teaches here, He makes no statement that there wouldn’t be a center of gathering in Christianity. He was simply showing that the new Christian way of worship would not be like the old Jewish way, which was aided by mechanical means (music, incense, eating the sacrifices, rituals, ceremonies, etc.). In contrast to those outward things, the Apostle Peter states that our Christian worship would be characterized by “spiritual sacrifices” aided by the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit (1 Peter 2:5; Phil. 3:3).
As mentioned, the new place of worship in Christianity is in the immediate presence of God in the heavenly sanctuary (Heb. 8:2; 9:23; 10:19). The Jews worshipped in Jerusalem in the earthly sanctuary, which was only a pattern of that in the heavens (Heb. 9:23); Christians have the privilege of worshipping in that heavenly sanctuary. Since Christians worship “in spirit and in truth,” they don't need outward mechanical means to aid their worship. They can sit quietly on a chair and the Holy Spirit could produce in their souls, true praise and worship to the Father and the Son. This is true heavenly worship. All Christians—those scattered in denominations and those gathered to the Lord’s name—worship “in spirit” in the heavenly sanctuary! But unfortunately, all Christians do not all meet on earth on the true ground of the Church. This is because there has been a great ruin in the Christian profession and much ignorance of the truth of gathering. There is also an unwillingness to receive the truth among many Christians. The result is that there are hundreds of divisions (Christian fellowships) in the outward testimony of the Church that should not exist.
The One Place of Gathering in Christianity
Our commenter/questioner tells us that to hold that there should be "one place" of gathering for Christians is to be in “complete and intentional ignorance.” But yet, Mr. Darby et al speak of it in their writings. He said, “He [Christ] is the only center of gathering. Men may make confederations amongst themselves, having many things for their object or aim, but the communion of saints cannot be known unless each line converges towards the living Center. The Holy Ghost does not gather saints around mere views, however true they may be, upon that which the Church is, upon that which it has been, or that which it may be on earth, but He always gathers them around that blessed Person, who is the same yesterday, today, and forever. ‘Where two or three are gathered together in [unto] My name, there am I in the midst of them.’” He also said, “The great part of the collective conflict is with the wilful misunderstanding of the truth of Christ as the one gathering center ... ” Other quotes could be given. It is hard to believe that someone would call this gifted and spiritual man—who was definitely raised up of God to help the Church—“intentionally ignorant.”
The subject of a gathering center in Christianity was taken up in our first volume of “Questions.” Perhaps we can make a few more remarks on this subject here for those who are honestly looking for help.
Matthew 18:20—“Where”
The word, “where,” in Mathew 18:20, indicates that there is a place that the Lord has chosen to be in the corporate sense that we have been speaking of. The verse indicates that it is a place of His choosing, where He has set His name and where He gathers Christians. As mentioned, this place of gathering in Christianity is not a literal geographic center, but a spiritual ground involving Scriptural principles having to do with how Christians are to meet together for worship and ministry. Those on that ground are not gathered to principles, but to a Person in their midst—the Lord Jesus Christ.
Note: the verse does not say, “wherever”—as the “Phillips Modern English Translation” mistranslates it. Many think that this verse is simply saying that whenever and wherever a group of Christians get together—whether it is at a local coffee shop, or for some recreational purpose, etc.—the Lord is in their midst. Let us be clear about this; such a group would have the Lord’s presence with them—we established this in Chapter Six—but that is not what Matthew 18:20 is speaking about. They are misapplying this verse as far as interpretation is concerned; other verses would be better served to support their point. “Wherever,” makes it a place of our choosing; “where”—which is what Matthew 18:20 says—makes it a place of His choosing. This is why it is often called “the place of His appointment.”
The One Place Where the Breaking of Bread Was Instituted
Luke 22:7-11, indicates that there was a place on earth “where” the Lord had His disciples meet with Him to eat the Last Supper, and it was there that He instituted the Lord’s supper, which we know in Christianity. The point to get here is that He chose the place where they would meet to have the supper. This strongly suggests that when Christianity would be established, the Lord would have a place of His appointment—a gathering center—where believers would gather to remember Him. In Matthew 18, the emphasis is on the Lord's power to gather His own to the place, but in Luke 22, the onus is on believers seeking and finding that place of His appointment.
It is significant that while there were many houses in Jerusalem on that night when the Passover feast was kept, and the Lord's Supper was instituted, there was only one room—one place—that had the Lord’s presence.
Philadelphia—the One Assembly Position That Met the Lord’s Approval
The Lord’s addresses to the seven churches in Asia (Rev. 2-3) indicate that there is one ecclesiastical ground (corporate testimony) on earth that He acknowledges. This would have to be where the Spirit of God would lead exercised believers.
These addresses present a prophetic history of the Church. Each assembly, taken consecutively, represents a stage through which the Church would pass in history. It is significant that the Lord’s coming is mentioned in each of the last four churches, but it is not found in the first three. This indicates that what existed historically in the first three periods has passed off the scene, but what is presented in the last four churches continues until the Lord comes. The last four churches (Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea) set forth four existing conditions in the Church today.
The assembly at “Thyatira” represents a powerful system that arose in the Church around 580 A.D. known as Catholicism (Rev. 2:18-29). It depicts the period when this ecclesiastical system ruled the Church and the world (in Europe). The word “Thyatira” means, “continual sacrifice,” and refers to the Catholic Mass. “Jezebel” represents the wicked teaching of Catholicism. She called herself “a prophetess” and assumed a role in the Church that God had never given to her. She began to “teach and to seduce” her subjects with her evil doctrines and practices. The Catholic system has legislated its dogmas and forced them on the Christian profession and the world.
Since the Lord’s coming is mentioned in His remarks to Thyatira (Rev. 2:25), we are to understand that what this church represents will continue until He comes—the Rapture. It will actually continue on after the Rapture until the middle of the seven-year tribulation period—under the figure of Mystery Babylon (Rev. 17). This great ecclesiastical system is easily identified in the world today.
The assembly in “Sardis” represents Protestantism, which began in 1529 A.D. (Rev. 3:1-6). The word “Sardis” means “those escaping,” and signifies what happened at that time. Just as Jehu of old was used to break the hold that Jezebel had on the kingdom in Israel (2 Kings 9-10), God raised up the reformers and used them to break the power of Romanism. It allowed many of the saints to escape from its clutches. The two chief things that the reformers insisted on were the supremacy of the Bible over the Church, and that salvation was by faith alone.
It is significant that the Lord said to this assembly, “I have not found thy works complete.” What began in the power of the Spirit lapsed into cold, formal, dead orthodoxy. The reformers turned to the State for protection from the persecution of the Church of Rome and established the great national churches in Protestantism that still exist today. The assembly at Sardis represents the condition of things in Christendom after the impulse of the Reformation had passed. It is a description of what the reformers fell into—Protestantism. The reformers came out of Romanism, but unfortunately, Romanism did not altogether come out of them. Hence, the Protestant churches have a lot of Romish principles and practices.
Again, the Lord’s coming is mentioned in Sardis. It is actually His Appearing, which occurs after the Great Tribulation (Rev. 3:3). It means that many lifeless professors who were once connected with Protestantism will continue on, through the Tribulation period, and will be judged at the Appearing of Christ. Like Thyatira, what Sardis represents in the Christian world is also easily identifiable today in the great national Protestant churches and perhaps the dissenting church organizations that have come out of them.
The assembly in “Philadelphia” represents a movement in the Church that began in 1827 A.D. (Rev. 3:7-13). “Philadelphia” means “brotherly love” and signifies the happy state of a remnant testimony of believers who were exercised to return to first principles in regard to assembly order and practice.
In each of the previous churches, the Lord described Himself according to one of the features in which John had seen in chapter 1. But in addressing this church He presents Himself in an entirely new way, and this signifies a new departure. Heretofore, there had been a remnant of faithful believers who walked alone as individuals (Rev. 2:24-25; 3:4), but at this time, the Lord brought into existence a remnant testimony in a corporate sense.
The Lord presents Himself to this church in a three-fold way. In apprehending Him in these characteristics, three great things resulted at that time. First, the Lord said, “He that is holy, He that is true” (Rev. 3:7). Exercised Christians saw the Lord in His true character and understood that to have fellowship with Him, holiness and truth were required of them. This led them through various exercises in regard to separation from evil, which resulted in them breaking all unequal yokes—secular and ecclesiastical (2 Tim. 2:19-22).
Secondly, the Lord presents Himself as having “the key of David.” This is a reference to the Old Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah and the future of Israel (Isa. 22:22). At that time, the Lord opened to the saints an understanding of prophetic subjects, and there resulted a general awakening and interest in prophecy in the Christian profession. In learning prophetic subjects, they discovered that the Church had no part in the future earthly blessings of Israel but had its own distinct and heavenly blessings. They were given to see the true nature and calling of the Church, as well as its practical arrangements for worship and ministry while on earth. The full revelation of Christian truth that was once delivered to the saints (Jude 3) was recovered at this time—including the truth of the Lord’s coming (the Rapture).
Thirdly, the Lord presents Himself to this church as “He who opens and no man shall shut, and shuts and no man shall open” (Rev. 3:7). This points to the fact that what happened at that time was a sovereign movement of God that no man or devil could stop. Apprehending this gave those connected with this testimony the courage to meet together for worship and ministry according to the simplicity of Scripture, and there was no man that could forbid it (compare Acts 28:31).
It is significant that this church is marked by having “a little power.” They had the same spiritual power that the early Church had (Acts 4:33), but it was “little.” Hence, this revival was not a large-scale movement in the world. It had no great worldly status, as did the Catholic Church and the churches of Protestantism. Keeping His “Word” also marked this church. Historically, those connected with this movement were known for being students of Scripture (Acts 17:11). This church is also marked by not denying His “name.” They forsook all denominational names and titles and were happy to meet simply in His name alone (Matt. 18:20).
The seventh and last assembly, in “Laodicea,” represents a condition in the Church that grew out of what took place in Philadelphia (Rev. 3:14-22). What is described in Laodicea answers to the Church’s testimony in its closing days. “Laodicea” means, “the rights of the people,” and it denotes the modern democratic ideas that have influenced the Church in these last days. Churches choosing their elders and nominating their Pastors is what characterizes the so-called “evangelical” churches in Christendom today.
Laodicea is descriptive of a sector in the Christian testimony that is characterized by self-sufficient greatness that imagines itself to be endowed with spiritual riches and powers, but really, it is “wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked.” Instead of the Lord assessing the state of the assembly in Laodicea, as He does with the previous churches, the Laodiceans put Him outside their door and assume His place and assess their own condition as being right and good! This is quite incredible. This church is marked by gross indifference to the claims of Christ and is content to go on without Him. It’s hard to believe that they had the audacity to excommunicate the head of the Church! Such is the pitiful condition that marks modern Christendom in these last days. The state of those in Laodicea was “lukewarm” and so obnoxious to the Lord that He announced that He was “about to spue” them out of His mouth (reject them). This will occur at His coming—the Rapture.
The last two churches describe two ecclesiastical positions in Christendom, but they also describe two spiritual states among Christians. This means that it’s possible to be connected with Philadelphia’s ecclesiastical position but be in a Laodicean state. Laodiceanism is holding truth recovered in Philadelphian times (or parts thereof) nominally, or intellectually, without it having a moral bearing on one’s life. True Philadelphians are not occupied with themselves and their testimony; they are occupied with the Lord.
It is significant that Philadelphia is the only church of the four last churches in which there was nothing to judge. Unlike the other churches, there was not one word of condemnation given to them. They are not called to “repent,” as was the case with the other churches, because they were already in a state of repentance. They felt the broken and ruined state of the Church and confessed their part in its public failure (compare Daniel 9).
Since what Philadelphia represents goes on to the Rapture we can rejoice that there is an ecclesiastical position, or entity in Christendom today, that meets the Lord’s approval. But note: There are not two or three of these church positions the Lord approves of—there is only one. If He has chosen to put His name somewhere on earth, and He is gathering Christians there, as stated in Matthew 18:20, Philadelphia would have to be it. We cannot think that the Spirit of God would lead people anywhere but to that which meets the Lord’s approval. This is not to say that the gathered saints are without failure; it is not the state, but the ground on which they are gathered that He approves of. We must not confuse these two things. Nor do we wish to convey that WE are Philadelphia. It has often been said that the moment we say we are Philadelphia; we have just announced that we are Laodicea. Our point here is that there is something that answers to Philadelphia today in the Christian testimony. It is for the exercise of every Christian to be identified with it.
Jerusalem—a Type of the One Gathering Center in Christianity
The Lord told the children of Israel that He had chosen a place in the land of Canaan where He wanted them to bring their offerings and worship (Deut. 12). He marked out the place for king David by causing fire to fall from heaven on the spot (1 Chron. 21:22–22:1). The place was Jerusalem (2 Chron. 3:1; 6:6).
We cannot think that the divine center of gathering in the Old Testament has no counterpart in the New Testament; it is a type of the spiritual gathering center in Christianity. The Scriptures we have looked at already in the New Testament confirm the veracity of this remarkable type. It is significant that the characteristics that marked the place of God’s appointment in the Old Testament are the same in principle of the place of the Lord’s appointment in Christianity. Some of these corresponding features are:
Jerusalem was the place the Lord had “chosen” for Israel to gather—the people didn’t choose it (Deut. 12:5; 2 Chron. 6:6). Similarly, the ground that the Lord has chosen in Christianity for Christians to meet together on, is not wherever they choose to meet, but “where” He has chosen to gather them (Matt. 18:20; Luke 22:7-10).
Jerusalem was the place where the Lord put His “name” (Deut. 12:5, 11). Similarly, the Lord has set His name as the center of gathering today—“where two or three are gathered together unto My name” (Matt. 18:20).
Jerusalem was the place where the Lord’s presence would be known—“His habitation” (Deut. 12:5). Similarly, the Lord is “in the midst” of Christians whom He has gathered by the Spirit (Matt. 18:20).
Jerusalem was the place where the Israelites were to offer their sacrifices to God and not in any other place (Deut. 12:6, 11-14; Lev. 17:1-9). Similarly, Christians are to meet together for worship at the place of the Lord’s choosing (Matt. 28:16-17).
Jerusalem was the place where the Israelites were to have happy fellowship with their brethren (Deut. 12:7, 12, 18; 14:26). Similarly, the center of gathering today is a place for “fellowship” (1 Cor. 10:16-17 – W. Kelly’s Trans.; Acts 2:42).
Jerusalem was the place where Israel held their yearly feasts (Deut. 16:2, 6, 11, 15-16). Similarly, all assembly meetings are to be held on the same ground of gathering (1 Cor. 5:4).
Jerusalem was the place where administrative, binding decisions were made (Deut. 17:8-13). Similarly, those at the center of gathering in Christianity have authority to act in the Lord’s name in making binding decisions (Matt. 18:18-20; 1 Cor. 5:4).
Jerusalem was the place where the Israelites brought their tithes. These were material gifts to the Lord (Deut. 26). Similarly, the “collections” of the saints are to be made on the first day of the week and included in the worship offered to the Lord (1 Cor. 16:1-2; Heb. 13:15-16).
Jerusalem was the place where Israel was to gather to hear and learn the truth of God’s Word (Deut. 31:11-13). Similarly, the Lord would have believers to be together to learn “the Apostles doctrine” at the place of His appointment (Acts 2:42; 1 Tim. 4:13).
Jerusalem was the place where prayer was made (1 Kings 8:28-29). Similarly, in Christianity we are to have prayer meetings at the place of His appointment (Acts 2:42; 4:23-31).
This clear correlation with the Old Testament place is too plain to deny.
The Fact That There is a Divine Gatherer Means That There is a Gathering Center
In John 16:13, the Lord said, “When He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth.” “All truth” would include assembly truth. Hence, every exercised Christian desiring to be instructed in the truth of the assembly, and how God would have us to gather for worship and ministry, can count on the Spirit of God to teach them. As mentioned earlier, Matthew 18:20 implies that the Holy Spirit is the divine Gatherer. Since this is true, would He lead Christians to different centers that are in division from one another? If He does do this, then the Spirit of God is to blame for the Christ-dishonouring divisions in the Church’s testimony! He would be the Author of the divided state in Christendom! Surely no sober Christian would charge the Spirit with such a thing.
Hamilton Smith said, “Is the Holy Spirit gathering all the various divided and independent companies who seek to appropriate this promise [in Matt. 18:20]? Such an assumption necessarily involves placing the blame for the existing deplorable and Christ-dishonouring divisions and independency upon the Holy Spirit. Are these multi-centers seen in the professing Church due to the work of ‘the Spirit of truth’ who came to glorify Christ? Far be the thought!”
Now, if God has a divine Gatherer, then He has a gathering center to which the Gatherer is leading Christians. Understanding this, we can see why those who oppose the truth of a gathering center in Christianity want to get rid of any thought of there being a divine Gatherer. It seems that they labour night and day looking for ways to prove that Matthew 18:20 doesn’t refer to the Spirit’s work of gathering. But “the Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35).
A Hypothetical Illustration
At the Ottawa General Meetings (1987), the following illustration was given. “I think we need to go back to the very beginning of things—to the day of Pentecost. On that day the Spirit of God came down, and He united about one hundred and twenty by one Spirit into one body. They were all gathered there, gathered to the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ. But suppose now that Peter has a quarrel with John, and they decide that they are going to set up separate [fellowships]. Then there would be a company gathered with those who followed in fellowship with John, and those who followed Peter. Could we say that the Spirit of God would equally lead to one place or the other, and that it would make no difference? Wouldn’t that be a denial of what we are reading in this Scripture [Eph. 4], that ‘there is one body and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling?’” “Is the Spirit of God gathering in division? Is He saying, ‘This group of Christians should gather in this company, and this group of Christians should gather in another company?’ That would be denying the fact of what the Spirit of God is actually doing here, in gathering out a bride for Christ, in raising up a testimony to the truth of the one body and exhorting us to keep ‘the unity of the Spirit.’” “We must always recognize that the Spirit of God is not gathering to two centers. I believe, just as in the Old Testament—the Lord chose a place where He would put His Name there, and there was His presence, and there was His authority. So, it is also true today; it is not a particular spot on the earth like Jerusalem was, but it is a Person, and gathered on the ground of the one body. His presence is His approval of the manner in which we gather ... .Let us not deny the fact that the Spirit is gathering to Christ, and that Christ is the Center. His presence is what makes the Place and gives authority for the action in that Place.”
J. N. Darby said, “If there will be one such [local assembly], and another is set up by man’s will independent of it, the first only is morally in God’s sight the assembly of God, and the other is not at all so, because it is set up in independency of the unity of the body.” If Christians choose to meet on other principles that were divergent to that of the one body of Christ, would the Spirit of God own such fellowships?
Where is God’s Center of Gathering on Earth Today?
So then, is there a divine center of gathering for Christians on earth? Yes, Scripture teaches that there is. Where is it then? Now that is for each exercised Christian to search out. God wants us to be exercised about it and to seek the Lord’s mind for guidance, just as Peter and John asked the Lord “where” that place was in their day (Luke 22:9). “It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter” (Prov. 25:2).
Summary:
There is nothing wrong with applying the Old Testament type of the one gathering center (Jerusalem) in Christianity, because the New Testament supports the fact that there is one ground of fellowship upon which the Lord gathers Christians. The center today, of course, is not a geographic center, but a spiritual ground of principles upon which the Spirit gathers Christians. If God has a gathering center on earth, then it could only be in one ecclesiastical position. If the Lord were in the midst of all Christian groups, sanctioning their position in a collective or corporate sense (Matt. 18:20), then He would be authorizing or sanctioning the many divisions in the Church’s public testimony. This is something that He would not do, for it would be a denial of the truth that there is one divine center of gathering—which is Christ Himself.
Chapter Eight: The Shortcomings of Zealots Do Not Disprove the Truth of Gathering in Matthew 18:20
Statement/Question:
Recently a brother stated publicly that he thought that when an individual desired to partake of the Communion here, locally, that it should be mandatory that he first state that “the Lord is ONLY in the midst” with “us” (who feel we follow the Scriptures more obediently, etc., or whatever all the reasons may be) and not in any other fellowships!! There are a great number of us that simply cannot do that! That is for HIM to decide, NOT me!
Answer:
The shortcomings and failures of brethren are no excuse to set aside the truth. If some zealot has stated something that is “over the line,” it cannot be taken as a statement of doctrine that the brethren hold and acknowledge. Whoever made the statement quoted above has clearly gone too far. This would be an example of what we mentioned in the introduction of well-meaning brethren making unbalanced and unguarded statements in their desire to stand for the truth. Such can frustrate the young people, but it in no way sets aside the truth that God has a gathering center to which the Spirit of God is gathering Christians.
The person who made this unguarded statement does not have the support of the prior generations of older brethren. Mr. W. Potter said, “I am not happy in having to think at times the Table of the Lord is made, as it were, a convenience. For instance, those with us have relatives visiting them; they are members of some denomination, but come with their relatives to the meeting, and desire to partake with us of the Supper ‘simply as Christians.’ It has seemed to me that an upright conscience and integrity would take them to their church. They simply come for the occasion because they do not care to break away from the friends for the time being. In this I am not happy.
“It has seemed to me that in such cases our responsibility is not to refuse them, but to put before them why we are thus gathered, that our position is a practical protest against the unscripturalness of denominations, and that they, in partaking with us of the Supper in that act, for the time, identify themselves with us in this position, which is a protest against that with which they are connected and are confessedly upholding. Are they willing, even for the time being, to identify themselves with us? Where souls are exercised, it is another matter, and it seems to me one would feel quite free in sitting at the Table with them.
“Is not exercise of soul the important thing? Hence no one rule can be laid down. It would surely not be of the Lord to require of a godly exercised soul connected with any of the, what we may call, orthodox denominations, that he severs his connection with his church, before we allow him to participate with us at the Table. To do this, it seems to me, is to practically deny the ground upon which we are gathered.
“As to those meetings professedly gathered to the Lord’s name, I believe it to be quite another matter. They are professedly gathered to His name and should know why they are in separation from us and we from them. Should any of them desire to partake of the Table with us, their reasons for this should be inquired into and action taken according to what is found. There is always more intelligence with them, as to divine truth than with those saints in the denominations, and I believe, generally speaking, that they are not as ignorant of the causes of the divisions among us as some of them would sometimes have us think.”
This quote shows that Mr. Potter didn’t believe that we should insist on statements and promises from those wanting to be in fellowship. We don’t make people swear to a creed or have them make a statement of faith, or anything like that; we receive simple souls in faith, trusting that they will grow in their apprehension of the truth.
This principle is seen in 2 Chronicles 30-31. Hezekiah called the people of Judah and those from the departed ten tribes to come to the divine center in Jerusalem and keep the Passover. He did not insist on them destroying their idols before they came. After they did come, and enjoyed the Passover at the divine center, they went home and destroyed their idols and images. (We are not insinuating that the man-made denominations in Christendom are akin with idolatry. We are speaking of the principle of a person disconnecting himself from prior religious error.) The interesting thing to note here is that Hezekiah had not told them to do it! It was a response from their hearts that came purely from their being in the Lord’s presence in Jerusalem.
There is a difference between someone associated with clerical error in the denominations out of ignorance and someone actively upholding and promoting it. A believer, who may be ignorant of God’s Scriptural order for Christian worship and ministry, may come from a man-made denomination that practises a clerical order of things, wanting to break bread at the Lord’s table. Even though he may be associated with that ecclesiastical error, if he is a simple soul, it is not likely that he is at that point, guilty of ecclesiastical evil. And if such a person is known to be godly in walk and sound in doctrine, there should be no hindrance to allowing him to break bread, even though he has not formally severed his association with that denomination. This does not mean that the brethren believe in an open reception to the Lord’s Table. The Lord’s Table is not a closed table, nor is it an open table, but a guarded table. Some who advocate an open reception policy have tried to take things written by early brethren to prove that they taught that the Table should be open. But they, wilfully or ignorantly, have emphasized only certain parts of those writings that suit their agenda. Oftentimes in those same writings there will be statements that qualify those remarks insisting on care being taken in receiving.
The question is, “When does ignorant ecclesiastical association become ecclesiastical evil?” We believe the simple answer is: “When the person’s will is involved.” To ascertain this will require priestly discernment on the part of the assembly. In such cases the assembly needs to be much cast on the Lord to know His mind in the matter. Under normal conditions, the brethren should allow him to break bread, hoping and trusting that God has been working in his heart—and that he will, after being at the Lord’s supper, leave that ground he formerly has been on and continue with those gathered to the Lord’s Name.
Therefore, we do not go around charging Christians in their various church denominations with holding ecclesiastical evil. Such persons may be identified with that false clerical system prevalent in Christendom, but being that they are ignorant, we can hardly hold them guilty. Jude, after speaking of the false clerical order in his epistle, speaks of the need of “making a difference” in regard to “some” in the confusion in Christendom (Jude 11-13, 22-23). This shows that we must distinguish between the leaders and the led when it comes to ecclesiastical evils.
If a person wants to continue to go to both places regularly, it is probably a sign that his or her will is at work, and it should not be permitted. J. N. Darby remarked, “Difference in ecclesiastical views is not a sufficient reason for shutting out a soul. But if one wanted to be one day among the brethren, the next day among the sects, I should not allow it, and would not receive such a person; for, instead of using the liberty which belongs to him to enjoy the spiritual communion of the children of God, he puts forward the pretension to change the order of the house of God, and to perpetuate the separation of Christians.”
Admittedly, in matters of reception to the Lord’s Table, it would be simpler to have a protocol (a formal procedure that we follow). We could then insist on a person conforming to certain rules and regulations before they are received. But this tends to substitute a system for simple communion with the Lord and our need for priestly discernment in these matters. Due our state we sometimes default to this sort of thing in receiving, rather than having our state tested. At times brethren have fallen back on protocol rather than falling on the Lord’s breast to learn from Him what His mind is when someone comes seeking to be in fellowship. But we are thankful that there is still care being exercised in receiving among brethren generally, though at times we might err on the side of caution.
Sectarianism
An often-heard cry among those who want a wider path is, “The Brethren are so sectarian!” Some of these complaints are the result of hearing statements from zealots such as our commenter/questioner reports—to which we have to humbly “eat the sin-offering.” It is possible to have “a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge,” and this could be detrimental to the testimony, and even stumble some (Rom. 10:2; Gal. 4:17-18).
However, it is clear that some who cry “sectarianism,” have never really weighed what they are saying. Sectarianism is zeal for, and an attachment to, a sect. It denotes an excessively zealous narrow-mindedness that quickly judges and condemns all who are not of that sect. Now, do the brethren really do that? Perhaps our readers have heard some person come off with something that is a little “over the line,” but that is not the general collective statement of brethren gathered to the Lord’s name. It may appear that way to those who are defensive of the denominational church position. Such sensitivity may come from their interaction or attendance at some denominational fellowship. And, as a result, when anyone gets anywhere near defending the truth of gathering, they see it as sectarianism. Brethren should zealously insist on principles from the Word of God; it is not wrong to do that. Paul and Barnabas stood firm on things when the truth was being challenged and undermined. It says, “To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour” (Gal. 2:5).
If we stood back and counted these fiery zealots who have these so-called “sectarian views,” it probably wouldn’t be but a handful of people spread across the country! The world is full of strange and weird personalities. Who are we to tell the Lord that He can’t save and gather a few of them! To take the idiosyncrasies and outlandish statements that some of these people make as being “the creed of the brethren” is a pretty weak argument to put forth to condemn the truth of being gathered to the Lord’s name.
We have noticed, over the years, that many of the same ones who complain about the “sectarianism” among the brethren, and feel that they have to leave that ground “for conscience sake,” we find later they have joined some church denomination! These churches are nothing but sects in the fullest sense of the word. If these people were so concerned about sectarianism, why would they go there? You would think it would be the last place they would go. It doesn’t make sense, and it shows that they couldn’t have had any real exercise about sectarianism. It seems that it is just an excuse to leave the assembly.
Summary:
The shortcomings and failures of brethren are no excuse to set aside the truth. If some zealot has spoken “unadvisedly with his lips” (Psa. 106:33), it is no reason to throw out the truth of God having a gathering center.
Chapter Nine: The Sad Divisions Among Brethren Do Not Disprove the Truth of Gathering in Matthew 18:20
Statement/Question:
There are so many divisions among the Brethren and people leaving; how can we think that they have the Lord’s approval? Don’t these things prove that the Brethren are on a wrong footing altogether?
Answer:
It’s true; sad to say, on the average, there has been a division among those gathered to the Lord’s name every 20-25 years. One Church historian reported, “The Brethren are known for rightly dividing the Word and wrongly dividing themselves.” This is sadly true. We might well ask ourselves why it is so. One answer would be the working of the will of the flesh. If we walked in self-judgment divisions would not happen. But when we refuse to judge ourselves, God uses other means to humble us, and allows a division to occur.
The Lord wants reality in those connected with the testimony of being gathered to His name. Since He desires “truth in the inward parts” (Psa. 51:6), He would have our principles to be consistent with the stand we have taken in being gathered to His name. When this is not the case, the Lord sifts His people by allowing divisions and scatterings to occur until there remain those who genuinely hold the principles of gathering on which we meet. The Lord uses such shake-ups to purify His testimony.
Zephaniah 3:11-13, speaks of the Lord’s work of sifting His people. The context of this passage has to do with the remnant of Israel, but the principle stated in it applies to the Lord’s dealings with His people in any dispensation. “I will take away out of the midst of thee [Jerusalem] them that rejoice in thy pride, and thou shalt no more be haughty because of My holy mountain. I will leave in the midst of thee an afflicted and poor people, and they shall trust in the name of the LORD. The remnant of Israel shall not do iniquity, nor speak lies; neither shall a deceitful tongue be found in their mouth: for they shall feed and lie down, and none shall make them afraid.”
There will always be some born and raised among those gathered to the Lord’s name who have never really made the things that they have been connected with their own. Some may have taken their place at the Lord’s Table out of convenience and may not even believe the principles on which they are gathered. Others may have once embraced the truth of being gathered to the Lord’s name but have become defective in regard to them. Like those on the sailing vessel that traveled to Italy, they simply have had “enough” of the wheat—what they might call “Brethren doctrine”—and have thrown it overboard (Acts 27:38). But strange as it is, they remain among the gathered saints.
When there are those gathered to the Lord’s name who hold divergent principles as to gathering—perhaps Amalgamation principles, or Open Brethren principles, or further out yet, denominational church principles—and they are vocal about their views, and press for them, our collective voice in the community is weakened. The result is that the brethren no longer “with one mind and one mouth glorify God” (Rom. 15:6). We wonder why such people would want to be among the gathered saints when they don’t believe the principles that are part and parcel with that position. We don’t want to see anybody leave the assembly, but it seems rather hypocritical to be connected with this remnant position and yet not believe in the very principles of its existence.
At any rate, when such a condition exists among the Lord’s people, He works to purify the testimony. He will allow a storm to sweep over an assembly in the way of some trouble to test those who are there, and thus manifest the true state of things. 1st Corinthians 11:19 speaks of this. It says, “There must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.” Similarly, the captain of a sailing ship does not know how competent his sailors are until they are tested in a storm; then, it becomes manifest who is and who isn’t. Amos 3:6 says, “Shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?” This shows that the Lord allows—even sends—these tests. If we are among brethren merely because of family connections, or for some other reason, the Lord will test and “manifest” it. The fact that there has been a division, or a scattering, on the average of every 20-25 years, tells us that every generation must be tested as to these assembly truths.
It is important to understand that the Lord is the divine Gatherer, but He is also the divine Scatterer. In both cases, He has an agent. In gathering, He uses the Spirit of God, but in scattering He uses the devil. There may be times when the Lord, in His governmental dealings with His people, allows Satan to get in among them and scatter some (Num. 21:6; Luke 22:31; John 10:12). This is because scattering is as much a work of God as is gathering (Gen. 3:23-24; 11:8-9; Deut. 4:27; 28:64; 1 Kings 12:24; 17:20-23; 2 Kings 24:1-4; Jer. 15:1, 4; 31:10; Ezek. 20:37-38; 36:19; Amos 9:9-10; Zeph. 3:11-12; 1 Cor. 10:5). When the Lord allowed the great split among the tribes of Israel, Rehoboam tried to recover the ten tribes that followed Jeroboam into division, but the Lord sent a prophet to Rehoboam and who told him to cease and desist, saying “Return every man to his house; for this thing is from Me” (1 Kings 12:24).
We need not fear these actions of the Lord among His people, but they should humble us. “Hear ye the rod, and who hath appointed it” (Mic. 6:9). J. N. Darby said that he had never seen sifting result in anything but what was good; the candlestick burns brighter afterwards. So, when a storm comes into an assembly gathered to the Lord’s name, it doesn’t mean that that assembly is on the wrong ground, but that the Lord is testing His people. Those connected with the testimony, who don’t hold the principles on which they are professedly gathered, may be sifted out at such a time, and others will be gathered in to continue the testimony until the Lord comes. I suppose we could say that it is God’s maintenance program. It is part and parcel of being gathered to His name. Hence, divisions will continue to happen until the Lord comes.
This may not be the only reason why God allows divisions to happen, but it is certainly a major reason. If the principles of gathering are indeed the truth of God, we can be sure that Satan will attack it. Scripture tells us that in the latter times “seducing (demonic) spirits” will get a hold of the minds of some and they will “depart from the faith” (1 Tim. 4:1). Certain principles and practices will be given up, and oftentimes the very ones who give them up are the most vehement opponents against the truth. Satan will use such to do his work of dividing the saints, and God will allow it to sift His people.
Summary:
Divisions and scatterings among the Lord’s people gathered to His name are not a sign that they are meeting on unscriptural principles, but that the Lord is testing and sifting those connected with that testimony. If the absence of division constitutes who is on the right ground, then the Catholics would be right—they really have only had one major division in 1400 years!
Chapter Ten: The Exercise of the Gifts in Relation to the Gathering Center in Matthew 18:20
Comment/Question:
If the gifts are given to the whole Church to profit therefrom, and most of them are in the denominations today, how are we to benefit from these gifts when we who are gathered to the Lord’s name have been told not to go to the churches where they are?
Answer:
Fellowship with denominational church order has been addressed in the first volume of “Questions.” It was pointed out there that saints gathered to the Lord’s name attending church services in the denominations is:
Hypocritical because we identify ourselves with an unscriptural church position that we protest against.
Putting our sanction on the unscriptural order in the church denominations.
To lose our power as witnesses of the truth of Scriptural assembly order.
To associate the Lord’s table with the unscriptural order in the churches.
To put ourselves in danger of getting drawn away into the church denominations.
The question of being taught by the gifted men in the church denominations was not touched on at that time and deserves attention here.
Should We Disobey the Truth to Gain Truth?
God has given “gifts” to the Church for the perfecting of the saints with a view of them supporting the truth by walking in it and helping others understand it (Eph. 4:11-14). There is no question that most of these gifts in the body of Christ today are in the various denominational fellowships in Christendom. The question is, can those who have a gift for teaching and preaching in the churches give us spiritual food, and should we go there to be fed by them?
First of all, if the Lord has led us to separate from the confusion and ecclesiastical error in the “great house” (2 Tim. 2:19-21), then surely He wouldn’t turn around and tell us to go back into it for fellowship and spiritual food. It is clear, therefore, that those who have fled to a remnant position in the house of God, being gathered to Lord’s name (2 Tim. 2:22), are to remain in the place to which He has called them. If the Lord has called us to this separated position He will sustain us there. The advice that Boaz gave to Ruth was, “Hearest thou not, my daughter? Go not to glean in another field, neither go from hence, but abide here fast by my maidens” (Ruth 2:8). This is good advice for us. It simply cannot be that the Lord would have us to go into something that He has called us out of. Surely, we don’t think that we should give up a principle of truth in order to gain truth. Paul said that if he returned to that which God had called him out of, it would make him “a transgressor” (Gal. 2:18).
The enemy of our souls would like us to compromise, in some way, just as Sanballat and Geshem tried to get Nehemiah to “meet together in one of the villages in the plain of Ono” (Neh. 6:2). Nehemiah answered, “I am doing a great work, so that I cannot come down” (Neh. 6:3). We need to see that supporting the truth of gathering by walking in it and teaching it is a “great work” that we can do for the Lord. Just as Nehemiah and those with him built the wall of the divine center in Old Testament times (Jerusalem), we can be engaged in supporting the truth of God’s gathering center in Christianity. If someone tries to take us away from it, we need to reply in the same manner as Nehemiah. It may not look like much of a work for God, but it is truly something that He values. The Lord commended the Philadelphians in their effort to maintain the testimony that He had “opened” for them. Let us be encouraged to continue in this work.
The enemy will not give up in his attempt to get us to compromise our position—just like Sanballat and Geshem sent to Nehemiah “four times after this sort,” and then later a “fifth time” (Neh. 6:4-5). It is sad that some of our younger brethren do not see value in the truth of gathering, nor does it seem that they are established in the principles of Scripture to be able to withstand the overtures of the enemy, and thus, they get drawn into the church denominations.
We are not saying that the gifted teachers and preachers in the churches couldn’t give a person spiritual food, but that we would not want to violate our consciences and go from the position to which the Lord has led us. Another illustration from the Old Testament emphasizes this point. In the wilderness Moses separated the tabernacle to a place “without the camp” because of the corruption in the camp (Ex. 33:7). Then some time later, he “gathered the seventy men of the elders of the people, and set them round about the tabernacle.” But Joshua noticed that two of the men didn’t leave the camp—Eldad and Medad. They continued to prophesy there, and the people in the camp heard it (Num. 11:24-26). Was it the right place for these two men to be, since they had been called out of the camp? Did it mean that Joshua and others should go back into the camp because those two were there? Perhaps if Joshua and others did go into the camp and heard Eldad and Medad, they may have been helped by something in their ministry—but a higher calling had precedence over them.
Joshua wanted Moses to forbid the men to prophesy in the camp, but Moses said, “Enviest thou for my sake? Would God that all the LORD’S people were prophets, and that the LORD would put His Spirit upon them” (Num. 11:27-29). Similarly, we leave every one of the gifted men in the denominations to minister where they think they should. Scripture says, “To subvert a man in his cause, the Lord approveth not” (Lam. 3:36). But this does not mean that we should join them when we’ve been called to separate to a place where we are gathered to the Lord’s name.
Do They Have the Truth to Give?
Another point that needs to be considered here is that gift and knowledge are two different things. Do these gifted men in the church denominations understand the Christian revelation of the truth so as to be able to give it to us? We realize that what we have to say next could come across as arrogant and bigoted. We do not mean to give a wrong impression in any way—as if the gathered saints are the only ones who have the truth—but the question does need to be asked. Surely, they have some truth, but do they have the truth in its right order? If they don’t know the truth, would they be able to give it to us? They may very well have a diploma from some well-known theological seminary, but that does not necessarily mean that they know the truth. We do not question whether these men have a spiritual gift, nor do we question their sincerity and personal godliness.
We have no intention of being offensive, but to make our point clearer, let’s look for a moment at some of the major Bible themes with this in mind:
Ecclesiology (Church doctrine and practise)
Could we go to a Christian denominational church to learn the truth of the assembly? Could they teach us how the Church should meet together for worship and ministry according to the Scriptures? It is highly unlikely. Even if those who preach and teach in those places knew of the Scriptural order for a local assembly, they surely wouldn’t teach it, because it would condemn the very position that they are in. We conclude, therefore, that we would not get help on assembly truth in the denominations.
Eschatology (Prophetic truth)
Could we go to a denominational church to learn the truth of prophecy? Perhaps there would be some basic things that the gifted preachers and teachers could give a person. But in all honesty, we do not know of one such Pastor or Minister who has the order of prophetic events close to the Scriptural order. Errors—from having Russia attack Israel at the beginning (or near the middle) of the seven-year Tribulation, to who the Antichrist is, and the order of judgments that will fall at the end of the Great Tribulation, etc.—they are generally in a fog as to these major tenets of prophecy. Would they know what the Indignation is? Or what the Consumption is? Or what the two attacks of the Assyrian are? Even simple things such as to the Lord’s coming; many are not sure whether the Church will go through the seven-year Tribulation or be taken out beforehand—some think that it will be raptured in the middle! If a person is not clear on these things, there will be other related topics in prophecy that will not be understood either. It is a bit like doing a jig-saw puzzle; if we put a piece in place that doesn’t belong there, then there will be another piece that will not fit somewhere else. We are quite sure, therefore, that we wouldn’t get accurate teaching in the way of prophetic truth from the Pastors and Ministers in mainstream Christianity.
Soteriology (Salvation truth and its related blessings)
Can the Pastors and Ministers in the denominational churches teach us about salvation and its related blessings? We can thankfully say that they do preach the gospel in the evangelical churches in Christendom. But taking a closer look at the distinctive truths in the New Testament, known as Paul’s doctrine (2 Tim. 1:13; 3:10), we would have to say that there are many points that these preachers and teachers are not clear on. Besides not being clear as to the true nature, calling, and practice of the Church and prophetic truth, most denominational preachers do not understand: new birth, free-will, the quickening and sealing of the Spirit, eternal life, sonship, the old man and the new man, the baptism of the Spirit, the difference between sin and sins, the difference between purchase and redemption, the various aspects of sanctification, the difference between eternal and governmental forgiveness, many of the types in Scripture, etc. It is, admittedly, difficult to make an accurate list here because all Pastors and Ministers do not have the same level of understanding, and we do not want to stereotype.
Let us make ourselves perfectly clear here; these gifted men can most assuredly give a believer some helpful answers as to salvation and following the Lord, but when it comes to the distinctive tenets of Paul’s doctrine, it is not likely that we will get sound teaching as to those things in a church denomination. The more we understand the distinctive points and nuances of Paul’s doctrine, the clearer this will be.
Dispensational Truth(Truth concerning the various administrations of God’s stewardship of man, particularly that of Israel and the Church)
Will the preachers and teachers in the denominational churches teach us dispensational truth? The majority of the churches in Christendom today hold a covenantal view of interpreting Scripture (the view of the 15th century Reformers, called Covenant Theology), rather than a dispensational interpretation of Scripture. Since most churches do not hold dispensational truth, it is clear, that those in those churches would not be teaching it to their congregations.
Theology (Truth concerning the three Persons of the Godhead)
Thankfully, we can say that most Christian Ministers have their theology right—with perhaps the exception of the sinless humanity of Christ. But we must ask, “Do we really need to go to them to learn about the Persons of the Godhead?”
Practical Christian Living
We are thankful that most evangelical preachers and teachers are generally helpful in giving advice on a number of practical subjects as to Christian living. Their ministry as to cultivating personal Christian graces, financial matters, marriage and family issues, etc., are certainly not to be underestimated. But even in this, will they teach us to walk in separation from the world in practical matters? What would they teach in regard to participating in the world’s politics, entertainments, sports events, arts, music, and theatre, etc.? Would they give us sound, godly advice as to these things?
Let us say again, we are not trying to be offensive or critical in these remarks; it is a fact that much of the teaching in the denominational churches is not accurate, and some of it is plainly contrary to the truth of Scripture. The more we learn the truth, the clearer this will be to us. The problem is that most who would disagree with us don’t seem to have a solid understanding of the truth. When they listen to the Pastors and teachers from the churches, they don’t detect the error and think that it is all fine and good.
We realize that there will be people who are sensitive and defensive of the church denominations, who will say that we are being judgmental. As mentioned, it is certainly not our intention to do so, but to make our point, we have had to give our readers some specifics, and thus, expose ourselves to the possibility of being accused of being critical. Our point in all this is simply to show that it is not necessary to go to a church denomination to get the truth.
The Deposit of Truth Given to the Gathered Saints
The problem with many of us who are gathered to the Lord’s name is that we don’t realize how richly we have been blessed in the position that we are in ecclesiastically. God has identified with this position historically and has used those connected with it to recover much truth to the Church that was lost for over 1500 years. It used to be that those in the church denominations (150 years ago) would come to us to learn the truth; now we feel that we have to go to them to get fed! Isn’t this a little embarrassing? It reminds us of the children of Israel having to go down to the Philistines to get their farm implements sharpened (1 Sam. 13:19-22). We are not implying that our brethren in the church denominations are ungodly Philistines; we’re just saddened that the gathered saints think that they have to go to those for the truth who should be coming to them for it. If we have been given so much, why do we think that we need to go to the church denominations to get the truth?
The young man who was Elisha’s servant didn’t know what he had on his side. When he saw the Syrian army gathering around them, he thought that they were surely outnumbered and couldn’t match the Syrian forces. So, Elisha prayed, “LORD, I pray Thee, open his eyes, that he may see” (2 Kings 6:17). The Lord answered Elisha’s prayer and “opened the eyes of the young man, and he saw” that the resources with them were superior to the Syrians. We think of this in connection with some of our younger brethren. They need to have their eyes opened to see what they have in being associated with the gathered saints. We are not implying that our fellow brethren in the church denominations are akin to the Syrian enemies of Israel, but rather, refer to this incident in regard to our eyes needing to be opened.
Without speaking proudly, we ask: “Where else could we go to get all the truth of God that was recovered to the Church in the 1800s—ecclesiastical, eschatological, dispensational, etc?” Even those groups that have gone off in division from the gathered saints—who generally have had more light than the denominational churches—have lost certain parts of the truth. Again, we are not trying to be critical; we are trying to open the eyes of our readers. It is true that every local assembly among those gathered to the Lord’s name might not have teachers who can delineate these things, but in the fellowship at large, there is a deposit of truth that is unparalleled. Our prayer is that the Lord will open our eyes to see this. It is not something to be proud of; it is something to be thankful for.
People often respond to this and say, “But no one knows all the truth!” Yes, that may be true when it comes to personal apprehension, but that is not what we are talking about. Our point is that there has been a deposit of truth committed to those gathered to the Lord’s name (recovered truths of Paul’s doctrine, prophetic truth, etc.), and this deposit is still among the gathered saints. Whether all connected with that position know of these things is another matter.
But this raises a searching question. If those in the church denominations came to us for teaching on these various major Bible themes, could we give it to them? Have we been diligent to learn the truth that is (or was) common among us? Herein lies the problem. It seems that many of us couldn’t give them the truth even though we have been blessed with so much of it!
The Danger of Imbibing Error
Another thing to consider is that in going to the church denominations to be fed, there is a risk of getting confused and even imbibing error. If we are not well instructed in the truth (which is understandable when we are young), we can, and most likely will, pick up something inadvertently that is erroneous. Scripture says, “Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners” (1 Cor. 15:33). This was said to the Corinthians in the context of them having imbibed seriously wrong doctrine as to the resurrection. We must not be naïve and think that it can’t happen to us. We need to drink at the well of those “knowing of whom thou hast learned them” (2 Tim. 3:14).
Someone might ask, “What about reading and listening to the ministry from gifted men without going to the church denominations? Can we not take in some of their oral or written ministry?” We believe that it is not our place to legislate what those gathered to the Lord’s name do in this regard. There are things that can be helpful in books of ministry written by those who are not gathered to the Lord’s name, but we do need to be careful in what we read.
A principle that might guide us in this regard is found in Numbers 31:21-24. “And Eleazar the priest said unto the men of war which went to the battle, This is the ordinance of the law which the LORD commanded Moses; only the gold, and the silver, the brass, the iron, the tin, and the lead, everything that may abide the fire, ye shall make it go through the fire, and it shall be clean: nevertheless it shall be purified with the water of separation: and all that abideth not the fire ye shall make go through the water. And ye shall wash your clothes on the seventh day, and ye shall be clean, and afterward ye shall come into the camp.”
There were things that were valuable among those who were not with the children of Israel. The Israelites were allowed to take them into the camp, but they had to pass them through “the fire,” or in what could not go through the fire, through “the water.” Since fire speaks of judgment and water of cleansing, we are to learn from this that if we read things written by those among divided groups of brethren, or from those in a denominational position, we must pass judgment on the connection from which they have come, and thus, disassociate it from its source. What we are saying is that we need to be careful to disconnect the spiritual truths that we have gotten from the erroneous ecclesiastical position from which they have been in. If this is not done, that ministry could have the effect of drawing us into the place from where it has come. Those who indulge in ministry from church Pastors and Ministers, and then later end up in one of those denominations, show that they perhaps were reading that ministry without disconnecting it from its source. In the words of the type, they did not pass it through “the fire” and “the water.” Let us remember that there is no ministry in “the camp” (Heb. 13:13) that will lead a person out of the camp; the tendency is the opposite. This is why we say that a person has to be careful in this regard.
Joining in Service With Those in the Church Denominations
It might be asked, “Is there anything wrong with those gathered to the Lord’s name joining with those in the church denominations in gospel work?” This is another point in which we do not wish to legislate. Each person’s conscience must be left to act before God (Rom. 14:5). Nevertheless, we will pass on a principle that may give some guiding light on this.
The Apostle Paul said, “It has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the power of the Spirit, that they who are of the nations should be joint heirs, and a joint-body, and joint partakers of His promise in Christ Jesus by the glad tidings [the gospel]” (Eph. 3:5-6). The fact that he added, “By the glad tidings [the gospel],” shows that gospel truth and assembly truth are linked. In the gospel we present Christ the Saviour; in teaching the truth of the Church we present Christ the Center. Both are intimately connected. Therefore, all gospel work should be conducted with the assembly in view. God intends that when a person is saved, he would be found thereafter functioning in the assembly as a member of the body of Christ.
An Old Testament type illustrates this. The great stones that were brought for the purpose of building the temple (1 Kings 5) were not only cut out from the place where they were found, but they were also brought to the temple site and fitted into the house (1 Kings 6). To get the stones out of the pit would speak of gospel work. Note: it was not an end in itself. Similarly, the purpose of the gospel is to bring in the material that would compose the Church. The living stones that compose God’s house today have been saved for the purpose of functioning in His house for His glory. Later in the epistle to the Ephesians, Paul speaks of this connection again (chapter 4:11-16). The “evangelists” were to work with the “pastors and teachers” with “a view to the edifying of the body of Christ.” This shows that wanting souls to be saved without seeing them functioning in their place in the body in a local assembly is falling short of God’s purpose for them.
An intelligent, Spirit-led Christian will want to work in concert with God, in not only spreading the gospel, but also in directing all converts to Christ in the midst of an assembly gathered to His name. The problem here is that if someone from the denominations is involved in this work, he will quite logically direct the new converts to his church group, or to the church of the convert’s choice. Hence, the two servants, if they are true to their ecclesiological convictions, will be pulling in two different directions.
Scripture asks, “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” (Amos 3:3). The only way for such an endeavour to work is that someone will have to compromise. Since most of these efforts are put on by those from the church groups, someone gathered to the Lord’s name who wishes to join them will have to be the one who compromises. And this is understandable; after all, he or she is the one joining that work; they can’t expect the organizers to change their principles because he or she has joined them.
As a matter of conviction for our own feet in this exercise, for the reason mentioned above, we believe that we should conduct our own gospel efforts without having connections with those from the denominations. This is not because we don’t love them, or any such thing; it is to avoid the double standard that will inevitably result as to our difference in ecclesiology. We pray for every effort of those in the denominations in spreading the gospel, but we believe that we should leave them to conduct their own work.
Conclusions
In drawing this little volume to a close, we believe we have answered these comments and questions from Scripture. We trust that our readers have seen that we have tried to provide the answers in the spirit of Christ.
We realize that there will always be opposition to the truth. In the face of such opposition, J. N. Darby said that he would rather be the object of such attacks rather than the author of them. We echo the same. And why? It is not merely that we prefer the “Brethren view” to other views, but that we fear God. There is such a thing as the governmental dealings of God with His people (1 Peter 1:16-17). He will have something to say to those who attack the truth—especially those who are older and have acted as old prophets of Bethel (1 Kings 13).
In times of defection among the Lord’s people, Paul said, “I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge” (2 Tim. 4:16). Similarly, we do not want to see the Lord’s hand in governmental judgment on anybody. Instead, we pray that “God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; and that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil” (2 Tim. 2:25-26). May God give us the grace to walk in the truth.