The One Body in Practice: Thoughts on the Spirit's Work in Gathering Christians Together unto the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ
Stanley Bruce Anstey
Table of Contents
Preface
The major part of this volume was written around the time of the writing of “God’s Order,” a book I had put forth on the subject of the assembly in 1993. Over the past few years I have added a number of paragraphs to this work, until it has grown to its present size. Knowing that some of the topics covered in the book will undoubtedly touch a nerve with some, I have waited before the Lord. In the interim, I have put the MSS in the hands of a number of respected and learned brethren for their in-put and suggestions – for which I am duly thankful.
With much waiting on the Lord in prayer, and encouragement from many brethren far and near, I trust that it is the Lord’s will to put forth this volume as a sequel to “God’s Order.” My desire is that the truth herein compiled will be for the exaltation of the Lord Jesus Christ, and for the blessing of the members of His body.
The quotations from the Scriptures are from the King James Version and the New Translation of J. N. Darby.
We desire to express our deep obligation under which we are to those brethren who have kindly assisted us in proofing and formatting the text.
May the effect of the truths concerning the body of Christ, and its practical manifestation, draw us closer to the Lord Jesus Christ, with an exercise to walk in the path that God has marked out for the church in His Word.
Chapter 1: The Body of Christ & Its Practical Manifestation
The truth of the “one body” of Christ and its practical manifestation (Eph. 4:4) is perhaps one of the most little understood truths of the Bible. Yet it is plainly found in four of the apostle Paul’s epistles – Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, and Colossians. We believe that this lack of understanding is a result of the work of the enemy of our souls, the devil, who has sought with all his energy to take this blessed truth away from the church. The practice of the truth of the “one body” is one of the most maligned and attacked lines of truth in the Bible today. Therefore, it is with much dependence on the Lord that we proceed with this subject.
The Formation of the “One Body”
The “body of Christ” refers to the many Christians spread over the whole world (regardless of what denominational fellowship they may be attached to), linked together in one and united to Him, the Head of the body, in heaven. It is a mystical union (for it cannot be seen with the eye), bound together by the indwelling presence of the Spirit of God.
How and when did “the body of Christ” come into existence? Looking into the Scriptures we find that it did not exist in Old Testament times. In fact, it formed no part of Old Testament revelation. The Lord Jesus Christ had to first die, rise again, and ascend to heaven as a glorified Man before the church could be formed. Two things were absolutely necessary before it could be brought into existence – Christ had to be glorified and the Holy Spirit had to be sent down from heaven. One of the great works of the Holy Spirit in coming was to form the church, the body of Christ on earth. This work is called the baptism of the Spirit. It was an action of the Spirit that happened only once (1 Cor. 12:12-13). In Scripture, being baptized with the Spirit is not seen as an individual experience. It is a corporate act that took place on the day of Pentecost, in Acts 2, and extended to take in the Gentiles, in Acts 10. Thereafter, the baptism of the Spirit was complete for all time.
This can be seen by looking at the seven references to the baptism of the Spirit in the Scriptures. Five of these references look forward from the time they were uttered to some coming action of the Spirit, without specifying when (Matt. 3:11, Mk. 1:8, Lk. 3:16, Jn. 1:33, Acts 1:5). Then, the fifth and sixth references point back in time to some action of the Spirit that could only be what happened at Pentecost, when the Spirit of God came to form and reside in the church. (The sixth, Acts 11:16, links the baptism of the Spirit with Pentecost. The seventh, 1 Corinthians 12:13, says, “We have all been baptized into one body,” also looks back in time.)
Contrary to what is commonly thought by many Christians today, believers do not get into the body by the baptism of the Spirit since that work of the Spirit in baptism is complete and happened once for all time at the beginning of the church’s history. Notice carefully, 1 Corinthians 12:13 doesn’t say, as some imagine, “We have been baptized into the one body,” (adding the article “the,” which is not in the text). If it did say that, then it might indicate that individuals today do get into the body by the baptism of the Spirit. Adding the article “the,” changes the meaning considerably, and supposes that the body was in existence before the baptism took place. However, the verse says, “ ... baptized into one body,” meaning the baptism is what formed the one body. The Spirit of God took all the individual believers in the upper room and linked them together by His indwelling presence, to Christ, the ascended Head in heaven (Acts 2:1-4).
J. N. Darby notes that the action of the Spirit in baptizing, in 1 Corinthians 12:13, is in the aorist tense in the Greek, meaning it was a once-for-all act. This shows that the Spirit, thereafter, has not been performing this action, because the work of forming the body has been done. We can confidently say that the Spirit is not baptizing today; if He were, it would mean that He is forming more and more bodies (because that’s the function of His baptizing). This, of course, could not be so, because Scripture tells us emphatically, “there is one body” (Eph. 4:4). Some might wonder that if that were so, why would Paul speak himself and the Corinthians as being baptized by the Spirit? They were not even saved when the Spirit came and formed the church at Pentecost! The answer is that Paul was speaking representatively. He said, “We” – the Christian company as a whole – “have been baptized into one body,” referring back to the action of the Spirit at Pentecost. If he were speaking of himself and the Corinthians when he said “we,” then he meant that only they (he and the Corinthians) were baptized into that body, which certainly couldn’t be true; for what then of the Ephesians or the Philippian saints? Were they not in the body too? The only logical meaning to Paul’s statement is that he was speaking representatively of all the members of the body.
It is something like the incorporation of a company. It is incorporated once – and it may have been a hundred years ago. Now that the company has been formed, each time it takes on a new employee it does not need to be incorporated again. Nor is there any such thing as every new employee of the company being incorporated. The new employee is merely added to an already incorporated company. Likewise, when someone gets saved today, he is added by the indwelling presence of the Spirit to an already baptized body. There is no new baptism for the Christian company, or for the new believer.
To take our illustration a little further, suppose we listened in on one of that company’s board meetings and heard one of the directors say, “We were incorporated 100 years ago.” We would have no trouble understanding what he meant. Someone who didn’t understand the English language very well might say, “What does that person mean? None of these people in this meeting are over 60 years of age, how can they say, ‘We ... a hundred years ago ... ?’” Well, it’s because the director was speaking representatively of the company. Similarly, in 1 Corinthians 12:13, Paul was speaking of what is true of the body of Christ, of which he and the Corinthians were a part. As with the Christian company, Paul, and the Corinthians, we too are all embraced in the baptism that took place at Pentecost—when we were saved and brought into the one body upon believing the gospel.
Union With Christ & Unity in the Body
As a result of the formation of the body of Christ by the baptism of the Spirit there exists both union and unity. There is a difference between these two things.
Union is what exists as a result of the Spirit of God having come down from heaven linking the members of the body on earth to Christ the Head in heaven (1 Cor. 12:12-13). Scripture does not speak of union with Christ in His pre-incarnate deity. Nor does it speak of union with Him in His Manhood before He went to the cross. Nor does Scripture speak of union with Christ in His death. There could be no union until Christ rose from the dead and ascended on high, and sent the Spirit of God into this world to form the church. There could not be the body without first having the Head in heaven. This necessitated Christ dying and rising, and ascending on high. Upon rising from the dead the Lord breathed on the disciples, saying, “Receive ye [the] Holy Ghost” (Jn. 20:22). In doing this, the Lord linked his own with Himself in resurrection by communicating to them resurrection life – eternal life. But it was not until He ascended on high and sent the Spirit that they were brought into union with Him. Nor should we think that this union with Christ exists merely in our faith; it is by the actual indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit has descended to bring that company of believers into union with the Man Christ Jesus in the glory.
Unity, on the other hand, is what exists among the members by the presence of the indwelling Spirit. We are not exactly called to make “the unity of the Spirit,” but to “keep the unity of the Spirit” (Eph. 4:3). As the saints seek to “keep the unity of the Spirit,” in a practical sense, a wonderful harmony will exist among the members, and that will result in a powerful witness to the world (Jn. 13:35, 17:21). We see this practical unity expressed in the early church (Acts 2:44, 4:32).
The Lord’s Desire for a Visible Unity In the Body
We know from the Word of God that the Lord’s desire is that “He should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad” so that there would be “one flock and one Shepherd” (Jn. 11:51-52, 10:16). Before going to the cross He prayed to that end saying, “Holy Father, keep through Thine own Name those whom Thou hast given Me, that they may be one, as We are.” And again, “ ... that they all may be one; as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that Thou hast sent Me” (Jn. 17:11, 21). While these verses in John’s gospel do not directly speak of the truth of the oneness of the body of Christ, but rather, of the oneness in the family, they clearly show the Lord’s desire for His people is that they would be found together in a visible unity on earth.
The Lord first revealed His thoughts of a manifested practical unity among His people in Matthew 18:20, when He said, “For where two or three are gathered together unto My Name, there am I in the midst.” Notice that He did not want His people to be merely “gathered” to where He was in the midst, but “gathered together.” When the Lord said “together,” He was alluding to something that was very precious to His heart – that the practical fellowship among the saints would be one. He desired that all, whom the Spirit of God would gather unto His Name, wherever they may be on earth, would be “together.” He could not have meant that they should all be gathered together in one place geographically (as it was in Judaism – at Jerusalem), but that they would act together in the various localities where the Spirit has gathered them, so as to give a universal expression to the fact that they are one. While He would say no more about it at that time, His desire for the assembly from the very outset was that there would be one universal fellowship of the saints.
Now someone might think that we are seeing more in this word “together” than what is intended, and it’s true that if we had only this verse (Matt. 18:20) on the subject of gathering that we might not have grounds to say it. But when we turn to the book of the Acts and to the epistles, and we interpret this Scripture in the light of the whole tenor of the Christian revelation, we can see that the Lord was indicating the truth of the church’s oneness. It is only hinted at here, in Matthew 18, because the disciples did not have the Spirit yet and wouldn’t be able to take it in (Jn. 14:25-26, 16:12). The Lord did this on many occasions in His ministry, giving but the seed of a truth and leaving it to be developed through the apostles when the Spirit came.
Moreover, we learn from John 10:16, that He did not want His people to be found in a number of independent flocks, but that there would be “one flock,” regardless where the saints may be found spread over the earth. There would be many gatherings, but only one flock. Again, this points to the fact that there should be only one universal fellowship of saints on earth. It was not God’s thought that fellowship would be merely a local thing, confined to a single company of believers in a city or town. As the gospel reached many lands and many were converted, there would naturally be many gatherings spread over the earth, but the Lord intended that they would still be one in fellowship and testimony.
Walking Worthy of Our Calling Is to Express Practically That We Are “One Body”
When we turn to the epistles we find that what the Lord alluded to in the Gospels is developed. The epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians, especially, open out the truth of the “great mystery” of Christ and the church, which is His body. The church’s first great collective responsibility is to “walk worthy of the vocation” wherewith it has been called (Eph. 4:1). And how, we may ask, are the members of the body to “walk worthy?” Some might say that they are to do it by living uprightly as good citizens in the community. But that is not the point of this passage of Scripture. Christians, of course, should be concerned about walking uprightly before the world, but the context of the passage indicates that the exhortation to “walk worthy” of our calling is in view of the revelation of the mystery of Christ and His church – the body.
While enjoining the saints to “walk worthy” of their calling, the apostle adds, “With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love; using diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in the uniting bond of peace. There is one body” (Eph. 4:2-4). It is clear, therefore, that the church is to walk worthy of its calling by putting into practice the truth that it is “one body.” We learn from this that the Lord does not intend that the truth of the “one body” should be a mere theory in the minds of His people. The saints are to exercise lowliness, meekness, etc. in view of keeping “the unity of the Spirit,” by which they would express the truth that “there is one body.”
We might ask, “What exactly is ‘the unity of the Spirit?’” (Eph. 4:3) It is “that oneness into which the Spirit of God leads us, according to the truth.” We are not called to keep the unity of the body, but rather, the unity of the Spirit. This is because the unity of the body is that vital thing that the Spirit of God has formed at Pentecost, uniting the members of the body together to the Head in heaven. No power or enemy can break the unity of the body for God Himself keeps it. The unity of the Spirit, however, is a practical unity among believers that we are responsible to keep, and it is our privilege to do so. F. G. Patterson, said that keeping “the unity of the Spirit is to endeavor to keep in practice that which exists in fact.” And what exists in fact? The passage goes on to say – “there is one body.” Another has said, “The unity of the Spirit” is “that which the Spirit is forming to give true expression to the truth of the one body.” We conclude that Christians are to walk worthy of their calling by putting into practice the truth that they are “one body.” This is the church’s first great collective responsibility. And it is the mind of God that this unity should be expressed universally – wherever the body is on the earth. This unity could not merely be a local thing because the body is not local.
The members of the body of Christ are to express their unity in a practical way (Rom. 12:4-6, 1 Cor. 12:12-27, Eph. 4:1-16). To aid the saints in walking together and arriving at God’s desire for them practically, Christ, the ascended Head of the body, has made full provision for the church to reach that end. He has given “gifts” to the church for the purpose of helping the saints to understand their privileges and responsibilities in the body so they would walk worthy of their calling (Eph. 4:7-16). If the ministry of the gifts is received (assuming that the gifts are operating with intelligence and dependence upon God) the body will be edified and brought to “the unity of the faith” and “the knowledge of the Son of God.” With every “joint of supply” (the various members) also helping, the body will edify itself in love. The practical consequence will be a visible unity seen among the many members of the body.
The “One Body” in Practice
Having established that the Lord desires that there would be a visible expression of unity in the “one body” among His people, we now list a number of ways, from Scripture, of how the body of Christ is to express itself as such. It can be seen in the following things:
The Breaking of Bread
The simplest way in which we, as believers, can express that we are part of the “one body” is in the partaking of the one loaf at the breaking of bread. By partaking of that loaf in the Lord’s Supper we are confessing the fact that we are members of that “one body” (Eph. 4:4). While there is a loaf eaten in every assembly, wherever saints are found on earth, Scripture views all the assemblies partaking of one loaf! Paul said, “We being many are one loaf, one body: for we all partake of that one loaf” (1 Cor. 10:17). And again: “the bread which we break ... ” These statements show that Paul included himself with the Corinthians and the other Christians on earth, as partaking of that one loaf, though at that time they were spread out over many cities. This shows that he was not referring to some isolated company of Christians seeking to express their local unity as a gathering by their act of breaking bread: it was a confession of the worldwide fact that all the saints are part of that “one body.”
There are some differences in the references to the breaking of bread in 1 Corinthians 10:16-17, and 1 Corinthians 11:24-26. In chapter 10, it is the collective act of breaking bread. It says, “The bread which we break;” whereas, in chapter 11, it is the individual act of breaking bread. It says; “This do ye ... ” Again, the bread in chapter 10 is symbolic of the mystical body of Christ; whereas in chapter 11, it is symbolic of the physical body of the Lord in which He died. (Notice here that His body was not “broken” for us as the KJV translates it, but simply given for us, for Scripture says, “a bone of Him shall not be broken” – Jn. 19:33-36). Furthermore, in chapter 10, it is to do with the associations of those at the Lord’s table; whereas in chapter 11, it is to do with the personal state of those breaking bread.
Assembly Order
When we look more closely at the epistle to the Corinthians, we see this truth worked out in the practical circumstances of assembly life. We see that Paul sought to maintain uniformity in doctrine and practice in all the assemblies worldwide (1 Cor. 1:2, 4:17, 7:17, 11:16, 14:33-34, 16:1). His great burden was that all of the assemblies would walk together, and thus, have one singular testimony before the world. When we look at the early church we find this unity in practice.
There was one fellowship set up of God, to which all believers were called – “the fellowship of His Son Jesus Christ our Lord” (1 Cor. 1:9), regardless of where they were found on earth. The early church continued steadfastly in that fellowship (Acts 2:42). They sought no other (Acts 4:23).
There was also only one membership for all the saints universally (globally) – membership in the body of Christ. Paul could say, “For even as the [human] body is one, and has many members, but all the members of the body, being many, are one body, so also is the Christ” – the mystical body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:12). Scripture knows no other membership than that in the body of Christ. There is no such thing in Scripture as being members of a local assembly, even though we sometimes hear people saying things like, “Every member of this [local] assembly ... ”
There was one common standard of doctrine and practice for every assembly. Paul could say, “ ... as I teach everywhere in every assembly” (1 Cor. 4:17).
There was one common standard for conduct, regardless of the culture. Paul could say, “Thus I ordain in all the assemblies” (1 Cor. 7:17).
There was one common way of recognizing the headship in praying or prophesying, expressed in the use of head-coverings. In this regard Paul could say, “We have no such custom, nor the assemblies of God.” They had no such thought or custom that people would do otherwise (1 Cor. 11:16).
There was one order for ministry in the assemblies. The Spirit of God was there, in the midst, using the gifts that were in each local assembly for the edification of all. Paul, after outlining that order, said: “As in all the assemblies of the saints” (1 Cor. 14:33).
There was one common use for the funds accumulated in their collections–the interests of Christ and His body. Paul said again, “ ... as I have given order to the assemblies” (1 Cor. 16:1). Walking together in one fellowship, they recognized the needs of one another and sought to meet them on a universal basis (1 Cor. 16:3, Rom. 15:25-26).
Assembly Testimony
The Corinthians were the local representation of Christ in that community. In Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians he said, “Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ” (2 Cor. 3:3). Note: he does not call them “epistles” of Christ (as so often misquoted), but “the epistle (singular) of Christ.” Even though their collective testimony was made up of many individuals, and many gatherings in that vast city, the grand aim of it all was to demonstrate a singular unified oneness before the world.
The Formation of New Gatherings
In the case of new converts and the formation of new gatherings on that one ground of fellowship, we find that when the Spirit of God began a work in some, He was careful to link them together with others on the same ground so that the "unity of the Spirit" would be kept. It says of the Thessalonian saints, "For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judea are in Christ Jesus" (1 Thess. 2:14). It was not that the assemblies in Judea were more important and that the others assemblies were to follow them. It was simply that the Spirit had begun His work of gathering souls to the Name of the Lord Jesus first in Judea, and as others were saved, they were linked in practical fellowship to what the Spirit of God had already begun.
In the book of the Acts we see the various local assemblies walking together practically so as to give expression to the truth that they were one body. It is seen in Acts 8:4-24. Many in Samaria had come to believe on the Lord Jesus through Philip's preaching, yet the Spirit of God did not own them as being on the ground of the assembly until they had received the Spirit and had practical fellowship with those whom He had already gathered unto the Name of the Lord Jesus in Jerusalem. In seeking to keep “the unity of the Spirit,” two representatives came down from Jerusalem and laid hands on those in Samaria (an expression of practical fellowship – Gal. 2:9), whereby the Spirit of God identified Himself with them. C. H. Brown said, "God did not permit the Samaritans to get official recognition as belonging to the church [assembly] until they got it from these emissaries that came down from Jerusalem." Great care was taken by the Spirit of God to link these believers “together” with those in Jerusalem so that there would be one practical expression of the "one body" on earth, even though this truth had not yet been revealed.
When the Apostle Paul came across a group of believers at Ephesus (Acts 19:1-6) who were unaware of others with whom God had worked, he found that the Spirit of God had not owned them as being on the divine ground of the assembly. They were not recognized as being on the ground of the "one body" until they had the Spirit and had practical fellowship (the laying on of hands) with those whom the Spirit had already gathered. In reference to this group of believers C. H. Brown also said, "They needed something. They had to be brought into the same unity that already existed. They could not be owned as occupying a different ground to the rest of them. Paul could not say, 'You folks are not on the same ground as the folks up at Antioch, or at Jerusalem, but you have a lot of truth, and I will just go on with you.' Oh no. He is going to see that they are brought onto the same ground as the rest. They were brought into the same thing that had been formed before they ever heard of it." Again, we see the care and wisdom of God in maintaining the "unity of the Spirit" so that there would be one practical expression of the truth of the "one body."
This is illustrated typically in Ezra 7-10. God had begun a fresh work in bringing His people back from Babylon to the divinely appointed center of that day, which was Jerusalem (1 Ki. 11:32, 14:21). Some 42,000 returned under Zerubbabel and Jeshua (Ezra 1-3). About 68 years later others were similarly stirred up to return to Jerusalem (Ezra 7-8). When they returned they found that God had been working in a similar way with others long before they were exercised about such things. They did not find a perfect group of Jews there (Ezra 9), but they knew that it was the only right place for God's chosen people to worship: so they identified themselves with the already existing testimony in Jerusalem. There was no thought of establishing another center apart from that which was already there, because it was not God's intention to have two independent groups of Jews at Jerusalem.
It is noteworthy that the believers in Samaria (Acts 8), Antioch (Act 11), and Ephesus (Acts 19), were not called an "assembly" until after they were linked “together” in practical fellowship with the apostles and the brethren already gathered on the ground of the assembly. Prior to this they were merely spoken of as believers or disciples in a certain place. After they were brought into fellowship with the apostles and the brethren on the ground of the assembly, we find them called “the assembly” at such and such a place (Acts. 9:31, 11:26, 20:17).
Moreover, whenever Scripture speaks of the church in a place (a city or town), it never speaks of it as the churches (plural) of such and such a place, but simply “the church (singular) of God which is at Corinth,” etc. Even though there were many gatherings in a particular city, such as Corinth, they were always referred to as being one assembly (1 Cor. 1:2, etc.). This is because the church in any one locality is to be visibly one in testimony. Scripture does, however, speak of "churches" when it refers to provinces, because a province is made up of many towns or localities (Gal. 1:2, 22, Rev. 1:11).
Matters of Inter-Assembly Fellowship
Moreover, we see the “one body” in practice in administrative affairs concerning inter-assembly fellowship. The church, in Scripture, used “letters of commendation” (Acts 18:24-28, Rom. 16:1, 2 Cor. 3:1-3). These letters were written from one local assembly to another, commending a person or persons to the practical fellowship of the assembly to which they were going. This letter was not to ask the brethren in the location where the person was going to receive them into fellowship. They do not need to look into the person’s life to see whether he is sound in doctrine and godly in walk; this was already done when he came into the fellowship of the saints on the ground of the “one body.” The letter announced that the person was already in fellowship, and that the assembly to which he was going was to receive him as such. This is because once a person is in fellowship in one locality he is in fellowship with the saints that are on that ground universally. As mentioned earlier, this is because there is only one fellowship – “the fellowship of His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord” (1 Cor. 1:9). Since all administrative matters having to do with the assembly are to be done “in the mouth of two of three witnesses” (2 Cor. 13:1), two or three brothers of the local assembly from which the person comes should sign the letter.
Matters of Assembly Discipline
The “one body” in practice is also seen in inter-assembly matters having to do with discipline and excommunication. Even though there may be many miles between assemblies, they are seen as all being on one ground and in one fellowship; and therefore, they recognize one another’s administrative acts of binding and loosing. They are made in the various local gatherings, as actions made in the Name of the Lord, but are bowed to by all the assemblies on the ground of the one body. Each local assembly’s competency to act on behalf of the body at large comes from the fact that the Lord is in their midst sanctioning their actions (Matt. 18:18-20). Moreover, in 1 Corinthians 12:27, Paul indicates that the assembly at Corinth was the local representative of the body at large. This would be true of all local assemblies, whether it was Corinth, Ephesus, etc. It indicates that their administrative actions would affect the saints at large. Unfortunately, the KJV says, “Now ye are the body of Christ.” This is misleading, and might cause someone to think that the body of Christ was only at Corinth – as if they were the only ones in the body, or that each local assembly was the body of Christ. The body of Christ, of course, embraces all Christians on the face of the earth. J. N. Darby’s Translation says, “Now ye are Christ’s body, and members in particular.” This more accurately conveys the thought. Notice he says, not “we,” but “ye ... .” He was speaking about the local assembly at Corinth. They were surely not the whole body, but they were of Christ’s body – that is, part of the whole. Hamilton Smith illustrates this point by asking us to suppose that a general, addressing a local company of soldiers, might say, “Remember men, you are Coldstream Guards.” He would not say, “You are the Coldstream Guards,” because they do not form the whole regiment. The absence of the article “the,” in the correct translation, conveys the true thought that the Corinthians were the local expression of the body of Christ at large. This made them competent to act on behalf of the body at large in administrative affairs.
If one local assembly should make a binding decision in putting someone away from the fellowship, the body at large acts in fellowship with that local assembly and recognizes the action, so that the person "put away" is regarded as "without" in other gatherings too – not just in the locality where he resides. We see this in 1 Corinthians 5:13, where the local assembly at Corinth was to put away that wicked person from their midst. But 2 Corinthians 2:6, tells us that the "rebuke" or “censure” made by the Corinthian assembly was "inflicted by the many." "The many," here, refers to the body at large – the mass of the saints universally. Hence the offender is made to feel the rebuke by more than just his local assembly. We do not say that the man in question actually went to other localities and felt the rebuke from them, but that the carrying out of the action is expressed universally by the body at large. If a person were to be put out of the fellowship in a particular locality, he was regarded as out of fellowship everywhere on earth, because what is done in the Name of the Lord in one local assembly affects the whole in practice.
In Matthew 18:18, we see it in the Lord’s own words. When a local assembly makes a binding decision, He said, “Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth. ... ” He did not specify where on earth because the assembly’s actions are not confined to any one locality. Though a decision may be made in a certain locality, it is made on behalf of the body at large, and is binding all over the earth. There is no such thing, in Scripture, as making a binding decision that only applies to a certain locality. In this verse, the Lord is simply saying that if the assembly makes a decision in His Name, He will recognize it. If heaven recognizes it, then all on earth should recognize it too. All on the ground of the assembly of God are to recognize that action and bow to it. In this way, the assembly at large expresses the truth that it is “one body.”
Likewise, when it comes to loosing a binding action, the local assembly lifts the censure and “forgives” (administratively) the repentant person, and the body at large follows and expresses that forgiveness also. This is borne out in Paul’s remarks in 2 Corinthians 2:7-11. While Paul had authority to act apostolically in this matter, if need be, he chose to wait until the local assembly at Corinth acted, so as to keep “the unity of the Spirit.” He said, “To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also.” We are taught by his example that we are not to act independently, but in concert with the local assembly that makes the action.
Paul went on to say, “Lest Satan should get an advantage of us” (2 Cor. 2:11). He did not say, “ ... get an advantage of you,” referring to the Corinthians only. “Us,” indicates the saints at large in the “one body.” Paul knew that Satan was seeking to divide the saints in whatever way he could, and these delicate inter-assembly matters was a place where that enemy was likely to work. Therefore, Paul, as representing the saints abroad, shows us how we are to act in these matters of loosing an assembly judgment. Even though he (and perhaps others) knew that the man was repentant and should be restored to fellowship, he did not want to go ahead of the local assembly at Corinth and act independently in the matter – although, being an apostle, he had authority to do so, if need be.
We have great instruction here. We learn from this that the local assembly (where the action of a binding judgment is made), is to act first in lifting that censure, and that the saints abroad are to bow to it and act with them as “one body.” The voices of brethren from abroad could make their exercises known to the Corinthians, as illustrated by the apostle Paul encouraging them to receive the repentant man, but the actual lifting of the action was the responsibility of the local assembly. For the other assemblies to receive the person into fellowship when his local assembly had not done so would be confusion. Satan would make use of it and divide the saints. But by acting together in these inter-assembly matters the church keeps “the unity of the Spirit;” and thus, expresses the truth that “there is one body."
We see an example of this in Acts 15, when trouble arose among the saints at Antioch on account of Judaizing teachers from Jerusalem disturbing the saints with their doctrine of mixing law and grace. Again, we learn some valuable lessons as to how God would have us to deal with inter-assembly problems. The first thing we find is that they determined to take the problem up with those at Jerusalem. Now we may think that the reason why they took the matter to Jerusalem was because it was God’s center for dealing with assembly problems, as if it were the one central place on earth (a headquarters) to which the assemblies were to take their problems. But the assembly at Antioch did not go to Jerusalem because they felt unqualified to handle the problem. If it were simply a case where they wanted an apostolic judgment in the matter, they could have appealed to the apostles Paul and Barnabas who were there with them at Antioch. Who but the apostle Paul was more qualified to handle matters touching law and grace? While it’s true that they valued the insight of the apostles and leaders at Jerusalem, and desired their judgment in the matter, there was a deeper reason why they took it there; it was to “keep the unity of the Spirit in the uniting bond of peace.” The fact is that the Judaizing teachers that were troubling the saints at Antioch had come out from Jerusalem (vs. 24). So as not to break the practical unity between the two assemblies, the brethren at Antioch would not deal with the problem independently, but rather, took it to its source. This shows that Scripture does not support the idea of assemblies acting autonomously.
It teaches us that if ones from a certain local assembly visit another assembly and do wrong there, so that it requires correction or disciplinary action, that that gathering is not to act independently by making a binding action. They are to bring it to the local assembly where the trouble-makers are from, so that they can deal with it; and thus, “the unity of the Spirit” would be kept in the uniting bond of peace. Unfortunately, difficulties sometimes are not handled in this Scriptural way and it leads to some getting confused as to the issues at hand.
It is noteworthy that when they went up to Jerusalem with this matter, and stopped at various assemblies along the way, they did not upset those gatherings by spreading the problem among them. They only spoke of things that would cause “great joy” among the saints, though they were, no doubt, deeply burdened about the matter that struck at the heart of the Christian’s standing in grace. This teaches us the importance of not spreading local assembly problems needlessly. Our adversary, the devil, could get a hold of it and use it to cause trouble among the saints. This principle is given in 2 Samuel 1:19-20, when there was sorrow in Israel concerning their king (Saul) being slain by their enemies. They desired to not spread it abroad, especially among their enemies, the Philistines, saying, “The beauty of Israel is slain upon Thy high places: how are the mighty fallen! Tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the streets of Askelon.”
Chapter 2: The Ruin in Christendom & the Remnant Testimony
The believer who learns from the Scriptures that the body of Christ is to express itself in a visible unity on earth may well ask, “How could we ever practice that truth today when most Christians probably don’t even know of such a thing, and if they did, are probably not interested in practicing it?” It is sad that such an incredible breakdown in the Christian testimony exists. There is disunity among the members of the body, with believers being divided into various denominational groups, and quite happy to be there.
The Ruin of the Christian Testimony
It is a sad day indeed when we see every man doing “that which was right in his own eyes” (Jud. 21:25). The body is surely “not holding the Head” (Col. 2:19). Dr. W. T. P. Wolston likens the present condition of things among the members of the body of Christ to a disease called “Chorea” (Huntington’s disease) that can afflict the human body causing the muscles to all go in motion, but not under control – though the head desires them to be controlled. He said, “I think the church of God has got that kind of disease today. The members are all doing their own will.”
There are three women in the New Testament that illustrate the progress of ecclesiastical corruption in the professing church. The first is the woman in Matthew 13, who took leaven and hid it in three measures of meal till the whole was leavened. This marks the introduction into the unleavened mass of Christians certain corrupting principles and practices in the days of the early church. The second woman, in Revelation 2:20, “that woman Jezebel,” is symbolic of the development of evil under the system of Catholicism in the middle ages. Thirdly, we have “the great whore” in Revelation 17, which portrays the false church in its last stage after the Lord has taken the true believers out of this scene at the rapture. The papal influence is still there, but she will have drawn every other so-called Christian denomination under her organized power of corruption. We also see in that chapter the end of the Christian profession coming under the judgment of God by the hand of the ten kings that she has controlled in the first half of the seven-year Tribulation period.
We are told that in the latter times of the church’s sojourn on earth, there would be a great departure from “the faith that was once delivered to the saints” (1 Tim. 4:1, Acts 20:29-30, Jude 3-4). All of the “second” epistles attest to this departure in the Christian profession.
The 2nd epistle to the Ephesian assembly describes the letting go of first love (Rev. 2:1-7).
The 2nd epistle to the Thessalonians treats the letting go of the hope of the Lord’s coming.
The 2nd epistle of John deals with the seriousness of letting go of the doctrine of Christ.
The 2nd epistle of Peter considers the letting go of practical godliness.
The 2nd epistle to the Corinthians treats the letting go of apostolic authority as found in Scripture.
And lastly, the 2nd epistle to Timothy deals with the letting go of order in the house of God.
Therefore, it is certain that we cannot practice this great truth of the one body with all the members. Most have no concern for this truth. However, God has anticipated these difficult last days and has made ample provision for us. If we have an exercised heart, God will guide us in that path (Ps. 112:4).
A Remnant
As we search the Scriptures to find God’s mind as to what we are to do in these days of ruin and failure in the Christian testimony, we learn a great principle upon which God acts when that which He has committed into the hands of men in testimony has failed. He reduces its size, strength, glory, and numbers; and carries it on in a remnant. The word “remnant,” signifies “the residue,” or “that which remains,” of anything of what the original was set up for. (Compare Isaiah 1:2-9.) A principle that we would do well to learn is that God's ways change when that which He has set up and committed into the hands of man in responsibility fails. While His ways change, His principles do not. When failure comes in, God falls back on His sovereignty to maintain what He has set up in testimony, and He carries it on thereafter in a remnant character. The reason the Lord does this is that a point is reached in the history of the thing whereby He can no longer associate Himself with it in the power and glory as He once did when He set it up. Since those identified with that testimony have so thoroughly corrupted it, if He were to continue to associate Himself with it, the world would receive a false testimony of God’s true character. The world would conclude that the Lord condoned such practices. Therefore, since God must act consistently with His holiness, He lets go of the thing as a whole, as He originally set it up, and then works with a remnant testimony. God has acted on this principle in the history of Israel, and now with the church, and will do it again in a coming day with the Jews in the Tribulation.
God’s Ways With Israel
In the case of Israel, the Lord very clearly established a place in the land of Canaan where all the children of Israel were to come with their sacrifices, offerings, and worship. He placed "His Name" and "His habitation" at that place, and said, "Thither shalt thou come" (Deut. 12:1-16, Deut. 16:16). The place, we know, was Jerusalem (1 Ki. 8:1, 29, 9:3, 11:32, 14:21, 2 Ki. 21:4, 7, Ps. 50:5, Ps. 122:3-4, Ps. 132:13-14). This was the Lord's desire for all of the children of Israel whom He had redeemed out of Egypt. At certain appointed times He wanted all the tribes of Israel to assemble there in happy fellowship to express their unity as a nation, and to worship Him.
As their history in the land unfolds, we find that the children of Israel forsook the Lord and went worshipping the gods of the heathen nations. This was true of the king as well as the people (1 Ki. 11:9-11, 33). And thus, the nation corrupted itself and failed to maintain a true testimony before the world of the one true God. As a consequence, we find that the Lord removed many of His people from His divinely appointed center at Jerusalem. He caused ten of the twelve tribes of Israel to be taken away from the privileges of His gathering center (1 Ki. 11:29-36). When king Rehoboam attempted to recover the ten tribes, the Lord intervened through a prophet and told him to desist, because it was "from the Lord" that the ten tribes should be carried away (1 Ki. 12:15, 24). It was a governmental action in the ways of God.
Now, we may ask, how is it that the Lord said in one Scripture that He wants His people to gather together at His divinely appointed center in Jerusalem, and in other Scriptures He drove many of them away from it? How are we to understand this paradox? The infidel mind would say that it’s because the Bible contradicts itself. However, the answer to this question, we believe, lies in understanding the difference between God's purposes and desires, and God's ways. Everything that God purposes will come to pass: there are no obstacles too great to hinder Him from accomplishing His purposes (Isa. 46:11, Job 42:2, Jer. 51:29). His desires run in the same direction as His purposes: but while all that God purposes will definitely come to pass, all His desires may not. For instance, the Scriptures say, “Our Saviour God, Who desires that all men should be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:3-4). It is His desire, but we know that all men will not be saved because “all men have not faith” (2 Thess. 3:2). This is because His ways with men are such that because of their stubbornness and sin, He may take away privileges that His goodness has desired for them (Isa. 6:9-10, Jn. 12:40, Lk. 8:18, 2 Thess. 2:11-12, Ps. 69:23). This shows that God's ways change when that which He has set up and has committed into the hands of men in responsibility fails.
Since Israel had given themselves over to the worship of the gods of the heathen, the Lord could no longer associate Himself with them in power and glory as He had done during the reigns of David and Solomon. The nations around Israel would have received a false testimony of Jehovah. The ways of God were such that He would carry on His testimony in Israel in a remnant. He, therefore, allowed but "one tribe" to remain at the divine center that there might be "a light" before Him in Jerusalem (1 Ki. 11:13, 29-36).
The people under a rebellious leader, Jeroboam, had their part in the sad cleavage among the tribes of Israel. Jeroboam took the ten tribes and led them away from the divine center. There was a low state among the people that were willing to follow that divisive man. Since going up to Jerusalem, God’s center for sacrifice and worship, had the effect of uniting the tribes of Israel (1 Ki. 12:27), Jeroboam established other places of worship of his own devising, so that the people would be gathered after him in division (1 Ki. 12:25-33). Thus, the division among the tribes of Israel was solidified, and it remained throughout their history. It was “a great sin” (2 Ki. 17:21), and will not be healed until after the Lord comes – at the appearing of Christ (Ezek. 37:15-28, Isa. 11:13).
From that time forward, God chose to have only a remnant testimony to the truth of the one place of worship in Israel. At that time “Ammi” (meaning “My people”), implying the relationship of Jehovah with His people Israel, was broken as to the ten tribes by their separation under Jeroboam. Thereafter, “Lo-ammi” (meaning “not My people”) was written over them (Hos. 1:9). Thus, He outwardly disassociated himself from the ten tribes in their departure from His divine center at Jerusalem. Throughout the history of the ten tribes we find that God would not identify Himself publicly with their position. On more than one occasion we are reminded of the solemn fact that “the Lord is not with Israel [the ten tribes]” (2 Chron. 25:7). The Lord would not identify Himself with them, because in doing so, He would be condoning their position in separation from His divine center (2 Chron. 13:12, 2 Ki. 17:20-21). While the Lord did not identify Himself outwardly with their divided position, He still worked among them with prophets in some manifestations of His power in grace. Prophets, such as Elijah, sought to call them to return to the Lord at Jerusalem. We know that a few did return (2 Chron. 11:13-17, 30:11). This shows that the Lord would never hinder anyone who had an exercise to be at His divine center.
From the time of the great cleavage in the tribes of Israel, it could not be said that the Lord was gathering all the children of Israel to His divine center at Jerusalem. Something had come in that caused the Lord to act in another way with His people. He was clearly removing the mass of the tribes away from the happy unity at the one center for worship. His desires were still such that they should all be there, but His ways moved Him to act on another line with most. And it was not because the "one tribe" was any better than the tribes the Lord caused to be led away. We know that king Rehoboam’s bad state actually perpetrated the cleavage among the tribes (1 Ki. 12:1-19). Nor does it mean that every single person in the ten tribes was evil and was worshipping the gods of the heathen. We learn later that the Lord had reserved seven thousand among them that had not bowed to Baal (1 Ki. 19:18). In fact, a few of those from the "one tribe" that God had allowed to remain in Jerusalem were guilty of that very thing – worshipping Baal! Nevertheless, to maintain a “light” in Jerusalem did not require that all the tribes of Israel to be there. A remnant, consisting of one tribe, was sufficient. It would be humbling, because those at the divine center could no longer boast of the nation’s original glory with a unity of twelve tribes that once existed in the days of David and Solomon.
God’s Ways With the Church
When we come to the church, we see the Lord acting on this very same principle. Following its history as depicted in the seven churches of the Book of Revelation, we see a downward course in the Christian testimony. The condition of things gets to a point where the Lord no longer owns the mass of the Christian profession, and thereafter, takes up with a remnant testimony (Rev. 2:24-29). The state of the church had come to the point of "no remedy." (Compare 2 Chron. 36:16) Consequently, from that point forward, a marked change takes place in the Lord's ways with the church. This is indicated by the call to "hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches" following the promise to the overcomer instead of preceding it, as the pattern had been up to that point. In the first three churches (Ephesus, Smyrna, and Pergamos), the reward to the overcomer was set before the whole church because the Lord was still dealing with it at large. All in the church who heard and obeyed would receive the overcomer's reward. Thereafter, it is given up. Remarking on this, J. N. Darby said, "The body at large is dropped." The public mass of the Christian profession is treated as being incapable of hearing and repenting. The Lord then separates a remnant, saying, “But to you I say, the rest [remnant]....” From that time forward, the Lord began to deal with a remnant, and to let the mass of the people go. The call to "hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches," in the last four churches, is given to a remnant because only they will hear and overcome. W. Kelly said, "The Lord thenceforth puts the promise [to the overcomer] first, and this is because it is vain to expect the church as a whole to receive it ...a remnant only, overcome, and the promise is for them; as for the others, it is all over." As a result, the Lord no longer expects the mass of the Christian profession to hear and return to the point from which it departed. All thought of recovering the church at large is abandoned because it has reached a point of "no remedy," and cannot be set right.
If we were to go back and see what caused the public state of the church to reach the point of "no remedy," we would find that it was the same thing that caused the Lord's testimony in Israel to reach that point. With the church, and with Israel, there was a course that led up to it. In Ephesus, we learn that "the angel of the church" (the responsible leadership) rightly judged all that was inconsistent with the Lord. It says that they would not "bear them which are evil." But sadly, their heart was not in it (Rev. 2:2-4). In Smyrna, any further slide downward was stayed by the great persecutions that came on the church. The severity of the trial cast them back on the Lord. But in Pergamos, when the times of great persecution were ended, "the angel of the church" began tolerating some who held "the doctrine of Balaam," which is worldliness and idolatry. The “angel” was not charged with holding these doctrines, but the Lord found fault with them because they did not denounce the evil as did the “angel” at Ephesus.
In Thyatira, a worse condition prevailed. "The angel of the church" allowed the same evil doctrine and practice that was held by some in Pergamos to be taught! (Compare Rev. 2:14 with 2:20) What started out as some holding evil doctrine resulted in many teaching the evil doctrine. This shows that if the holding of evil is not judged, it will lead to the propounding of it. In Thyatira, the teaching of this evil had developed into a system of things called "Jezebel," which surely answers to Catholicism. In the Middle Ages it had such a tyrannical grip on the church at large, with its strength and organization, that it controlled "the angel!" Those who were in the place of responsibility had failed to deal with it when they could have, and now it had grown into a monster that controlled them! (Compare Acts 27:14-15. The Euroclydon – a great wind – swept over the sailing ship, and the sailors could do nothing, but "let her drive"). The figure of "Jezebel" is aptly used here, because that woman not only brought idolatry into Israel formally, but she also controlled and manipulated her husband, king Ahab.
Such being the case of the public state of the church, where there remained no power to deal with evil, the Lord separated a remnant, and let go of the mass at large. He did not put upon the remnant "the burden" of setting the confusion right in an attempt to get the church back to where it once was. Instead, He turned their focus forward to His coming, saying, "Hold fast till I come" (Rev. 2:25).
Working with a remnant testimony since that time, it has pleased the Lord to recover the truth that was lost through the church’s carelessness in the centuries before. However, He has not seen fit to recover all of the truth at once. The remnant referred to in Revelation 2:24-29, are the Waldeneses, the Albigenses, and others like them who separated from the evil of "Jezebel" in Medieval times. They were told to "hold fast" to what little truth they did have. Sometime later, leading up to the Reformation, the Lord gave a little more truth, such as the supremacy of the Bible and faith in Christ alone for salvation. But even that movement of the Spirit was impeded by their turning to certain national governments for help against the church of Rome. This was tantamount to turning to man in the flesh for help instead of relying on the Lord (Jer. 17:5, Ps. 118:8-9, Isa. 31:1). The result was deadness in spirit as depicted in the church at Sardis (Rev. 3:1-6 “Thou livest, and art dead”). It was not until the early 1800's that the Lord gave a full recovery of “the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3). At this time, God established a corporate testimony to the truth of the one body. Prior to this, the remnant was comprised of individuals who sought to go on faithfully in separation from the corruption of the Roman church. Paul's doctrine (2 Tim. 3:10), dispensational truth, and the truth of gathering (Matt. 18:20) were revived in practice, so that those whom the Lord gathered to His Name could act on the truth of the "one body." It is not that the gathered saints are a remnant exactly (for all true believers amidst the mass of lifeless profession in Christendom would constitute that), but that they occupy, in testimony, a remnant position ecclesiastically amidst the confusion in the church. This revival is depicted in the Lord's address to the church at Philadelphia (Rev. 3:7-13). We are now in days when every man is doing that which is right in his own eyes, and most are complacent in their low state. This is depicted in the church at Laodicea (Rev. 3:14-22).
Nor should we think that the Lord has written "Lo-Ammi" over the Christian testimony today – He will do that someday, so to speak, when He spews the whole thing out of His mouth at His coming (Rev. 3:16). But the Christian testimony has reached a point of irremediable ruin, and therefore, it has called for a change in the Lord's ways with it. Since He has let go of seeking to restore the public state of the church and is dealing with a remnant testimony, He is not going to lend His power to the Christian testimony today as He did in its early days. It would not be in keeping with the character of the broken state of things. Nor is He necessarily going to gather great numbers to His Name (which is the divine center of gathering for Christians – Matt. 18:20) in order to carry on that remnant testimony.
Just as it was with Israel, to maintain a remnant testimony today to the truth of the one body, the Lord does not need to have every Christian in the world gathered to His Name, even though it is His desire for them. The very meaning of the word, remnant, implies that not all are there. In divine prerogative and grace He is taking one here and one there, and gathering them to His Name so that this remnant testimony may be carried on. The maintaining of this testimony is a sovereign work. This is seen in the Lord’s address to Philadelphia where He said, "He that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth" (Rev. 3:7). No man, or devil, can hinder its continuance, though it might appear to carry on in much feebleness and weakness on account of the state of those associated with it. Humbling as it may be, He does not need any one of those whom He has gathered. They hear "what the Spirit saith unto the churches" because He has opened their ears (Prov. 20:12). If we have been gathered as such, we have nothing to boast in, for it has been His grace alone that has granted such a privilege. Praise be to His Name! If those whom He has gathered to His Name are a testimony, they are a testimony to the fact that there is an irremediable ruin in the Christian testimony. It certainly is nothing to be proud about.
So then, when it comes to the practice of the truth of the one body today, we must understand that it can only be practiced in a remnant character. An often-used illustration is helpful. Suppose the parents of a large family had to travel into a far country and remain there for some time before returning home. Before leaving, the father gave instructions to the children that while there may be many things they would have to do during the day, they should all sit down to supper together as when the parents were with them, so as to keep the family together as a unit during their absence. But after some time, a few are too busy, and others could no longer be bothered with it, etc. After awhile none of the children were keeping their parent’s request. Then sometime later, two or three of them remember their parent’s request and seek to carry it out at dinnertime. Though the rest of the members of the family did not join them, they still sought to keep their parent’s request. While doing this they did not assume that they were the family in its entirety, recognizing that they were but a part of the family. Similarly, in these last days, there is a remnant testimony to the truth of the one body. Those identified with that testimony do not assume that they are the one body, but merely seek to meet on that ground. They do not set themselves up to be anything, but simply seek to practice the truth of God in regards to the assembly.
God’s Ways With the Jews in the Tribulation
When we look into the prophetic Scriptures we find that the Lord will deal with the Jews once again on this very same principle. In the Tribulation period, the mass of the nation will enter into a covenant with the Beast, and will accept the idolatry that he and the Antichrist will introduce. As a result, the nation will be thoroughly corrupted (Jn. 5:43, Matt. 12:43-45). When the mass of the Jews plunge themselves into idolatry, the Lord will not openly identify Himself with the nation in their wicked alliance (Isa. 18:4). The reason He will deal with the nation in this way is just the same as it was in their earlier history and with the church – it would give a wrong idea to the world of the true character of Jehovah. Instead, He will separate a remnant and give the mass over to the idolatry that they desire (Ps. 106:15). During that whole time God will maintain a remnant testimony amidst the great apostasy. “Many among them shall stumble, and fall, and be broken, and be snared, and be taken. Bind up the testimony, seal the law among My disciples” (Isa 8:11-18, Isa. 10:21-22, 11:11, Joel 2:32, 3:1-2, Mic. 4:7, Zeph. 3:13).
This is depicted symbolically in Revelation 11:1-2, where it speaks of “the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein” being measured. The measuring of these three things signifies God’s presence and the privilege of approaching thereunto by certain ones – the Jewish remnant. Just as in the Mosaic order of things, where only a certain class among the people were allowed access into God’s presence in the temple, so also in a coming day only a remnant will be granted access to God. This does not mean that the remnant will enter the literal temple that the Jews will have in the Great Tribulation. It will be desecrated by the presence of the image of the Beast, and the worship of Jehovah will be forbidden. The remnant, however, will be granted a spiritual access into His presence by prayer wherever they are found in hiding. It is a provisional thing granted to the remnant in that difficult time (1 Ki. 8:37-40). This is depicted in the second book of the Psalms (Ps. 42-72), where their prayers and exercises in that day are portrayed; when they are not able to enter the temple to pray. But then notice that a fourth thing – “the court,” which signifies the outward profession of the nation (the mass of the Jews), is not measured. “For it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.” This means that “the court” – the unbelieving mass of the Jews – will not come under divine care as will the remnant. Instead, they are given over to the control of the Gentiles – the Beast, for 42 months, which is the period of the Great Tribulation. In spite of the appearance of the Lord giving up His professing people, He will deal with a remnant and will bring to pass His purposes for the nation with regard to the Kingdom in it.
The Path for the Faithful in the Day of Ruin
One may well ask, “If God has a remnant testimony today, where all the truth to do with the assembly is practiced, how am I to find it?” Firstly, let us not think that God has left us to find our own way through the confusion. It is a great relief to learn that we are not left to our own resources for this seemingly impossible task. He has made ample provision for us. “Unto the upright there ariseth light in the darkness” (Ps. 112:4). It is imperative that we recognize that however keen our natural intelligence, however great our knowledge of Scripture, however sincere our desires, we cannot, if trusting our own minds, find God’s path amidst the confusion. These things can actually be a hindrance to us if they are not held in communion with the Lord. We must own that we are simply not competent to find our way through the confusion, and then look to Him to guide us.
When we look out at all the divisions in disordered Christendom, it is a formidable challenge indeed to find the path in which God would have our feet. But without hesitation we would direct every exercised soul “to God, and to the Word of His grace” (Acts 20:32). These are two great resources that we can draw upon – communion with our God and the principles of His Word. If all agree that the guide for the Christian is the Word of God, then we must search the Scriptures in dependence upon Him for light on this subject. “In Thy light shall we see light” (Ps. 36:9). “The meek will He guide in judgment: and the meek will He teach His way” (Ps. 25:9). “Thy word is a lamp unto My feet, and a light unto My path” (Ps. 119:105).
Second Timothy 2:19-22
Turning to 2 Timothy, we find that Paul laid out the path for the faithful when the great departure would come upon the Christian profession. The exercises, if followed, would lead to a remnant of exercised believers who are seeking (in much felt weakness) to practice all the truth of God in regards to the church. This instruction could not be more appropriate for our day when the ruin in the Christian testimony is full-blown. He 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. But youthful lusts flee, and pursue righteousness, faith, love, peace, with those that call upon the Lord out of a pure heart” (2 Tim. 2:19-22).
It has often been said that this passage is the charter for the believer in a day of ruin and failure. The ruined condition of things in the Christian profession is likened to “a great house.” The house is seen in disorder and characterized by being filled with a mixture of things – some honorable and some dishonorable. The vessels of “gold and silver” might answer to true believers, and the “wooden and earthen” vessels to false professors. They are seen as all mixed together. Since association with evil defiles (1 Cor. 15:33, 1 Tim. 5:22, Haggai 2:10-14, Deut. 7:1-4, Josh. 23:11-13, 1 Ki. 11:1-8, etc.), the vessels of gold and silver are seen as defiled by their association with the wood and earthen vessels. The defilement may emanate from association with either the persons themselves or their erroneous principles and practices – whether doctrinal, moral, or ecclesiastical.
When the apostle refers to the vessels “to honour” and “to dishonour,” it appears that he is indicating the state of the vessels. While all who are mere professors in the house are surely vessels to dishonor, not all true believers may be in honor either. If believers are not going on well with the Lord they could also be classified as vessels to dishonor. Even fewer still are the vessels to honor that are sanctified. We find, therefore, in this passage three classes of vessels:
1. Vessels to honor – those going on well in the mixture.
2. Vessels to dishonor – those going on poorly in the mixture.
3. Sanctified vessels to honor – those going on well who have separated themselves from the mixture.
Purging Ourselves
The exercise is not to merely be a vessel “to honour,” but to be a “sanctified” vessel “to honour.” This involves the purging of oneself from the mixture by separation. These verses clearly teach that it is impossible to be a sanctified vessel when one remains in fellowship with the corruption in the house. The mere association with the evil doctrine and practice is enough to taint us, even if we personally do not hold or practice the evil. Therefore, the great exercise for the believer desiring to be faithful is to “withdraw” himself from the unrighteousness and iniquity in the house by separating from the mixture of things. Thus, he becomes a “sanctified” vessel to honour. It is a separation that is to be practiced in the house of God. The believer is not called to leave the house, for this would require him to abandon the Christian profession altogether, but he is to separate from the disorder there. (Compare Proverbs 25:24.) Nor is he called to “purge” the house of all that dishonours the Lord, but rather, to “purge” himself from the mixture in the house.
“From These” and “with Them”
The exercise here is two-fold: first to dissociate, and then to associate. This is indicated in the words, “from these” (vs. 21), and “with them” (vs. 22). The believer is to separate from the vessels that are all mixed together in the house, and follow “with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.” This order is consistent throughout Scripture (Isa. 1:16-17, Rom. 12:9, 13:12, Ps. 34:14, 3 Jn. 11). Scholars tell us that, “from these,” is in the genitive plural in the Greek, which means that it is broad in application and could include persons, principles, and things – i.e. the whole mixed state of things in the house – all the vessels in the mixture, good and bad, real and false. It means that the faithful believer is to dissociate himself from all that is contrary to the truth of God; all that denies what the true church is under Christ the Head; and from all that denies the Holy Spirit His true place as Guide. By doing this, the believer becomes a “sanctified” vessel “to honour.”
What this passage is teaching is that the faithful believer must not be satisfied to walk personally upright before God, but that he should also separate himself from any association with the mixed state of things (the corrupt persons, doctrines, and practices) in the house. This means that he will have to separate from some true believers who are unconcerned about their association with the error and confusion. We are called to separate from the disorder in the house; if true believers are content to go on in fellowship with the confusion, we have no choice but to separate from them too. This is a painful thing, and a real test of our willingness to act on the principles of Scripture. Since it is true believers that we are separating from, we should feel it deeply. Because we are brethren, there is a bond of love between the members in the body. Nevertheless, the Lord’s call has precedence over love for brethren. In fact, the proof of our love for our brethren is seen in our obedience to God. “By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep His commandments” (1 Jn. 5:2). Notwithstanding, let us be on guard against an attitude of thinking that we are better or more spiritual than those from whom we separate. The right spirit in purging oneself from the mixture of vessels in the house involves self-judgment, not self-righteousness.
When the believer has done this, then the Lord will guide him into fellowship “with them,” where he can practice all the truth of God (such as the truth of the one body)—albeit, this will be in a remnant. Notice also that the exercise of dissociating oneself is pressed upon the believer first. The path of associating “with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart” will not be found until we have acted on the light that we have in separating from what we know is wrong and inconsistent with the Scriptures. It is only then that the Lord will give us further light and lead us in the path.
Associating “with them,” would tell us that going off into isolation is not the answer to the ruin in the house of God. Some people throw up their hands in frustration when they see the hopeless ruin of the church and resign themselves to going on just as individuals. But separation should not lead to isolation. Let us ever remember the exhortation of “not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is” (Heb. 10:25). Notice also, it does not say, “Follow ... them,” for that would be merely following men. It says, “Follow ... with them,” which implies that they are also following themselves, and that we are to join “with them” in following the Lord and the principles of His Word. If a person is truly exercised, we believe that the Lord will direct him in the path. This verse (22) shows that the Lord will provide some others with whom we can walk and practice the truth. It will not be with all the members of the body, but with some in a remnant testimony.
Pursuing Righteousness, Faith, Love, and Peace
In this path, self-judgment is not to be neglected. Paul adds, “Flee also youthful lusts.” This is not an exhortation to the young only, because old men can have youthful lusts too. In separating from the mixture of vessels we are to “pursue righteousness,” which is seeking to do right in all of our relationships in life. This is important, because if we become careless as to our personal dealings with people, whether it is in business or life in general, we could easily falsify the stand that we have taken by withdrawing from iniquity, and thus, mock the position that we have taken.
Then we must also follow “faith,” which is the inward energy of the soul’s confidence in God. This is much needed in these difficult days in which we can easily become discouraged with how few there are that want to practice the truth. If our faith breaks down and we get overcome with discouragement, we are likely to give up in the path that we have taken.
Then also, we are to follow “love.” This would be “love unto all the saints” (Eph. 1:15, Col. 1:4). While we have had to separate from many of them, we still love them. There is a danger of our love getting narrowed, by focusing on only those with whom we walk in separation. Moreover, our love could even grow cold toward those with whom we walk. Those who choose to walk at a distance from their brethren often grow cold and slip away from the remnant position. It is important, therefore, that we keep ourselves in the love of God (Jude 21), and in the warmth of the fellowship of our brethren who “call on the Lord out of a pure heart.”
Then lastly, we are to follow “peace” by seeking to keep in step with those whom we walk (1 Chron. 12:33), so that there might be a happy unity among all who are identified with the remnant testimony.
From this position of walking with those that “call on the Lord out of a pure heart,” there is much service to be engaged in. Having disentangled ourselves, we are now “serviceable to the Master” and “prepared for every good work.” This does not mean that those who remain associated with the confusion in the house cannot be used of the Lord in service; the point here is that the servant can now be used for “every good work.” In service to the Master we are to reach out from the fellowship of that remnant testimony and seek to be a blessing to all. One great work is to seek, “in meekness,” to instruct those of our brethren who are still mixed up in the confusion within the house that “opposes” the truth of God. Peradventure, God will open their eyes and “give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth.” This is something that those who seek to serve the Lord – yet remain in fellowship with the confusion of the house – cannot do, nor would they want to. To seek to disentangle fellow believers from the confusion will require gentleness and patience. We must watch our spirits so that we do not engage in strife, for “the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient” (2 Tim. 2:23-24).
Chapter 3: The Assembly Vouchsafed With the Lord's Authority
We have spoken of two great resources that we have to guide us in these last days when the Christian testimony is in confusion – “God and the Word of His grace” – prayer and the Word of God. They are the two things the church has had for its guidance from its inception. But there is another great resource that we must not overlook – the Holy Spirit. Let us not forget that there is a divine Person dwelling in us Who is seeking to lead us in the path. The Lord said, “Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth” (Jn. 16:13). The first inference in the New Testament to the Holy Spirit guiding believers to the place of God’s gathering center is Matthew 18:20. Since God has one fellowship to which all Christians are called (1 Cor. 1:9), the Spirit of God would only lead to that one ground of gathering where Christ is the center.
Matthew 18:18-19
If 2 Timothy 2:19-22 tells us of the process of exercise through which we must go to find and be identified with the remnant testimony today, Matthew 18:18-20, outlines the great principles of gathering upon which those connected with the remnant testimony are to meet. It is none other than the ground of gathering that the Lord originally intended for the whole church to meet on for worship and ministry. This means that it is still possible for us to practice all the truth of Scripture with regard to how Christians are to meet together (i.e. the truth of the “one body”), even though we are in a day of ruin and most Christians do not have that exercise.
Someone has aptly called these verses, “the Magna Carta of the church.” In the early days of the church, the Spirit of God gathered all Christians on this one ground of gathering, but that was before the scattering in Christendom had taken place. Today, we can expect that only a remnant of believers will be interested in meeting on these principles.
If this passage truly marks out the great principles of gathering for Christians meeting together for worship and ministry, we can expect that our adversary, the devil, will throw much dust in the air as to its interpretation in order to confuse as many as he can. We can be sure that what God is most set for, Satan is most set against. The devil is not happy to see Christians gathered together on God’s principles, and will attempt to scatter them at all costs. He is not happy that we should meet and walk together as one (Jn. 17:11, 21). This enemy has a particular hatred for the truth of gathering, because he knows that if it were practiced it would unite the Lord’s people. It’s the reason Matthew 18:20, and the subject of the Lord’s Table, have been so often under attack. The devil knows that the most effective way to accomplish his purposes of dividing and scattering God’s people is to attack the very keystone truth upon which God would have them gathered. His plan is simple; if he can take away from the saints the truth of the one divine gathering center, they will surely be scattered.
It was the case in Israel. As we have already seen, behind Jeroboam’s plan of building alternate centers in Bethel and Dan lay the obvious design of the devil to divide the children of Israel (1 Ki. 12). The enemy’s designs to divide the saints in Christianity have been no different. As mentioned, he is seeking to undermine the foundation truths having to do with being gathered together unto the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ (which is God’s center for Christians meeting for worship, ministry, and administrative actions) with the intent to scatter Christians. The many hundreds of denominations in Christendom and the various divisions among those who seek to practice the principles of gathering are a testament to how great his inroads have been.
The enemy’s work has been so effective that most Christians are not even aware of the great principles that are before us in this passage! For those who have been gathered unto His Name, there is always a danger of being led away from that ground by the wiles of the devil. And when this happens, they usually become the bitterest opponents to its truth. J. N. Darby said, “The great part of the collective conflict is with the willful misunderstanding of the truth of Christ as the one gathering center. No one is a more bitter opponent of this truth than the one who knows it, but doesn’t walk in it.” Since we are told to be on guard against such attacks from the enemy (Acts 20:29-31, 2 Cor. 2:11, 1 Pet. 5:8), as we proceed with the great principles of gathering, in this passage, we will address some of the divergent ideas that have confused the minds of some and have led them astray. We will see that almost every phrase in these verses has been attacked, undermined, and twisted in some way.
The Assembly Vouchsafed With Authority, But Not Infallibility
If we look at the context of the passage we will see that the Lord was announcing that He was going to confer His authority upon “the assembly” to act for Himself during His absence. This was a new departure in the ways of God. Israel was going to be set aside on account of their failure, and Christ was about to “build” His assembly (Matt. 16:18). The assembly was going to be the new divine administrative center on earth that God would recognize. If difficulties were to arise among the saints, they were no longer to bring them to the judges at Jerusalem, as when He gave His authority to Israel to act for Himself in Judaism (Deut. 17:8-13); they were now to bring it to the assembly. He said, “Tell it to the assembly.” Then, He went on to say that the assembly would have authority to act in His Name administratively, if need be, saying, “Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” An example of the assembly binding would be in 1 Corinthians 5:11-13. An example of the assembly loosing is in 2 Corinthians 2:6-11. Thus, the assembly has been vouchsafed with the Lord’s authority to act in His Name during the time of His absence, and its acts are to be submitted to as the final authority. This authority was not given to the apostles (though a special apostolic authority was given to them), but to the assembly. This is the first reference (Matt. 18:18-20) to the local assembly in the Bible: Prior to this, the Lord spoke of building His assembly in its universal aspect (Matt. 16:18).
However, because the assembly has been given authority, it does not mean that it is infallible in its acts. J. N. Darby has written a helpful article on this subject entitled, “Confounding Authority With Infallibility.” He shows that it’s possible that the things the assembly may bind on earth may be in error, but it does not change the fact that the Lord’s authority is vested in the assembly. Many people have been confused on this point. They can’t understand how an action that is wrong could be “bound.” They conclude that if it is wrong, then it couldn’t be bound in heaven. However, it is a mistake to think that “bound in heaven” means that it is necessarily approved by heaven. It simply means that heaven recognizes it. Heaven may not be happy with a decision the assembly makes; yet it stands by it. The thing is still bound. It is because the assembly has been vested with the Lord’s authority to act for Him representatively. It is an extension of His authority.
We can well understand this principle within a household. In Darby’s article on “Confounding Authority with Infallibility” he makes mention of the fact that parents have a divinely given authority in their household, yet they are not infallible. Acquiescence is the duty of all in the household. A father might discipline a child in mistake, but it still stands, and the duty of all in the household is to acquiesce. This is the way order in the household is maintained. When it comes to light that he has made a mistake, under normal conditions, he will correct his mistake with humble apologies, and make the necessary amends. Also, in the case of a police magistrate: he has authority to arrest someone, but since he is not infallible, it is possible that he could make a mistake. But his action still stands, and the individual has no choice but to accept it, until it is shown to be wrong. If the civil authorities were not run that way, there would be no order in government at all, and we would be living in a state of anarchy. Heaven may not be pleased with a decision the assembly makes, yet it stands by it. In this way, order is maintained in the house of God.
It should solemnize us greatly when we think that we could use that authority mistakenly and identify heaven with something that is not right; and thus, incur His governmental judgment. This is the very reason the Lord has outwardly dissociated Himself from the mass of the Christian profession, and is presently dealing with a remnant. If that remnant should carry on in a low state and fail in its responsibility before the Lord, He will bring His hand of governmental judgment upon those identified with that testimony, and reduce its size and numbers by sifting and scattering some, to the end that they may be humbled. This has happened, as witnessed in the various divisions and scatterings that have taken place in history. If those connected with the remnant testimony continue to act in a way that is not pleasing to the Lord, He will close up the church’s history on earth altogether and take it home to glory. This is hinted at in following the downward course of the church’s testimony recorded in the seven churches of Revelation 2-3. When the obnoxious state of Laodicea is reached, the only escape is upward. A “door” in heaven is opened, and John is called up into heaven; this hints at the fact that believers will be called away at the Lord’s coming – the rapture. (Rev. 4:1).
The Case of an Unrighteous Assembly Decision
If such a thing would happen that an assembly makes an unrighteous decision, there is recourse. Firstly, we can take the matter in prayer directly to the Lord, the Head of the church. He can exercise the consciences of those in that locality to the end that they will set the action right. Secondly, the Lord will raise up prophets among them locally, or send some from other assemblies, to arouse the conscience of that assembly so that it might be rectified (2 Cor. 2:4, Rev. 2:13, 2 Chron. 24:19-22, Jud. 9:5-21). Thirdly, if that local assembly refuses to deal with its wrongs after they have been shown to them conclusively, then that local assembly would be disowned by the binding action of another assembly who would act on behalf of the body at large. They would simply recognize the fact that the assembly in error is no longer on the true ground of the church of God. The whole (local) assembly in question is dealt with because it has defended the evil in its midst and has become a partner in it. If things reach this point, it is no longer a question of certain individuals in its midst being involved in the evil, but of the whole (local) assembly that has refused to judge it. This is the sad but orderly and Scriptural way of dealing with a mistaken assembly action, or inaction – should they fail to act to put away evil (Deut. 13, Jud. 21, 2 Sam. 20:14-22).
However, the removing of a candlestick, locally, is something that the Lord does not do quickly. (In Revelation 2:5, in J. N. Darby’s Translation, the word “quickly” is left out.) It is only after much remonstrance and space for repentance that the Lord will raise up another assembly on behalf of all the assemblies at large to disown that particular assembly in the wrong. Then, of course, the erroneous action that that local assembly has bound would no longer stand. In the interim, until an assembly comes in and acts for God’s glory in the matter (in disowning the unrighteous assembly in question), we are to bow and wait on God. We mention this to show that there is recourse against the abuse of authority in administrative affairs.
Let us note that Scripture never instructs us to take matters into our own hands as individuals and to act independently in what seems to be a wrong assembly action. The independent action of individuals in such collective matters is always decried in Scripture (Deut. 17:12, Num. 15:30-31). It only opens the door to the enemy. God has His way in which such problems are to be dealt with, and we must follow it if order is to be maintained. Unfortunately, this is where many Christians get into error. They think that they can’t submit to something they believe is unrighteous and not according to Scripture. They think that they will be compromising a good conscience. Some will say, “I have to obey the Lord first, not the brethren.” But whether they realize it or not, they are really saying that they are more holy than the Lord Himself. If He can stand by the decision until it is rectified, why can’t we? An assembly that makes an error in its administrative responsibilities still has the Lord in its midst until it is disowned as being no longer on the true ground of the church of God. J. N. Darby said, “Why speak of obeying the Lord first, then the church? But supposing that the Lord is in the church? It is merely setting up private judgment against the judgment of the assembly meeting in Christ’s Name with His promise (if they are not, I have nothing to say to them); it is simply saying, ‘I count myself wiser than those who are.’ I reject entirely as unscriptural the saying, ‘First Christ, then the Church.’” He also said, “The question therefore is a mere and poor sophistry which betrays the desire to have the will free, and a confidence that the person’s judgment is superior to all that has been already judged.”
Satan often likes to work under the guise of righteousness in such situations. He and his ministers will transform themselves into “ministers of righteousness” in order to deceive the unprincipled or “unsuspecting” soul into acting independently (2 Cor. 11:14-15, Rom. 16:18). He will make a thing look like we must stand for righteousness sake by taking the matter into our own hands; but we will not have the blessing of God if we do. Independent action is not the answer; it is not keeping “the unity of the Spirit.” As we have said, if we think that an assembly has made a mistake, we can take it to the Head of the church. He hears, understands, and cares about it far more than we do. And if we have faith that He will rectify it as He sees fit, we can leave all with Him to deal with it. But if we don’t have that confidence in Him, and can’t trust Him to look after it, we’ll find ourselves trying to get it done in our own strength—which is no more than the energy of the flesh.
“Whatsoever”
W. Potter has a short paper on assembly actions in which he says that the “whatsoever” of Matthew 18:19, is an “unconditional” whatsoever. An assembly may bind something wrongly, and our place is to submit until it is rectified in an orderly way. Regardless of what Potter says, making the “whatsoever” unconditional, to some, is akin to Popery. They believe that that would be making the assembly infallible in its administrative actions, which is not true. Such persons argue that if “whatsoever” is unconditional, then the assembly could bind anything that it wanted to, and that it would be automatically bound in heaven. In their minds, it would be making heaven subject to the actions of the church on earth; and should the assembly make a mistake, then heaven would be putting itself in fellowship with the evil, which is something God would never do. On the surface, this argument seems quite logical, but behind it is the enemy’s attempt to bring confusion into the assembly and an overthrowing of its actions. All anyone has to do is declare that an action of the assembly was an unrighteous action, and conclude that heaven has not bound it. And if heaven has not accepted it, then they should reject it too. Therefore, they do not have to bow to it. It is a convenient way of setting aside assembly actions that we don’t like. If the assembly’s administrative acts were to be only submitted to under the condition that they are righteous acts, then all order would soon be lost.
The great problem with this erroneous idea is that assembly judgments become subject to our private judgment. The assembly is no longer the highest court of authority in these matters; our personal judgment is. In this, all order is gone. Everyone is left to do “that which was right in his own eyes” (Jud. 21:25). Where many have been sadly misled is in the idea that unless an assembly action bears the hallmark of God’s Word, it binds no one on earth and is not ratified in heaven. In other words, the decision is only a bonafide binding action of the assembly when it is a right decision. Now, if we were to only bow to an assembly decision when we thought it was right, the sad outcome each time the assembly acted would be that some would end up submitting to the decision, and others would not, simply because their private judgments differ. In these days when the state of the church is generally low, we are bound to have some who will think that they are wiser than their brethren, and whose private judgment will differ from the assembly. The enemy would soon make use of it in dividing the saints; and thus, disrupt the unity. It’s surely not God’s way of maintaining order in His house. No, we are enjoined to submit, even if we thought the action to be wrong, and wait on the Lord to correct it. Thus, order is maintained. J. N. Darby said, “A judgment of an assembly, even if I thought it a mistake, I should in the first instance accept and act upon.”
In an effort to negate the force of the “whatsoever” in Matthew 18:18, and to try to prove that it could not be unconditional, some have mistakenly assumed that verse 19 is a prayer meeting; and thus, they reason that if the “anything” in the assembly’s prayers is subject to heaven’s qualifying (for God only answers our prayers when they are according to His will), then their “whatsoever” in binding decisions must also be subject to heaven’s qualifying. But they are mistaken in thinking that verses 19-20 refer to the prayer meeting, strictly speaking. The context indicates that it is a meeting for discipline, though the principle laid down in these verses is broad enough to include all assembly meetings in a secondary application. (This is why Matthew 18:20 is sometimes read in the breaking of bread.) Paul speaks of this same meeting for discipline in 1 Corinthians 5:4-5. If it was speaking of the prayer meeting, then the Lord changed His subject right in the middle of His dissertation on the assembly’s administrative actions; and then switched back again in verse 20, and in the following verses, having to do with having a forgiving spirit toward a repentant brother who has sinned (Vs. 21-35). It would not be orderly. The point of verse 19 is that the assembly comes together with the Lord in the midst (Vs. 20) to invoke God to ratify their binding decision. The promise is sure, “It shall be done for them of My Father which is in heaven.”
For those who might question whether “whatsoever” is referring to anything that the assembly might pass judgment on, we would point them to 2 Corinthians 2:10. We find there that when it comes to loosing a binding action, Paul says, “To whom ye forgive anything ... ” If they are seen forgiving “anything” they must necessarily have bound anything. This should not be difficult to understand if someone has a willing mind. But that’s the great question. Do we really want the Lord’s mind? The truth is for those that want it (Jn. 7:17). People sometimes make such a big fuss about the assembly perhaps making a wrong decision, that you wonder what they are driving at. But really, how often has that happened? Rarely. Mr. Potter also said in that same article, that in 50 years he had not known of an action that was made among the brethren that couldn’t be submitted to.
C. D. Maynard said, “An assembly, when gathered to the Name of Christ, has Him in its midst, and has His authority for acting in binding or loosing the sins of an offending brother. (Matt. 18:18-20) Such an act is ratified in heaven. From this decision there is no appeal, save to Christ in glory; as Jesus 'committed [His cause] to Him that judgeth righteously.' (1 Pet. 2:23) ...It might occur to some that if a local assembly judged, as they thought, wrongly, an appeal might be made to another local assembly. For example, to restore a person wrongly put out. This has no more Scriptural authority for it than any Romish corruption. On the face of it, it denies the practical oneness of the two meetings. To entertain the question refuses that there is one body and one Spirit. If the Lord's Table be one, both meetings are bound when one acts, so that appeal is impossible. If they can revise one another's judgments, the unity of the Spirit does not exist there, they are but independent meetings.” The misunderstanding of this important principle in assembly matters is behind all the sad divisions that have occurred among those gathered to the Lord’s Name down through the years. We do well, therefore, to ponder these things carefully.
Another erroneous idea that some have is that if the assembly makes a wrong decision (and it may be only so in their eyes), then it can no longer be regarded as an assembly owned by God; and, therefore, they should leave it. This may be an excuse for them to act in self-will, and perhaps go elsewhere. However, it is a mistake to think that an assembly loses its standing as an assembly, Scripturally gathered to the Lord’s Name, if it should make a binding action in error. This idea betrays an ignorance of confounding authority with infallibility. The fact that an assembly has authority but not infallibility is to assume the possibility that it could make a mistake. In making a mistake, the assembly does not lose its status as being a Scripturally gathered assembly, any more than parents in a household cease to be parents because they make a mistake in disciplining their child. Corinth was still recognized by the apostle as the church at Corinth, and was addressed as such by the apostle, even though there were serious evils there. If such an assembly refused to correct the evils in its midst, after much patient remonstrance, it could potentially be cut off or disowned by the binding action of another assembly on behalf of all assemblies at large on the true ground of the church.
An example of this misunderstanding would be in what happened at Tunbridge Wells in 1908-9. Some who know of this incident believe that the actions the assembly took, first in silencing (1903), and then later by putting away C. Strange (1908), were unrighteous. Believing that Tunbridge’s dealings with C. Strange were unjust and unscriptural, they thought that Tunbridge Wells thereby lost its status as an assembly truly gathered to the Lord’s Name. This being the case, some felt its actions could not be recognized as bonafide actions bound in heaven. Consequently, they would not bow to the decision.
Now, it is clear from the facts of the case that the Tunbridge assembly did act in somewhat of a confusing way. Also, subsequent interaction between various ones at Tunbridge Wells manifested somewhat of a harsh spirit that certainly could not be condoned. But the great question is, “Was it an assembly decision?” Both sides agree that it was; only that the Lowe party in London believed it to be an unrighteous assembly decision, and therefore, would not bow to it. However, just because some of the London brethren (the Lowe party) thought that the action was unrighteous and unscriptural, didn’t change or nullify the action. The other question is, “Did the assembly at Tunbridge Wells have authority to act in the Lord’s Name or not?” If not, when did it lose its authority to act? We have seen in the preceding pages that an assembly doesn’t lose its standing as being Scripturally gathered to the Lord’s Name because we (individuals) think it has made an unrighteous action! Let us remember, the action was made in the Name of the Lord by an assembly gathered to His Name, and thus, vested with authority to act in administrative matters. The assembly at Tunbridge definitely had authority to act in the Lord’s Name. Therefore, their action was bound in heaven and all should have bowed to it. This would have prevented the division.
Since the action at Tunbridge Wells did not seem, to the Lowe party (and those on the continent), to bear the stamp of grace, they didn’t consider it to be a bonafide assembly decision. The great mistake here is thinking that one only submits to a decision of an assembly when it is a correct one, and has been carried out in a gracious way. The idea of submitting, even if we think the decision is wrong, was not even considered. This was surely a departure from the Scriptural truth that earlier brethren taught. It is making assembly decisions contingent upon the moral condition of the assembly – that the assembly must be in a good state before its decisions can be binding, and therefore, submitted to. Again, this is confounding authority with infallibility. A good moral state, of course, is desirable, but that is not what gives the assembly its authority. As we have already stated, it is the Lord being in its midst that gives an assembly its authority to act. If the Lowe party thought that the assembly at Tunbridge was in error, they should have bowed to the decision “prima facie,” at least for the time being; then sought to raise the conscience of that assembly as to its wrong. This would have preserved order and unity.
While some did address the brethren at Tunbridge as to this, it was not in the spirit of inquiry, but to condemn. Among many in London there was no acquiescence in the fact that the local brethren usually know the person’s ways best, and their judgment should be submitted to. Regardless of this, N. Noel, in his “History of the Brethren,” notes that the brethren in London. and around the country, judged that the decision was unscriptural, and therefore, unrighteous. So they disregarded it! They allowed C. Strange to continue breaking bread among them! This was an act of utter contempt toward the action taken in the Tunbridge assembly where the Lord was in the midst. The Lowe party manifested a spirit that assumed that they were above the authority of the Lord as vested in the assembly in Tunbridge – a very serious thing indeed. It was an affront to the Lord. It was only after the London meetings (that followed Mr. Lowe) had broken “the unity of the Spirit” by receiving C. Strange, who had been put out in Tunbridge, that the assembly in Tunbridge issued its statement (1909) to no longer continue in fellowship with those who would not recognize the action they had taken in the Name of the Lord. This was also an action of an assembly gathered to the Lord’s Name and should have been bowed to by all other assemblies.
In conclusion, we would say that what was at the bottom of the whole issue to do with the Tunbridge Wells decision was the gross misunderstanding that an assembly action should be bowed to only when it is correct. Again, it is a simple matter of confounding authority with infallibility. A large part of the brethren from Europe got off track by attempting to discern the right path by assessing the moral state of both sides. They thought that the Lowe party was more humble, and therefore in the right. Hence, they made moral state the criteria upon which to judge the action, rather than the Lord’s authority in the midst of those He had gathered. Those that went with the Lowe party acted on this false assumption, and it took them into division.
Scripture teaches that the moral state may be low in those on divine ground, and they may act churlish in matters, but it doesn’t change the ground of gathering that they are on and the authority of the Lord in their midst. This is seen in the case with Rehoboam (1 Ki. 12). He acted in a very poor way towards those of the ten tribes, against the advice of the elders; and his actions precipitated division in the kingdom. While we do not justify his actions, it didn’t change the fact that He and all Judah were still at the divine center for Israel (Jerusalem) where God’s authority was vested. If moral state were the criteria for deciding where the Lord was in that matter, we would have to say that He was with Jeroboam and the ten tribes, and would set up His divine center in a place among them. We have already noted that the Lord would not do that: He was not with the northern tribes of Israel thereafter (2 Chron. 25:7).
What happened at Tunbridge Wells brought to light that a departure from the truth of assembly principles had been growing among brethren for a number of years. It took this incident to manifest it. Mr. Sibthorpe spoke of it as a “system.” After the action had been taken by Tunbridge Wells to excommunicate C. Strange (1908), and then their subsequent action to no longer continue in fellowship with those assemblies that challenged the authority of the Lord by receiving C. Strange (1909), many were under the idea that they needed to decide for themselves in the matter. This too is a false principle. It was not necessary for assemblies all over England and the continent of Europe to decide, for the decision was already made in Tunbridge Wells on behalf of the assemblies at large. What was needed was submission to the action taken in the Name of the Lord. It honors God and also shows that we recognize the Lord’s authority as vested in the (local) assembly. This would have prevented division.
In fact, every division has happened when an assembly has taken an action against someone, in excommunicating them, and a party of sympathizers would not bow to the action, claiming it was not a bonafide assembly decision. Behind each case, this one thing has been evident – the failure to recognize an assembly action as having the authority of the Lord.
As the case is, behind all of the divisions that have occurred among brethren, the Lord was sifting out those who had departed from Scriptural principles having to do with the assembly.
Ulterior Motives With Some
We would like to think that those who refuse to bow to an assembly action are honestly deceived as to these assembly principles, but sometimes, it’s because people have ulterior motives. Let us remember that our natural hearts are “deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked” (Jer. 17:9). And, “He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool” (Prov. 28:26). There may be hidden motives in our hearts that we have not detected. This seems to have been the case with Absalom. When his brother Amnon had committed incest in the kingdom, the Levitical law stated that he should be executed (Lev. 18:9, 29). When King David did nothing about it, Absalom decided to take matters into his own hands and led out a company of men to kill Amnon. To the simple and “unsuspecting” ones (Rom. 16:18, 2 Sam. 15:11) this act of hatred was probably viewed as an act of justice, righteousness, and godliness. In their eyes Absalom probably appeared to be a faithful man acting for God’s glory, not sparing even his own half-brother. But Absalom had no care for the Lord’s glory or hatred for that sin, and proved it by turning around and committing incest with his father’s concubines – ten times more than Amnon (2 Sam. 15:16, 16:22). A deeper reason as to why Absalom had Amnon killed, aside from his obvious hatred for what Amnon did to his sister Tamar, was his thirst for power. He wanted to reign on the throne in Israel, and His brother Amnon, who was older and first in line to the throne, had to be removed. Amnon’s sin simply became his opportunity to take him out of the picture. Similarly, in assembly matters, some might have ulterior motives for the side they take in a case.
Sometimes, a person might act against his better judgment in a case. As you look at the situation on the surface you might wonder why he would ever take such a position on that issue. It might come out later that there was an unforgiving spirit toward the person in question that he had hidden, maybe for years, and had never really judged. And when that person whom he has had feelings against is charged with something, his root of bitterness springs up and he takes sides against that person. An example of this is seen in Ahithophel (2 Sam. 15:12). He was Bathsheba’s grandfather; and though he suppressed it, he felt that David never got his due punishment for his adultery with her and his murder of her husband (2 Sam. 11). When an uprising from within the kingdom challenged David’s throne, this ugly spirit in Ahithophel arose and he took sides against David. In reading the history of this revolt, you might wonder why he would ever take such a position, but it turns out that he had never judged his unforgiving spirit toward David.
The Administrative “Care” Meeting
When problems arise, and an administrative judgment/action needs to be taken in a case that comes before the assembly, the responsible brothers should meet apart from the assembly to get an understanding of the facts of the case and seek light from the Scriptures as to what the assembly should do. Simply put; the purpose of the “care” meeting is to look after the cares of the assembly.
There are three main occasions in the book of Acts where the brothers came together apart from the whole assembly to consider matters (Acts 15:6, 20:18, 21:18). They were apostolic councils. Though they were not exactly local administrative “care” meetings, as we know them—for these were gatherings of brothers from a number of different localities—but they do lay down a principle for us by indicating that matters can be looked into by brothers apart from the assembly. It says, “The apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter” (Acts 15:6). Note: the sisters, younger brethren, and new converts are not mentioned as being there. Things are not to be hashed out before the assembly, because there may be some disputing (Acts 15:7), which would not be orderly for a public forum; and also, things that might be addressed could be defiling, which would not be appropriate in such a setting (1 Cor. 14:40).
When the brothers feel they have discerned the mind of the Lord from the Scriptures as to what the assembly should do, they bring the facts (not necessarily the details, because they could be defiling) and the Scriptural conclusions before the assembly so that the conscience of all can be engaged in the matter (Acts 15:22). Then it becomes a ratified binding decision (Matt. 18:18-20).
An idea that some have, is that the brothers are to simply formulate a proposal to the assembly; and when they bring it to the assembly, the assembly as a whole then decides. While there is truth to this, the brothers who take the lead are responsible to see to it that the assembly is guided in a Scriptural course of action, regardless of whether all agree or not. If it were not so, then the older responsible brothers (who understand the principles and know what should be done) could have their godly Scriptural judgment forestalled by the sisters and novices, or partisans, if they don’t agree. It would mean that a Scriptural judgment would become subject to those that have little experience, or intelligence, or perhaps have a bias in assembly matters. Surely this could not be right. Some seem to have the idea that the brethren cannot act until they get the OK from these persons. This equates to the people controlling their leaders, which is the principle of democracy. Many have stumbled over this very thing when the elders have sought to carry out a Scriptural judgment, but some have disagreed with the action.
This does not mean that the elders make the administrative decisions in the assembly, and that the rest have no input. Nothing can be officially decided apart from the assembly having opportunity to have its conscience engaged in the matter (Acts 15:22); and this is why the elders are to seek the conscience of all in the assembly by bringing it before them. The leading brethren should be sensitive to any legitimate objection that ones in the assembly may have, be it a sister or a brother. But in the end, they are ultimately responsible as “the angel” of the church to act for the glory of God (Rev. 2:1, etc.). It is not a binding decision of the assembly until it is done in the assembly, in what is sometimes called a meeting for discipline (Matt. 18:19-20, 1 Cor. 5:4).
Unanimity is Not Necessary in Assembly Decisions
While the local assembly should attempt to get, or reach, the consciences of all in that assembly when making a binding decision, Scripture does not demand that there be a satisfying of all in the assembly before it can be called a bonafide decision. We cannot expect in these last days, when the will of man is evident in asserting itself in the church more than ever, to get unanimity in assembly judgments. This was the case in the judgment at Corinth. 2 Corinthians 2:5 says, "If any have caused grief, he hath not grieved me, but in part...all of you." (Quoted without the parenthesis, as in J. N. Darby Trans.) Apparently, there were some among the Corinthians who were not grieved about the sin in their midst. Though this was the case, the assembly still carried out the action for the glory of God. The apostle Paul used the words, "in part," in a similar way when he referred to a faction among the Corinthians. He said, "ye have acknowledged us in part, that we are your rejoicing, even as ye also are ours in the day of the Lord Jesus." (2 Cor. 1:14) This was because not all at Corinth would acknowledge him as an apostle sent from God.
Judges 20-21 illustrates this point. When evil had to be judged in Israel, it says, "all the children of Israel went out, and the congregation was gathered together as one man." Yet the men from Jabesh-gilead did not come up to join in with their brethren in dealing with it (Jud. 21:9). Apparently they were not exercised about the matter, but that did not hinder the Spirit of God from stating that "all" Israel dealt with the evil (Jud. 20:1, 26). This illustrates, by way of type, that unanimity is not necessary in binding assembly decisions. After all, in a heretical situation you would rarely get the approval of the one whom the assembly judgment is against, and perhaps his family and supporters wouldn’t approve, so there is usually not going to be unanimity.
The Assembly is Not a Democracy
Democracy is a form of government wherein the people rule by majority vote. The assembly, however, is not a democratic institution that reaches its decisions by a show of hands, with every person having an equal say in matters. We once heard an ignorant and worldly younger brother say, “I’ve got just as much a say around here as he does (referring to a grave and godly older brother who had addicted himself to the care of the assembly for 50 years)!” In fact, there could be a case where 6 or 7 younger brethren want to do a particular thing, but 4 or 5 grave older brethren feel otherwise. Since the older brethren’s judgment is to be respected, having the moral weight in the assembly, the younger brethren are to acquiesce in their judgment of the matter. They should be glad to follow the spiritual lead of their older brethren.
Now, we are not saying that a couple of older brothers can force an assembly into a decision with which it does not agree; which would be acting in the spirit of Diotrephes (3 Jn. 9-10). Things to do with binding and loosing are not to be done apart from the assembly. And it is possible that younger brethren may have the mind of the Lord in a matter where the older brethren have perhaps missed it (Job 33). In such a case, the older brethren should be glad to accept light on a matter that they may have overlooked. But in normal assembly life, it is the older godly and experienced brethren who have the moral weight in assembly matters. This is God’s order.
Some seem to think that "getting the consciences of all" means, “to get the consensus of all” – a kind of getting the opinion of all. However, that is not the way in which the assembly is to arrive at a course of action in its administrative affairs. The elders do not bring the matter to the assembly to get their opinion, but to give them the facts of the case and to present the Scriptural course of action that must be taken, so that the consciences of all can be engaged. It is not the opinions of sincere people that are to guide the assembly; it is the Word of God. We are warned by king David who looked to the opinions of the people, and not to the Lord, when deciding the course of action that he should take to bring the ark of God to Jerusalem. He was sadly misguided (1 Chron. 13:1-4). Going by mere human sentiment and feelings is not what is needed when deciding the course of action that the assembly should take in a matter.
It has been asked, “Who decides for the assembly?” Our answer is, the Lord. He is the Head of the church, and it is to take its direction from Him (Col. 2:18). It is to look to Him for guidance, and He will do so through the principles of the Word of God. In assembly decisions we should seek to get, or reach, the conscience of all in the local assembly so that all might be exercised in the matter; but the assembly, oftentimes, cannot follow the conscience of some. This is because they may be young in the faith and their consciences may not be sufficiently enlightened in Scriptural principles to be able to form an accurate judgment; or they might be worldly and don’t have the spiritual discernment; or they might be biased in the matter. In any case their judgment must be disregarded.
Occasionally, actions have been taken by the assembly when a few brothers were not at the local care meeting, or at the assembly meeting where the action was taken, and this has led some to think that it could not be a bonafide assembly decision ratified in heaven. They cry, “But all the brothers weren’t there to decide!” Again, this is a democratic idea. The assembly acting in its administrative capacity, without all present, is not uncommon in Scripture. We see the principle of it in 1 Corinthians 15:5, in connection with the office of apostleship. It says, "He was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve." When we compare this with Luke 24:34-48 and John 20:19-24, we find that there were only ten of the apostles present when the Lord appeared to them, yet they are called "the twelve!" Judas had hung himself and Thomas was not there. According to Acts 1, Matthias had not yet been chosen. His election didn't happen until after the Lord had completed all His resurrection appearances (in 40 days) and had ascended into heaven. It is clear, therefore, that Matthias was not yet part of “the twelve.” Yet those assembled are still called “the twelve.” Why would Scripture use the term in this way? It is because it is not necessarily designating a specific number of persons gathered together (for Christianity is never occupied with literal numbers – see Acts 1:15, 2:41, 4:4, 19:7 – “about”); but rather, it is speaking of the administrative office that they held and the authority they had to act as such. In the Corinthian epistles, where assembly function and order is unfolded, it is consistent that this would come in there. (It is also noteworthy that the Lord's appearances to the women are not given in First Corinthians 15, because assembly administration is committed to the responsible brothers.) The assembly, acting in its administrative capacity, does not need all present before its actions are bound.
Moral Weight Lies With The Leaders in the Assembly
The Lord's normal means of guiding the local assembly is through those whom He has raised up to "take the lead" (1 Thess. 5:12-13, Heb. 13:7, 17, 24, 1 Cor. 16:15-18, 1 Tim. 5:17 JND Trans.). These men should know the principles of the Word of God and be able to lay them out, so that the assembly might understand the course of action God would have them to take in a particular matter (Tit. 1:9). These men do not appoint themselves to the role of leadership, nor does Scripture teach that the assembly should appoint its elders, as is the case in most denominations in Christendom. The Spirit of God raises them up as He sees fit (Acts 20:28). "Taking the lead among you," does not necessarily refer to leading in public teaching or preaching, but to the administrative affairs of the assembly. To confuse these two distinct things is to misunderstand the difference between gift and office. Some of those that "take the lead" may not teach publicly at all, but it is very good and helpful when they can (1 Tim. 5:17). They are those who have addicted themselves to the care of the saints—whose knowledge of principles, experience and judgment having proved to be sound—that carry the bulk of the weight in the assembly in its administrative affairs.
There are three words used in the epistles to describe the responsible leaders in the local assembly. Firstly, "elders" (Presbuteroi) refers to those advanced in age: it implies maturity and experience. However, not all aged men in the assembly necessarily function in the role of leaders (1 Tim. 5:1, Tit. 2:1-2). Secondly, "bishops" or "overseers" (Episkopoi), refers to the work that they do; shepherding the flock (Acts 20:28), watching over souls (Heb. 13:17), giving admonition (1 Thess. 5:12) etc. Thirdly, they are called "guides," or "leaders" (Hegoumenos), referring to their spiritual capacity of leading the saints.
In the book of Revelation, those in this role of responsibility are referred to as "stars," and also as "the angel of the [local] church" (Rev. 1-3). As "stars" they are to bear witness to the truth of God (the principles of His Word); as light bearers in the local assembly, they provide light on various subjects that it may be confronted with. This is illustrated in Acts 15. While it is not exactly to do with binding and loosing, we learn valuable principles of administrative function in the church. After hearing the problem that was troubling the assembly, Peter and James as "stars" gave light on the matter. James applied a principle from the Word of God and gave his judgment as to what he believed the Lord would have them do (Acts 15:15-21). As "the angel of the church," those in this role are to act as messengers to carry out the mind of God in the assembly in the performance of the thing. This is also illustrated in Acts 15:23-29.
The Voice of Dissenters
There may be, however, those in the assembly that do not agree with the course of action that the assembly believes it should take. If it were experienced grave men who carry moral weight, the assembly should wait, but if it were friends and supporters of the individual or individuals in question, they are not to be regarded. In fact, those people should be rebuked. They shouldn’t hinder the assembly from carrying out its responsibility before the Lord. William Kelly said, "In peculiar cases there might be relatives or friends, perhaps even partisans or accomplices more or less, whose opinions ought not to be given, and if given, ought to be rebuked rather than heeded."
An example of this happened in the Nepean assembly judgment (1991). The leaders, and many in the Nepean assembly, saw a course of action they believed the assembly must take and a party of supporters and sympathizers of the brother in question objected. This element of supporters did all they could to forestall the action; in care meetings, in the sending of a letter to Perth for help (where they knew they could get sympathy), and even in the actual assembly meeting when the action was made. The Nepean assembly did not regard the voice of these dissenters and the action was carried out.
Many stumble over the procedure of a particular assembly judgment, rather than looking at the facts of the case, and what is needed to be done for God’s glory. The enemy would seek to throw dust in the air, clouding the real issues; and thus, getting people confused. There may be some history of personal problems between brethren that we bring into the picture that affects our judgment. However, we are to let things be decided by divine principles, not by the weaknesses and shortcomings of those involved. Sometimes, people will point to something they believe was handled poorly and base their judgment on that, forgetting there is a human element in assembly administration that may not do everything perfectly. But the fact remains: are those in leadership in the assembly acting for the glory of God in the matter? Our spirituality is tested by these side issues.
In the case of a division in a local assembly on a particular issue (usually a disciplinary matter), how many brethren are on each side have little to do with it. There may be more persons that side with the guilty person than those that make the judgment, but the action is still taken and the person is dealt with accordingly. Some have cried, “How could it be an assembly decision, when the majority of the assembly does not agree with it?” It is so because the older leading brethren, who have addicted themselves to caring for and guiding the assembly and who stand on the principles of the Word of God, carry the bulk of the conscience of the assembly. Though they may be fewer in number, they carry the moral weight in the assembly decisions. They are directly responsible to the Lord to see that a Scriptural course of action is taken by the assembly (Heb. 13:17). The others should acquiesce in their judgment in the matter, even though they may not see it as the elders do. This preserves the unity of the assembly.
We see this principle borne out in the Old Testament types, from which we can gather important principles. In the Absalom revolt, he had all the tribes of Israel with him (2 Sam. 16:15)—the majority—but God was not with him. The Lord stood with king David (the leadership in Israel) and Judah, even though their numbers were inferior. Those that identified with David were on the Lord’s side. In the end, God caused Absalom to be defeated. Again, in the days of the cleavage of the two tribes from the ten tribes, we see the same thing. Jeroboam had the ten tribes on his side – the majority of Israel, but he was still in the wrong, and the Lord would not identify with him (1 Ki. 11:31). Rehoboam, who was the rightful king and leader in Israel, had but one tribe with him, yet God stood with him (1 Ki. 11:36). Those who stayed with Rehoboam were preserved at the divine center. These are important lessons that we do well to learn.
The great question is, “Where do the leaders in the assembly stand in the matter?” We do not say older men, but those that take the administrative lead in the assembly; for there are older ones who do not involve themselves in the affairs of the assembly regularly, or who have not carried themselves well in the past, and consequently, do not have the confidence of the saints as those who have faithfully addicted themselves to the care of the assembly. It is to the Lord Jesus, the Head of the church, that the assembly is to look to in all matters; but in the normal course of things, He uses these faithful men whom He has raised up by the Spirit of God, who have knowledge of the principles of the Word, to show the assembly God’s mind in a matter. In formulating difficult assembly decisions, the assembly should submit to their judgment (1 Cor. 16:15-16). When there appears to be a division among the older leading brethren in an assembly, discernment is needed to know those who truly have the moral weight. As mentioned, some older ones may not necessarily have the confidence of the saints as others do, or they may be biased. First Thessalonians 5:12-13 says, “We beg you, brethren, to know those who labour among you, and take the lead among you in the Lord, and admonish you, and to regard them exceedingly in love on account of their work. Be in peace among yourselves.” This is God’s formula for a happy peaceful assembly.
A True Impasse Among the Responsible (Local) Brethren
When there is a true division among the elders, the assembly should wait until God makes it clear as to what they should do. If they come to an impasse, it may be that they should call for brethren from another assembly to advise them of the Scriptural course they should take in the matter. J. N. Darby said, "If the assembly does not feel itself in a state to do it, that places the brothers on their own responsibility, and if they call in other experienced brothers to help, it is all right, for the body is one; but it is the assembly that cuts off in order to purify itself, and this is of all importance." He also said, "The voices of brethren in other localities have liberty equally with those of the local brethren, to make themselves heard in their midst, when discussing the affairs of a meeting of the saints, although they are not locally members of that meeting. To deny this would, indeed, be a serious denial of the unity of the body of Christ. ...When such is the case, it is a real blessing that spiritual and wise men [individuals] from other meetings should step in and seek to awaken the conscience of the assembly, as also, if they come at the request of the gathering or of those to whom the matter is the chief difficulty at the time. In such a case their stepping in, far from being looked upon as an intrusion, ought to be received and acknowledged in the Name of the Lord. To act in any other way would surely be to sanction independency and to deny the unity of the body of Christ."
Godly exercised brothers who know the situation, can go to, or write to those in responsibility in that assembly and bring before them Scriptural principles regarding the difficulty. The brethren who voice their concerns and give their judgment in the matter could be called in by that assembly, or could approach that assembly on account of their concerns about the situation. In either case, they should be welcomed by the local assembly where the concern lies, for they are all one body and what affects one affects all. But they go in as brothers, not as an assembly with authority to re-judge the case in question! A. Roach said, "Brethren called in by an assembly to help it have no authority to judge the matter, as this rests entirely with the assembly. These brothers form no part of the 'judge' and when they have given their advice their work is done.” He also said, “Some time ago the writer and another brother were called in to help a gathering in a local matter. At our final meeting with responsible brothers from that gathering, the brother with me made a statement to this effect – ‘We can only advise you as brothers, and if you feel that our advice should be acted on, you must submit it to the assembly for approval, as the authority is there.’”
We do not find any Scripture that would indicate that one assembly should intervene upon another assembly’s action and re-judge the case. It would be a denial of the Lord’s authority in the midst of the first assembly, and in essence, is the erroneous principle of Bethesdaism (Open Brethren). Many years ago, during general meetings held at St. Louis, Missouri, the question was asked, “Is it right for one assembly to interfere with another assembly’s action in a case?” The answer was, “Not unless invited Scripturally to do so. Trouble has been caused by one assembly taking up the business of another, uninvited. To do this is a mistake.”
Chapter 4: The Scriptural Ground of Gathering
Matthew 18:20
So that no one would be confused as to what exactly “the assembly” is, the Lord goes on in Matthew 18 to define it as being the saints gathered unto His Name. “For where two or three are gathered together in My Name, there am I in the midst of them.” The “for” in this verse connects with the foregoing verses which speak of the local assembly. This verse shows that the assembly gets its judicial authority to act in administrative matters from the presence of the Lord in the midst, thus sanctioning its actions.
However, not all who claim the promise of this verse in a day of division are necessarily on this ground. A careful look at the verse will show that there are a number of conditions from the “where” to the “there” that must be met before a company of Christians gathering together for worship and ministry could be said to be on the Scriptural ground of the assembly as gathered unto His Name. The Lord gives some very important principles here that are enlarged upon in the epistles. We need to read this passage carefully and prayerfully so that we do not miss the import of it.
“Where”
Many Christians think that when the Lord said “where,” that He simply meant “wherever.” They have the idea that the Lord was saying that a group of believers can get together as they please, whenever and wherever they want, and they will automatically have the promise of His presence vouchsafed to them. They imagine that if a few go out for coffee, or go skiing together, etc., they can claim the promise of this verse with the Lord being in their midst. This again, is taking this precious passage of Scripture wildly out of context. Now, it’s true that the Lord is with all believers wherever they may be as individuals, at all times (Matt. 28:20, Heb. 13:5), but that’s not the context of this verse in Matthew 18. As mentioned, this verse has to do with the Lord being in the midst of a divinely gathered assembly to sanction its administrative actions. We might call it His presence collectively; whereas, the other would be His presence individually. They are not to be confused. There is a difference of His being with Christians, and of Christians having Him in the midst of their assembly meetings. His presence known, in this collective sense, is what sanctions the existence of that company which He has gathered by the Spirit. This could not be true of all Christian groups that men have formed, for if the Lord gave His presence in this sense to all such groups, He would be sanctioning the God-dishonoring divisions in the public testimony of the church. This, we believe, He would not do.
Nor should we confuse Christ’s presence and the presence of the Holy Spirit. The presence of the Spirit of God is also known in two ways. He is both “in” and “with” believers (Jn. 14:17, Acts 2:1-4). Firstly, He dwells in every believer (Jn. 14:17, Rom. 8:9, 11, Eph. 1:13, 4:30, 1 Thess. 4:8, Jam. 4:5, 1 Jn. 3:24, 4:13). Secondly, He dwells in the house of God where both believers and unbelievers are (Jn. 14:17, Acts 2:2, Eph. 2:22). If an unbeliever should come in among believers, where the Spirit of God dwells, he may “partake” of the Spirit of God in His lost state, in the sense of tasting of the privileges that they enjoy (Heb. 6:4-5). The partaking would only be an outward thing, of course – not a full common sharing of what the believer has. This is indicated by the use of the Greek word “metecho,” which implies participation, without specifying how far the participation goes. It means that even an unbeliever can partake of the outward privileges of Christianity if he comes into the house of God where the Spirit of God is working.
We quote from “Help & Food,” regarding this point of the Spirit’s presence being everywhere in the house. “To be gathered unto His Name, means that His Name constitutes the Centre of union. What unites us is the truth of what [Who] He is; where He finds a people for whom this bond suffices, there He promises the blessing of His personal presence in the midst. This presence 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) otherwise ‘Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven’ is connected with it.”
The “where,” in this verse (20), indicates that the Lord has a place where He has put His Name on earth, and that He is there in the midst of those He has gathered by the Spirit around Himself. It is the ground of New Testament principles upon which Christians are gathered for exercising administrative actions (the context of the passage), and would include collective worship, ministry, and prayer. Brethren have called it the divine ground of gathering.
“Wherever,” makes it a place of our choosing (as men say, “Go to the church of your choice”); “where,” on the other hand, makes it a place of His choosing – the place of His appointment. The place is not a geographical center as it was in Judaism – Jerusalem, but a spiritual ground of principles upon which Christians are gathered together by the Spirit. Christians thus gathered may meet in many different places all over the earth, but they are on one singular ground, and they are all in fellowship with one another. The various local companies might meet in a plain room, a kitchen, or a barn – but it is where the Spirit of God has gathered them together unto the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ.
We learn from Hebrews 13:13 that this place where the Lord is in the midst is outside “the camp” – an expression that denotes Judaism and all of its Judaistic principles and practices. Christians, generally, have missed this point, and have carried many things connected with Jewish worship into their places of worship. They have ignored the plain teaching of Scripture that says that the tabernacle is a figure of the true sanctuary into which we now have access by the Spirit (Heb. 9:8-9, 23-24). Instead, they have used it as a pattern for their church organizations and worship. They have erected great temples and cathedrals “made with men’s hands,” borrowing many things from the Old Testament, in a literal sense, for their worship. They have missed the fact that the true Christian ground of gathering and worship is wholly a new thing with a new order of approach to God “in spirit and in truth” (Jn. 4:23-24, Heb. 10:19-20). We know then, that this ground of gathering for Christians is totally outside, or free of Judaism. Anyone looking for this place of the Lord’s appointment would have to look away from all such places in Christendom, because whether it is St. Peter’s in Rome, or the smallest evangelical chapel, there are usually the trappings of Judaism woven into the fabric of their so-called Christian worship services.
The whole principle of gathering, in Christianity, is different from Judaism. The Lord contrasts the two in John 10, by speaking of the Jewish ground of gathering as a “fold” and the Christian ground as a “flock.” (See J. N. Darby’s Translation on John 10:16.) The fold, which is an enclosure (or a corral), denotes the legalistic way the law had of keeping the sheep together. The external forces or commands of the law which necessarily cut them off from the nations, kept the Israelites together. On the other hand, a flock is a gathering of sheep without an enclosure. The sheep are together, not because of any external influence, but because there has been a work done in them whereby they are attracted to the Shepherd in their midst. There is no need for a fence to keep them together; they want to be there because they have one common attraction – the Shepherd. F. C. Blount said that one was a circumference without a center, and the other was a center without a circumference. To indicate the transition from Judaism to Christianity, the Lord spoke of leading His sheep out of the “fold” and into the “flock.”
“Two or Three”
Another condition for a divinely gathered assembly is that there must be at least “two or three.” This is because there cannot be an assembly with only one person. Everything done at the divine center is to be done “in the mouth of two or three witnesses” (2 Cor. 13:1, 1 Tim. 5:19). “Two or three” is the divine minimum. In saying this, it seems that the Lord was anticipating the days when things in the Christian testimony would be in such ruin that there might be only a few Christians in a locality who would be exercised about being on the divine ground of gathering. If this were the case, they could still enjoy the privileges of the Lord in their midst.
The Lord had just said, “If two of you shall agree on earth as touching anything ... ” (vs. 19); now He said, “two or three ... ” (vs. 20). In these few words, the Lord established the fact that even a small assembly of “two or three” that is on the ground of the church of God (as being truly gathered to His Name) is competent to make binding decisions. Those decisions are ratified in heaven, and are to be bowed to by all on the true ground of the church on earth.
As we said earlier, we will be tested on every principle having to do with the ground of gathering. This very thing, of the divine minimum for a Scripturally gathered assembly, has been challenged. There have been occasions when a small assembly gathered to the Lord’s Name has made a binding decision, but some influential (gifted) individuals from other assemblies thought that they knew better, and encouraged saints abroad to disregard the action because they considered the assembly to be incompetent. As a result, the enemy made use of it and many were drawn away into division. An example of this would be the action of the Tunbridge Wells assembly in 1908-9. While that assembly had dozens more than the divine minimum of two or three, it was small in relation to the size of assemblies in those days. Some said that it was a small assembly that was not competent to make a godly judgment; and that the action that was made by them in the Name of the Lord was done in a wrong way; therefore, it could not be regarded. However, the truth is that if a small assembly is truly gathered on the ground of the one body, it has the same authority to act as a large assembly. Numbers have nothing to do with it.
“Are Gathered”
The Lord went on to say, “are gathered.” Note, He didn’t say, “come together,” or “meet together,” as some modern translators put it. This is because the divine ground of gathering is not a voluntary association of believers. It is true that there should be personal exercise and energy on the part of those that are gathered to be found there where Christ is in the midst, but the passive tense – “are gathered” – points to the fact that there has been a gathering power outside of themselves that has been involved in their meeting together on that ground. The divine Gatherer is the Holy Spirit. This is pictured in Luke 22:7-20, where the Spirit of God is seen in the figure of “a man ... bearing a pitcher of water” leading the disciples to the place of the Lord’s appointment where they could be with Him for the supper. “Water,” in Scripture, often signifies the Word of God (Eph. 5:26). We learn from this, that the Spirit of God uses the principles of the Word of God, and thus, guides believers to the place of the Lord’s appointment. The man’s name is not mentioned, which points to the fact that it is not the object of the Spirit of God to draw attention to Himself (Jn. 16:13-14). The fact that the Spirit of God is not directly mentioned in Matthew 18:20, though His work is, is certainly in keeping with this. He does not take a place of prominence in Christianity, but works behind the scenes guiding exercised souls to that Scriptural ground of principles where Christ is in the midst of those thus gathered.
Over the years, the truth of the Spirit’s work depicted in the words, “are gathered,” has also been hotly contested. Some have tried to say that it is only brethren of recent years who teach that, “are gathered,” refers to the work of the Holy Spirit. They imply that it is a new invention of the brethren. They have even tried to go into the Greek to prove that it is not so. Incidentally, the word here in the Greek is sunago, and means, to “lead together.” This clearly shows that there is a power outside of those who are thus assembled that has brought them together on that ground. Who else could the Lord entrust with the gathering of His people together unto His Name, but the Spirit? The best-intentioned men have sought to gather the Lord’s people together and have made a mess of it. They have shunted them into denominational sects and groups, telling them to “go to the church of their choice.” The result has been that the saints of God have been scattered into something like 1500 different divisions. This surely is not the work of the Holy Spirit.
Now, if we think that all Christians who come together for worship and ministry are gathered to the Lord’s Name by the Spirit in the collective sense, as Matthew 18:20 states, then what we are really saying is that the Spirit of God is to blame for the Christ-dishonoring divisions in the church! He has gone and led them to meet in division from one another! If there is more than one ground of fellowship for Christians to meet on, to which the Spirit of God leads, then He is the Author of division. Surely, no sober Christian would charge the Spirit of God with responsibility for the sad and divided state of the church’s testimony. No, the Spirit of God could only be leading to one place – one fellowship of the saints – one ground of gathering.
“Together”
Then the Lord said, “together.” As we have stated earlier, the Lord did not want His people to be merely “gathered” to where He was in the midst, but to be “gathered together.” This is an allusion to the universal (worldwide) fellowship among the saints. All those whom the Spirit of God would gather unto the Lord’s Name, wherever they may be on earth, are to be “together.” As already stated in chapter one, this does not mean that they should all be gathered together in one place geographically (as it was in Judaism–at Jerusalem), but that they would act together in the various localities where the Spirit has gathered them, so as to give a universal expression to the fact that they are one. This points us to the truth of the one body in practice. It shows that the Lord’s desire for the assembly, from the very outset, was that there would be one universal fellowship of the saints.
This great truth of the “one body” in practice has also been under attack. Those who believe in the autonomy of assemblies (Open Brethren) will tell us that if we try to practice the truth of the one body, we will necessarily have to walk in fellowship with every member of the body, regardless of the things (moral, doctrinal, or ecclesiastical) that they might be going on with, which in turn means that we would have to compromise holiness. Those who say such things clearly do not understand God’s ways in a remnant testimony, when the public profession in Christianity has gone into ruin. Walking in fellowship with all of the corruption in the house is not what is meant by keeping “the unity of the Spirit.” The Spirit of God is a divine Person, and keeping the unity that He has formed involves being in fellowship with that divine Person. Walking in fellowship with the Spirit means that we are to walk in holiness and truth, because He is called “the Spirit of holiness” and “the Spirit of truth” (Jn. 14:17, 15:26, 16:13, Rom. 1:4). This, necessarily, means that we must walk in separation from everything that is inconsistent with His holy Person, as we have seen in 2 Timothy 2:19-22.
These same ones will tell us that Revelation 2-3 proves that each assembly is to be run autonomously because the Lord addressed each assembly individually, and held them individually responsible. While this is true, they forget that each address ends with the Lord saying, “What the Spirit saith to the churches” (plural), because although each was addressed to an individual local assembly, it also had a bearing on all the assemblies. Each assembly is firstly responsible for what goes on in it, but responsibility does not end there. The whole truth of the matter is that responsibility does not stop at each local assembly. There is such a thing as collective or corporate responsibility. When things are not dealt with in a local assembly, the other assemblies have a responsibility to deal with that assembly. Compare Deuteronomy 13 for the principle in type. When sin was evident in a certain city in Israel, the other cities were responsible to deal with that city for allowing sin to go on unjudged in it. It does not mean they are to involve themselves in another assembly’s matters, but if one assembly will not judge evil in its midst, after much remonstrance and patience exercised by the brethren at large, another assembly (usually one that is circumstantially nearest to it – Deut. 21) may have to rise up and, on behalf of the body at large, disown that sinful assembly as a leprous house (Lev. 14). It is an action made in the Name of the Lord, and therefore, bowed to by all the assemblies that are on the Scriptural ground of the church.
“Unto My Name”
Then lastly, the Lord said, “unto My Name.” It is not “in My Name,” as the KJV renders it, but “unto My Name.” This implies that there is a submission involved – a submission unto that Name. His Name represents His authority. So the thought is that they are gathered on that ground in submission to His authority. And where is His authority revealed? We say unequivocally, “In the Word of God.” Therefore, those thus gathered are to uphold, bow to, and seek to practice all the truth of God. There are many Christian groups today that only practice parts of the truth. For instance, a group may uphold those things having to do with the truth of Christ’s Person, but not care for the exhortations having to do with Christ’s authority as Head of the church. For instance, they might be very careful to uphold His deity, etc., but disregard the Scriptures that speak of the sisters wearing a head covering or forbidding women to minister publicly in the assembly, forgetting that those things are “the commandments of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:37).
Moreover, the Lord said, “My Name.” He did not mean some man-made denominational name. The church, in its earliest days, met only in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ when it assembled for worship and ministry. They took no other name than His. Notwithstanding, the church today has divided itself up into hundreds of groups, distinct from one another; and has given each of those divisions a sectarian name. We ask, “Is this what the Lord intended for His church?”—Surely not. God thinks so much of His Son that He has set the highest value on His Name, and has “given Him a Name which is above every name: that at the Name of Jesus every knee should bow” (Phil. 2:9-10, Eph. 1:21). What must He think as He looks down on the Christian profession and sees Christians coming together for worship and ministry bearing all sorts of denominational names? While He sets the highest value on the Name of Jesus, men say that it doesn’t really matter what name you bear! Where in Scripture are we told to departmentalize the church into sectarian groups and name them Presbyterian, Baptist, Christian Reformed, Christian Alliance, etc.? Do we think that the Lord’s people will bear those names in heaven? No! all other names will fall at once. If the Name of Christ is supreme in heaven, it should be on earth too. The Lord taught His disciples to pray to that end, saying, “Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven” (Matt. 6:10).
Oftentimes we hear it said that those on the true ground of the assembly are gathered unto the Lord Jesus. We surely know what they mean, but this verse does not exactly say that. It says that we are gathered unto His Name. Christians are still waiting to be gathered unto Him. This will happen at His coming – the rapture (2 Thess. 2:1). Today, because of ignorance, self-will, and failure, there are relatively few who are gathered, but at that moment all Christians will be gathered! It will be a triumphant end to the Church’s sojourn in this world. The church will end its history in this world in the same state in which it began – “all with one accord in one place” (Acts 2:1). Only then, it will not be in an upper room in Jerusalem; it will be in the air!
The truth of being gathered unto His “Name” has also been under attack, but perhaps in a little different way – through imitation. There are many groups that profess to be gathered to the Lord’s Name. They will often put a sign out on the front of their meeting place quoting Matthew 18:20. However, declaring publicly that we are gathered to the Lord’s Name does not necessarily mean that it is so. G. Hayhoe used the illustration of a charlatan who sets up a doctor’s office, putting a sign up declaring that he is a physician and surgeon. However, when you go into the office you notice that he doesn’t have any diplomas posted proving what medical school from which he has matriculated. Upon asking the nurse what school he has graduated from, she informs you that he doesn’t have any diplomas, and that it’s really not important because the sign in the window is good enough. Likewise, in the case of Christians meeting together, the proof of whether they are truly gathered to the Lord’s Name is not whether they say they are, but whether they submit to the authority of His Name that they profess. The question is, “Do they meet on the principles of gathering that we have been reviewing?”
“There am I in the Midst”
It is only when the above conditions are met that a company of Christians could be divinely gathered; and thus, have the promise of the Lord’s presence in their midst. As we have already stated, His presence known in this collective sense is what sanctions the existence of that company which He has gathered by the Spirit. This could not be true of all Christian groups that men have formed, for if the Lord gave His presence to all such groups in this sense, in a day of division, He would be sanctioning division in the public testimony of the church.
There are those who think that what constitutes a Scripturally gathered assembly, according to Matthew 18:20, is simply that Christians meet in a right moral state. They think that if there exists a condition among the saints in a place where they are going on happily together in a good state, that the Lord would be pleased to come into their midst, and thus, fulfill Matthew 18:20. Now we do not condone for a moment a low moral state in an assembly, but having the saints all happily going on together is not what qualifies an assembly as being gathered according to Matthew 18:20, and thus, having the Lord’s presence in their midst. If that were so, then the converse would be true. As soon as an assembly’s state gets low it would lose the Lord’s presence in its midst, and then it would no longer Scripturally gathered on divine ground! To make moral state the qualifier is to completely misunderstand the whole subject of Matthew 18:18-20.
Two Aspects of the Assembly
The use of the word "assembly," is also something that has been confused in the minds of some. The Bible uses the word in application to Christians in two ways – to describe the church in its universal and local aspects. (It is also used in connection with Israel and the heathen – Acts 7:38, 19:32, but that is not connected with our subject, since we are looking at the word in its application to Christians.) It is noteworthy that Scripture refers to the local aspect of the assembly far more often (about 90 times) than of the universal aspect (about 20 times).
When the universal aspect of the assembly is in view, it is referring to every true Christian (Matt. 16:18, Eph. 1:22, 5:25, etc.). It is something that all Christians are part of as a result of their faith in the finished work of Christ, and the consequent sealing of the Holy Spirit. This is true regardless of where they are, or in what state of soul they may be in, or when they may have lived between Pentecost and the rapture. Those that compose this aspect of the assembly have a fixed and an eternal place of blessing with Christ.
While the universal aspect of the assembly has to do with the fixed position of blessing that all Christians have as united to Christ, the local aspect of the assembly has to do with the practical functioning of Christians in a city or town (Matt. 18:18, Acts 11:22, 13:1, Rom. 16:1, 5, 1 Cor. 1:2, Col. 4:15-16, etc.). It embraces all true believers in a locality, but may not involve all in that locality practically. This is because some in that locality, through ignorance or disobedience, may not be engaged in its practical assembling. They might, however, belong to some recognized group of Christians in the town that does not properly meet on the ground of the assembly as found in Scripture. Distinguishing the universal aspect of the assembly from its local aspect simply requires getting the context of the passage.
While all believers seem to agree on what the universal aspect of the assembly is, there are many that seem to be confused about its local aspect. They have the idea that the local aspect of the assembly is nothing more than the sum total of all believers in a particular city or town, including those gathered to the Lord’s Name (if there is such a gathering in that town) and all those in the various church denominations. Consequently, they think that we should not refer to the saints gathered to the Lord's Name as the assembly in such and such a locality because all in the town are not there with them. However, when we compare this definition with Scripture, we find that it is sadly deficient and needs qualification.
The first reference to the local assembly in the Word of God is in Matthew 18:15-20. As we have already seen, when attempting to clear up problems that might develop among the saints, they were to "tell it to the assembly." After speaking of the authority vested in the assembly, the Lord went on to define the assembly, saying, "For where two or three are gathered together unto My Name, there am I in the midst." Very clearly, then, none other than the Lord Himself tells us that the local assembly is made up of the saints gathered to His Name. The Lord's wisdom in mentioning the minimum number of saints (two or three) that could compose a local assembly is clearly seen. In view of the great ruin that would come upon the Christian testimony, He knew that things would get so weak that there might be only two or three so gathered in a locality. And if there were but two or three, it would still be viewed as "the assembly."
When we look at the various references to the local assembly in the Word of God, we learn that it is something that visibly comes together and functions practically in a city or town (1 Cor. 11:18). We learn that it assembles for worship and ministry, etc. (1 Cor. 11:20-26, 14:3-5); and that in it sisters are to be silent (1 Cor. 14:34-35). More than this, the apostle Paul spoke of the assembly as something that people could come into and go out of at various times. He also said that he personally was not always in the assembly! (1 Cor. 14:18-19) And that even unbelievers could come into it! (1 Cor. 14:23-24) Moreover, the apostle John spoke of the local assembly as being something from which a person could be cast out! (3 Jn. 10) This clearly shows that the local assembly is something more than some abstract concept of all the Christians in a particular town.
Now, if the idea of the local assembly being nothing more than all Christians in a town were accurate, the apostle John could not have rightly called it "the assembly," when ones, as he mentioned, were already cast out of it. We also find that Paul addressed the saints in Corinth as “the assembly” in that place (1 Cor. 1:2), yet later in the epistle he allowed for the fact that there might be other Christians in the city ("unlearned" or “simple” ones) who were not among them, and who might come into their meetings to observe things there (1 Cor. 14:16, 23-24). If there were such Christians around in the city of Corinth, then it is clear that Paul did not subscribe to the idea that all must be present in order for it to be called “the assembly” at Corinth. Again, in Paul's second epistle to the Corinthians, he addressed the saints there as "the assembly" in Corinth (2 Cor. 1:1), even though there was at least one of them that was not there practically among the saints, having been excommunicated (1 Cor. 5:12-13). The plain fact of the matter is that those whom he was addressing were not the sum total of all the Christians in Corinth—yet he still called them "the assembly."
How different all this is from the universal aspect of the assembly. If one were to apply the references mentioned above to the assembly in its universal sense, he would come away with all sorts of wrong ideas. And we would be equally as confused if we tried to apply these references to that incomplete definition of the assembly being merely the composite total of all the Christians in a city or town. For instance, how could someone be cast out of being part of the sum total of all Christians in a locality? They would have to literally be expelled from the city or town where they live! Or, how could an unbeliever come into the sum total of all Christians in a city, and still be an unbeliever? If he entered the assembly in that sense, he would have to be a believer. Or, how are we to understand Paul’s injunction to the sisters to be silent? Were they to be silent wherever they went in the city? Or, how could the instructions laid out by the Lord for settling personal disputes among the saints be carried out? He said, "Tell it to the assembly." Where, or to whom, would they take their difficulty? They would have the near impossible task of going to all the Christians in that city. Surely we can see from these few references that there is something sadly deficient in that idea of the local assembly.
We conclude, then, that the local assembly embraces all true believers in a locality, but may not involve all in that locality practically. While most in a given place are not gathered to the Lord's Name, those that are on that ground, morally and functionally act as the assembly in that town or city, and are owned of God as such by the presence of Christ in their midst.
It may be asked, “What about a city or town that doesn’t have any Scripturally gathered Christians meeting on the ground of the assembly, yet there are Christians in that place?” In such a case, even though Christians may be meeting together in their church denominations in that town, they are not meeting on the ground of the truth of the assembly. Thus, they have no administrative standing before God as found in Matthew 18:18. We would say that those Christians in that place are part of the universal aspect of the assembly, but that there is no local assembly owned of God in that place. W. Kelly said, "Where there are but three meeting upon God's principles [that is, church ground], it is, if I may so say, church, if not the church. If there were three thousand real saints meeting, but not on God's principles, they would not be the church." J. N. Darby said, "It is clear that the Christians of a certain place, being gathered together, were truly the assembly of that place, but it was not only the assembly that owned God, but that which God owned, and which enjoyed exclusively the privileges He could vouchsafe unto it, as being His assembly." He also said, "The assembly of God is distinguished by the possession of the truth. An assembly which has not the truth as the condition of its existence is not the assembly of God." He also said that those kinds of gatherings of Christians are an assembly, but not an assembly of God, as owned by Him as such.
Perhaps an illustration will help us to see this point. When the Senate of the United States government convenes in Washington to pass some pending legislation, it is not necessary for all 100 senators to be present before they can be called to act as the Senate. As long as there is a quorum (something like 51%) the senators meeting in Washington are regarded as the Senate. They have just as much authority to act as the Senate as if all 100 senators were present. Their authority to act as such does not come from all being present, but by the senators who are present assembling as the Senate is directed by the laws of Congress. Those in the Senate would acknowledge that the others who were not present are equal Senators with them, and would surely miss those not there and feel their lack of contribution. Yet that would not negate the fact that the authority to act as the Senate was only vested in those assembling in the Senate, so long as there was a quorum.
It is just the same with the local assembly. Although there may be many Christians in a locality who are not gathered to the Lord's Name on the ground of the truth, it does not change the fact that those on that ground are morally the assembly in that locality and are owned of God as such. The quorum, so to speak, is the divine minimum of two or three divinely gathered (Matt 18:20).
Having established this point, we hasten to say that it is certainly out of keeping with the whole character of Christianity for those truly gathered to the Lord's Name to formally call themselves "the assembly" of such and such a place. How unfitting it would be in a day of ruin for those so gathered to go about proclaiming that they are the assembly in a particular city or town, even though they believe that they are morally on that ground. J. N. Darby said, "It is clear that if two or three are gathered together it is an assembly, and if Scripturally assembled, an assembly of God; and if not, what else? If the only one in the place, it is the assembly of God in the place, yet I do object practically to taking the title, because the assembly of God in any place, properly embraces all the saints in the one place; and there is a practical danger for souls in assuming the name, as losing sight of the ruin, and setting up to be something. ...but if there will be one such, 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." J. N. Darby also said, "Allow me to say that the assemblies of so-called 'Plymouth Brethren,' far from calling themselves ‘the assembly’ or ‘the church of God’ in a particular place, have always formally opposed the title...the pretension to be the church of God in a place would be a false pretension."
Nevertheless, there are some who strenuously oppose this, calling it sectarian. They insist that the local assembly is composed of all Christians in a city – nothing more and nothing less. We ask, “Why do they want to put the definition of the local assembly in the most abstract of terms?” Why do they argue for this kind of a definition? It seems that what is at the bottom of that kind of reasoning is that an effort is being made to throw the door open to walking in a wider path – to have fellowship with all the Christians in their community. It has been our observation that many who speak in such terms also lean toward fellowship with those of the church denominations in the community. It seems that if they can negate the idea of God having one center of gathering, practically, then they have conveniently given themselves the liberty they want to go to other places of fellowship. It seems that keeping things to do with the local assembly in the most abstract of terms as possible facilitates this desire.
We conclude, therefore, that there are two ways of being in the church (assembly). We are in it in the universal sense, by being saved through resting in faith on Christ’s finished work on the cross and having the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit. Secondly, we can be in it in a local sense, by being part of its local expression and participating in its assembling together for worship, ministry, and fellowship. While all Christians are in the church in its universal sense, not all may be in it practically, in its local sense.
The Lord’s Table
The term, “the Lord’s Table” (1 Cor. 10:21), is another thing that seems to have many erroneous ideas associated with it. The enemy has thrown much dust in the air on this subject too. Some say that all Christians are at the Lord’s Table. Others say that the Lord’s Table is in heaven. And again, others tell us that it is in every place where Christians break bread, and could not be identified with any one company. Usually, these ideas are invented to excuse the path that a person walks in ecclesiastically.
Nor should we think that the Lord’s Table is a literal table that brethren may have in the middle of their meeting rooms. A “table,” in Scripture, symbolizes fellowship. In the case of the Lord’s Table, it symbolizes the ground of fellowship God has for all Christians, where the Lord’s authority is recognized and bowed to. That is why it is called the Lord’s Table. It symbolizes the spiritual ground upon which Christian fellowship is expressed, how the unity of the body is exhibited, and where Christ is in the midst. The various tables, or grounds of fellowship that men have set up which have not the Lord’s authority, are what we might call men’s tables. There is, however, only one “Lord’s Table” (singular). There is no such thing in Scripture as “the Lord’s tables (plural).” He has only one fellowship to which all Christians are called (1 Cor. 1:9). When we see what the Lord’s Table is, we can well understand why there are so many definitions. People don’t like the exclusivity of it, and therefore, manufacture other meanings to allow for the path that they are in ecclesiastically.
Perhaps the most common error is in confusing the Lord’s Table with the Lord’s Supper (the breaking of bread). At the Lord’s Table we show the fellowship of the (mystical) body of Christ (1 Cor. 10:16-17); at the Lord’s Supper we show the Lord’s death (1 Cor. 11:26). Because Christians eat a form of the Lord’s Supper in their denominations they assume that they are at the Lord’s Table, when in reality, they are eating the supper at a schismatic table that men have set up. The question may be asked, “Can those who are not at the Lord’s Table, being scattered into the various denominations, really partake of the Lord’s Supper?” J. N. Darby said, “They may individually remember the Lord’s death, and in that sense have the Lord’s Supper.” W. Potter said, “Take the tables in the various denominations: To these Christians, the table with them is that of the Lord and the supper His, and as such they partake of it. Some among us were for years at one or the other of these tables, and there in all sincerity, there for want of further light. Could it be said in truth we had never partaken of the Lord’s Supper until we were found among those gathered on Scriptural ground? Surely not, though the way in which we had partaken of it was not according to Scripture. ... So, again, there are those professedly gathered to the Lord’s Name who are on independent ground, and the table with them is, as we know, a schismatic one, and as such to be refused; but it is not such to them. But could it be said, they do not partake of the Supper, and that they do not remember Him?” Christians, we conclude, can eat the Lord’s Supper in their denominations, but if it is to be eaten rightly, it must be eaten at the Lord’s Table.
Some will ask, “If there is only one Lord’s Table, and it signifies the only ground of Christian fellowship that He owns, then who (which group of Christians) has it?” This question has got the focus of the matter in the wrong direction. It is focusing on the people that are at the Lord’s Table and asking which group of Christians has it. Our answer as to who has the Lord’s Table is – the Lord! It is His table, and He is leading exercised believers to it. There is always a danger of shifting the focus from the Lord in the midst to the people whom the Spirit of God has gathered, and saying the Lord’s Table is with them. This is a mistake; our focus should be on Christ in the midst. Our gathering is to be “unto Him” (Heb. 13:13).
The fellowship expressed at the Lord’s Table in the breaking of bread embraces all true Christians, even though all may not be at the Lord’s Table. We see in the “one loaf” every member of the body of Christ (1 Cor. 10:17). The Lord’s Table is where all true Christians should be. It is for exercised Christians to seek out that place using the resources that God has given – the principles of the Word of God, prayer, and the leading of the Spirit of God (Ps. 25:9, Prov. 25:2). It comes down to this simple fact – there cannot be two (or more) Lord’s Tables. There cannot be two (or more) fellowships of Christians in the earth that the Lord identifies with as being on the divine ground of gathering. Christ is not divided (1 Cor. 1:13).
“Within” and “Without”
Scripture clearly indicates that there is a “within” and a “without” in connection with the fellowship of the assembly (1 Cor. 5:12-13). In the days when the Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians there were no other fellowships of believers besides those on the ground of the church. The sad outward sectarian divisions in the Christian testimony had not yet developed. There was “the whole church;” outside of that, there were only “simple persons” or “unbelievers” (1 Cor. 14:23). Those who were “called a brother,” were in the one fellowship of Christians who were gathered unto the Lord’s Name. When the assembly at Corinth acted to put away the fornicator, they acted on behalf of the whole church. He was, therefore, outside the fellowship of the whole church of God on earth. If anyone was outside of the assembly in that day he was in the world where he would have no Christian fellowship. Today things are different because of the ruin of the Christian testimony. As a result, there are many man-made fellowships of Christians meeting independently of one another. If a person today is put out from among the saints gathered to the Lord’s Name (who are but a remnant testimony of the unity of the church), while he is universally outside the fellowship of the saints so gathered, he is not necessarily outside of Christian fellowship. He could quite easily go down the road to another group of Christians and feel welcome there. The question is, “Is that person ‘without,’ in the sense that Paul spoke of in the days of the early church?” Today, because of the ruin, we would have to say no. He cannot be put into a place where there is no Christian fellowship, but the person can still be put “without” the fellowship of the saints gathered on the ground of the one body. The “within” and the “without,” whether it be then or today, has to do with being in or out of the fellowship of the saints gathered to the Lord’s Name at God’s divine center – where Christ is in the midst.
Since the breaking of bread is the meeting at which our fellowship at the Lord’s Table is expressed (1 Cor. 10:16), the “within” and the “without” should be outwardly marked so as to distinguish those in fellowship and those who are not. This was especially needed in the early days of brethren when the meetings were very large. Otherwise, it would be difficult to know who was in fellowship and who wasn’t, and it could lead to confusion. There is no rule as to this, but things should be done decently and in order (1 Cor. 14:40). A. P. (Lord) Cecil said, “I have no doubt that the within and without of the assemblies should be outwardly marked and kept distinct: otherwise there is confusion.”
We would also add that the apostle was not teaching that the assembly was to put the fornicator outside the house of God, but rather, outside of the fellowship of the saints—which was all Christians in that day. (A person could not be put out of the house of God, the vast sphere of Christian profession. The formal entrance into the house of God is by water baptism: to put him out of it would require a negation of his baptism—which is impossible.)
Conclusions
Looking back over the various principles found in Matthew 18:18-20, one might think that we are seeing a lot more in these verses than what the Lord intended. Again, we say that if we had only this one passage of Scripture a person might have grounds to question these things; but when we turn to the book of the Acts and to the epistles and we interpret these verses in the light of the whole tenor of the Christian revelation, we see these great principles of gathering developed. The Lord only gave the seed of the truth of gathering while He was here and then left it to be developed through the apostles when the Spirit came.
We can also see from this that the enemy has been relentless in his attack upon the Christian’s one ground of gathering. This passage has been particularly under a barrage of attacks. Almost every phrase in this passage has been challenged in some way. It seems that whenever a new idea comes along touching the subject of gathering, behind it is just another attempt of the enemy to undermine the saints’ confidence in what they have been taught in these verses. If the Lord should leave the church on earth for any length of time to come, we expect that there are going to be more attacks against these principles.
Chapter 5: Is There More Than One Divinely Owned Testimony to the Truth of the "One Body?"
Now, since God's desire is to gather His saints together on earth into one testimony unto the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, on the ground of the "one body," the question arises, “Does God have more than one testimony to the truth of the one body?” In the light of what we have presented from Scripture in the previous chapters, we do not believe that the Spirit of God is gathering Christians into various fellowships (federations of meetings) to express that truth, without those groups being in fellowship with each other. As mentioned in the previous chapter, if the Spirit of God is doing this, He is the Author of the Christ-dishonoring divisions in the Christian testimony! This could not be so, for it would be a contradiction of the very truth that He is seeking to lead Christians to walk in. Christ does not have one body in fact, and many bodies in testimony. Therefore, we are quite certain that there could only be one divinely owned testimony to the truth of the one body.
To see the inconsistency of supposing that the Spirit of God would lead to more than one gathering center, the following illustration someone once gave is helpful. “If we were to go back to the beginning – to the day of Pentecost – when the Spirit of God came down and united the 120 into one body, and all of them were gathered together to the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ; suppose Peter has a quarrel with John, and they decide that they are going to set up separate fellowships. Then there would be a company that would follow Peter and a company that would follow John. Could we say that the Spirit would lead some to go to one, and some to the other? And, that the Lord would be equally approving of both? We do not believe that the Lord would sanction both fellowships with His presence in their midst, for in doing so He would be condoning practical division in the church. If He did, He would be the Author of confusion.” Indeed, men may form more than one expression of this truth by setting up schismatic tables, but we don’t believe that the Spirit of God would lead Christians to do so. "Is the Christ divided"? (1 Cor. 1:13).
We believe, therefore, that Scripture teaches that there could only be one divinely owned expression of the truth of the one body on earth which the Lord, not men, has set up. If heresies or sects (independent breaks in fellowship) develop, it is because of the will of the flesh (Gal. 5:20), not the will of God. All the saints were together in the beginning. If the Christian profession is all divided into various sects today, it is the result of ignorant or willful men forming these independent groups.
Paul showed the Corinthians where these things begin. They usually start with differences of opinion and judgment. “Now I exhort you, brethren, by the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all say the same thing, and that there be not among you divisions; but that ye be perfectly united in the same mind and in the same opinion” (1 Cor. 1:10). These differences of opinion will lead to contentions or “strifes.” “For it has been shewn me concerning you, my brethren, by those of the house of Chloe, that there are strifes among you.” (1 Cor. 1:11). Then, if strifes are not judged, they will lead to “divisions,” or “schisms” (the same word in the Greek) amongst the saints. “But I speak of this, that each of you says, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ. Is the Christ divided?” (1 Cor. 1:12-13) These divisions, or schisms, are internal rifts among the saints meeting together. But even more serious than the foregoing is what Paul shows will develop out of internal divisions among the Lord’s people. If these are not judged they will lead to “heresies” or “sects.” “I hear there exist divisions among you, and I partly give credit to it. For there must also be sects [heresies] among you, that the approved may become manifest among you” (1 Cor. 11:18-19). A “sect” or a “heresy” (the same word in the Greek), is an outward split among the saints, whereby a party detaches itself and meets independently. What starts out as a difference of opinion, leads to strife; and that will produce a schism or an inward division among the saints, which left unjudged, leads to a heresy or a sect – an outward spilt among the saints.
Imitation
Some mistakenly think that since there is only one way for Christians to gather – according to the pattern in the Word of God – and that if a company of Christians were to come together along those lines, then they must be divinely gathered to the Lord's Name. A person might walk into such a meeting of Christians and come away saying, “These people meet just like those gathered to the Lord’s Name; therefore, they must be gathered to the Lord’s Name.” However, there is more to being divinely gathered to the Lord’s Name than that. It is certainly true that there is only one way for Christians to meet together, but if conducting meetings according to the Scriptural pattern was all there was to it, then people could break away from those whom God has gathered to the Name of the Lord Jesus, and set up a fellowship independently, seeking to practice what the Word of God teaches concerning assembly order, and thus, they could be considered as being on the right ground of the assembly! If that were the only criteria, then the many heretical divisions among those who are called “brethren” could be considered as gathered to the Lord's Name, because many of them seek to follow the pattern for gathering given in the Word of God.
Although such groups could point to the Scriptures for everything they do, that in itself does not mean that they are divinely gathered on the ground of the “one body.” Why?—Because there is the matter of the Spirit's corporate action of gathering. It’s possible that such a company is a mere imitation of the Scriptural way of gathering, engineered by the will of man. The great question is, "Has the Spirit of God been the Author of it? Were they gathered by the Spirit?" It may have been done with good intentions, but if it has been set up independent of the Spirit's action, it is schismatic and heretical, and could not be owned of God as being on the true ground of the assembly. It is one thing for Christians to meet together after a Scriptural pattern, and another thing for them to be doing it as gathered by the Spirit on the ground of the "one body." G. V. Wigram said that it is possible for a situation to arise where Christians will put the truth of God on one side and the Spirit of God on the other side. This subject that we are considering could be an example. Christians can come together along the lines of the Scriptural pattern for a local assembly, but it could still be a separate effort from the work of the Spirit of God.
Let us remember that Jeroboam set up false centers in Bethel and Dan. The one in Bethel was “like unto” the center in Judah, and even though it bore the resemblance of that which was found at the divine center it clearly didn’t have the Lord’s approval – for a man of God was sent by the Lord to cry against (denounce) it (1 Ki. 12:32, 13:1-2). This shows that trying to imitate the pattern of God’s way does not necessarily meet with God’s approval. And again, when Zerubbabel and Jeshua, and a remnant of Jews came back from Babylon, there were people in the land who claimed that they sought Jehovah “as ye do,” but the remnant at Jerusalem refused them because they saw their claim to be false (Ez. 4:2). If there was imitation in Judaism, we know there will be imitation in Christianity too (2 Tim. 3:8).
The principles we have already looked at in the Scriptures (in Chapter 1) show that when the setting up of Christian assemblies is of the Spirit, then it is done in fellowship with the already existing work of the Spirit who is gathering souls to the Name of the Lord Jesus (1 Thess. 2:14). In this way, “the unity of the Spirit” can be kept. Following this principle, brethren gathered to the Lord’s Name have sought to give the "right hands of fellowship" (Gal. 2:9) to new gatherings, so as to maintain one collective expression to the truth of the "one body." But it is false to think that just because a group of Christians meet like those gathered to the Lord's Name that they are automatically on divine ground; and, therefore, we are justified in breaking bread with them. If they are on independent ground, and we join them, it would be to support outward division in the testimony of the church.
Schismatic Groups Of so-called “Brethren”
The divisions and outward breaks in the Christian testimony have all had a beginning. If a person is seriously thinking of being in fellowship with a company of Christians who profess to meet on the principles of the Word of God, they should inquire as to what its origins are. Every meeting of Christians has a history. W. Potter said, “What is the origin of such and such a meeting? Why are they meeting in separation from others? Is their position a Scriptural one?” These are good questions to ask.
The erroneous idea that God would own more than one expression of the truth of the "one body" is not new. From the early 1900’s there have been pamphlets propounding this line of things circulated by those who have sought to amalgamate the various divisions among so-called “brethren” into one fellowship. They later became known as the KLC fellowship (Kelly/Lowe/Continental), even though they do not formally take that title. Those from this amalgamation do not believe that there is one divinely owned practical expression of the truth of the one body. They believe that the Lord’s Table could not be in only one place, or among only one fellowship of Christians. They think that the Lord is in the midst of any Christian company so long as it meets according to the Scriptural pattern. They believe that He is in the midst of such companies condoning their existence, even though those companies may not be in practical fellowship with one another. Some of these companies have divided off from one another previously. We have personally heard a leader among that group say: "We believe you are gathered by the Spirit to the Lord’s Name on the ground of the one body, and have the Lord in the midst as we do. It's just that we’re not in practical fellowship with one another." It is not hard to see why they would hold this view. They have had to do away with the truth of the one gathering center in order to carry out their plan of uniting the various splinter groups among brethren.
When such a statement is tested by the principles of the Word of God, as we have looked at in previous chapters, we find that it simply cannot be possible for both companies to be on the same ground and still be in separation from one another. First of all, the groups of Christians that have gone into this amalgamation have all been in fellowship with those gathered to the Lord’s Name on the true ground of the church, but have had their beginning by refusing to bow to an assembly decision that was made in the Name of the Lord Jesus. They have rebelled against certain assembly decisions down through the years, and have gone out from the divine gathering center. Then, after being off in a division for some time, they got this idea that they should try to amalgamate similar groups together. Having done so, they are now saying that they are gathered to the Lord’s Name at the Lord’s Table – just as those whom they have gone out from many years ago. The only difference, they say, is that we are just not in practical fellowship. We ask, “How could this movement be of God?”
It’s inconceivable to think that such a group could be on the true ground of the assembly when their starting point has been altogether wrong. How could what started in rebellion and departure from divine ground turn out later to be on divine ground, just because there has been the passage of time? Could the Lord sanction with His presence a company that severed itself from the saints gathered to His Name, whose starting point was the refusal to bow to an assembly action that He had bound in heaven? In order to accommodate each group that joins this amalgamation they have had to compromise certain truths relating to the special difficulty that that new group adopted when they left the divine center. One truth that has been compromised, in every case, is that the Lord’s Table could only be in one place – that is, among one fellowship of Christians.
A second thing that shows that this KLC fellowship could not be on the same ground as those at the Lord’s Table, whom they left in division many years ago, is that they will occasionally receive a person who has left or has been put away from those at the Lord’s Table. This is a practical denial of the confession that both fellowships are on the same ground, because (as we have already seen) when a binding decision has been made in the Name of the Lord Jesus, it is to be bowed to by all on the ground of the "one body." For one assembly gathered to the Lord's Name to receive a person that another assembly similarly gathered on the same ground has excommunicated is setting aside the action of the Holy Spirit in binding decisions and is a denial of the unity of the body. If both fellowships were on the same ground they would recognize one another's actions. (It’s true that at times the reverse has happened – those excommunicated from such groups have been received among those gathered to the Lord's Name. But this is because the gathered saints at the Lord’s Table do not recognize the actions of such groups to be bound in heaven by the authority of the Lord, because the ground those groups have taken in division is a schismatic man-made thing; and the gathered saints do not make accept the claim that both companies are on the same ground.)
Now, if the KLCs really want both companies to be in fellowship together (as they say), then all they need to do is to acknowledge that they have taken divisive ground by leaving the Lord’s Table, and have gone out with those groups that have rejected various assembly decisions that have been made down through the years. If they would repent and return to the divine center, all could be healed. Then they could have what they say they desire. Of course, their returning would have to be on an individual basis (Isa. 27:12). Those gathered to the Lord’s Name cannot be asked to overlook the case of these sad departures and to amalgamate with this movement, for in doing so they would be condoning the rebellion. “If thou return, then will I bring thee again, and thou shalt stand before Me: and if thou take forth the precious from the vile, thou shalt be as My mouth: let them return unto thee; but return not thou unto them” (Jer. 15:19).
To be together surely is a good desire. We should all be on one ground, but it cannot be achieved by compromising the truth of the one gathering center. Getting back to the point of departure and acknowledging the wrong of not bowing to an assembly decision is the only way of divine healing. This should be confessed; and not merely in a general humiliation over the low state that has divided the saints. The correct principle for healing all divisions among God’s people is repentance and a return to the point of departure. The problem is that acknowledging the wrong of not bowing to assembly decisions made in the Name of the Lord is too humbling. We all know how difficult it is to humble ourselves. J. N. Darby said that submission is the great healing principle of humanity. He also said that humility was the secret of fellowship and pride was the cause of division. Instead of getting back to the point of departure, those in this movement would rather labor to bring brethren together from various splinter groups, on the wrong principle of amalgamation, and at the cost of giving up the truth of the one gathering center – the Lord’s Table.
It has been well documented that J. N. Darby, C. H. Mackintosh, etc. held to the truth of the one Lord’s Table, where Christ is in the midst as the divine gathering center. There is also plenty of evidence to show that many of the leaders that perpetrated these divisions also held the truth of the one Lord's Table, but have given it up since they went off into division. As an example, when S. Ridout was asked why the brethren that supported Grant in that division hastily broke bread the very next Lord's day after he was put out, he said, "We believe that in 1884 many of us, before the division, had the common thought that WE had the Table exclusively, and must not allow it to lapse a single day. This we think had something to do with the haste of breaking bread, without intermission, at Craig Street, Montreal." A few months later, he wrote another letter on "what constitutes, or characterizes the Lord's Table, stating that no one company can claim the exclusive possession of it." Here, Mr. Ridout admits that they used to hold the truth of the one Lord's Table, but have since given it up.
And again, a quotation from a Grant publication in 1914 says, “But perhaps the biggest item on the credit side of our ledger, if one may be permitted to compare, when all is so precious and vital, is the truth that no company of Christians, not even ourselves, can claim a monopoly of the Lord’s Table, or of gathering in the Name of the Lord. Had this truth been known thirty years ago, perhaps division might have been averted.” Here again we have an acknowledgement of once holding the truth of the one gathering center, but having given it up. Then, having abandoned the teaching of the one gathering center, they call their departure a great “truth.” What a sorry bit of self-congratulation and glorying in one’s shame.
Furthermore, we find N. Noel (a brother connected with this amalgamation) laboring for many pages in his “History of the Brethren” – actually departing from the objective of his book in giving us a history – in an attempt to prove that there is no such thing as the Lord’s Table being in one place, and that there is no difference between the Lord’s Table and the Lord’s Supper. You can see that he has a real “bee in his bonnet” as he tries to convince us of his point. Our comments on the two aspects of the assembly and the Lord’s Table, in the previous chapter, clearly show that J. N. Darby and other early brethren certainly don’t agree with him. Were those earlier brethren deluded in those teachings that they held, and for which they paid so high a price? Were Mr. Darby and others of their time all wrong on this point? Were S. Ridout, N. Noel, etc. walking so closely with the Lord after declension had set in on the remnant testimony that their spiritual discernment exceeded that of the earlier brethren? It should be quite obvious that the earlier men had spiritual understanding and discernment beyond those that came after them – including ourselves. They also possessed spiritual gift beyond any known to us today. Cardinal truths advanced by such expositors should not be lightly cast aside.
We now ask, “Who is it that has changed their ecclesiastical doctrine? Who is it that has given up the truth that has been so graciously recovered to the saints by those gifted men whom God raised up for that purpose?” Those who seek to uphold the things taught by our earlier brethren have only sought to keep “the good deposit” of truth (2 Tim. 1:14) that was recovered to the church. It has been handed down to us by a previous generation of faithful men. Admittedly, it has been held with much weakness, but it has been our great aim. We are reminded of Paul’s exhortation to Timothy as to the things that he had heard from Paul. He was to commit “the same” truth to faithful men who were to be able to teach others also. We emphasize the words “the same,” for Paul was instructing Timothy to teach others “the same” things he had been taught by Paul (2 Tim. 2:2). He was not to alter it to his liking and then pass it on, for then if he and others did so, the truth that Paul gave would soon be lost.
The plain fact of the matter is that these amalgamators have had to do away with the truth of the one gathering center to get the various splinter groups of brethren to go along with their re-union. We don’t mean to be offensive or accusatory in pointing this out, but this is exactly what has happened. In fact, it seems that whenever someone leaves the Lord's Table, afterward they believe that the table is not in one place.
New Groups Seeking to Follow the Scriptural Pattern For Gathering
The idea that God might have more than one divinely owned testimony to the truth of the one body, yet not in practical fellowship with each other, is a touchy point with some. In this vein of thought a number of hypothetical questions have been asked with regard to new groups of Christians seeking to meet on divine principles. The following is an example. "If a group of godly Christians who did not know of those gathered to the Lord's Name learned something of the truth of gathering, and, upon separating from their former ecclesiastical associations began to meet together simply in the Name of the Lord Jesus, acting on all that they knew from Scripture as to the function of the assembly; would they be divinely gathered on the ground of the ‘one body’ and have the Lord in their midst according to Matthew 18:20?" It has been said, “We cannot limit the Lord from working where He wants to. If He chooses to work in other places it is His sovereign choice.”
Now it goes without saying that God works independently of the saints gathered to the Lord’s Name. He can and does exercise souls about the truth of gathering. But because they are exercised about the truth, and seek to practice what they know from the Word of God concerning it, it does not necessarily put them on the ground of the “one body.” We certainly agree that God must be working with such Christians as in this supposed case, for they have been brought to see a good deal of truth concerning assembly order. But to assume that such a group of Christians are automatically gathered to the Lord’s Name on the ground of the "one body" overlooks the qualifying principles mentioned in Chapters 1 and 3. Namely, that they need to be in fellowship with other assemblies of believers similarly gathered with whom they can express this truth practically in matters of reception, discipline, letters of commendation, etc. How could they practice the truth of the “one body” as a group meeting by themselves? How could a few well-meaning Christians who come together for worship and ministry meet all the conditions laid down in Matthew 18:20?
We are also told that if believers meet on Scriptural principles, but are not connected in practical fellowship with those already gathered to the Lord's Name, being unaware of the gathered saints, that they would be divinely gathered on the ground of the “one body.” But if such a group learned of those gathered to the Lord’s Name, and did not link on with them in practical fellowship, only then would they be regarded as not being on the ground of the “one body” – because being put to the test they would not walk in the truth they professed. However, this seems to make the matter of knowledge the criteria for being gathered on the right ground. Suppose a group like this were meeting together for 30 years before coming in contact with others meeting on the same principles; and they didn’t want to link up with them. Are we saying that they were truly gathered by the Spirit, with the Lord in their midst for 30 years, but now, because they would not link up with others to practice the truth of the "one body," the Lord, at that point, would cease to be in their midst? Or are we saying that they never were truly gathered to His Name in the first place? Now if such a test is required before it can be known whether a group has been truly gathered by the Spirit, then we cannot say that any such group is gathered before they have this test of coming in contact with those already gathered to the Lord's Name.
We have also heard it said that the Spirit of God would not bring Christians together on the ground of the "one body" apart from those already gathered to the Name of the Lord Jesus in areas where God has already established a testimony to this truth. And that believers exercised by the Spirit in these cases would be led by the Spirit of God into fellowship with those already gathered on the ground of the "one body" in that area. But in remote areas and other less privileged lands, such as China or Russia, the Spirit would lead them to form a fellowship where they would be on the ground of the "one body." Now if this were true, then the Spirit of God has been working contrary to the Word of God, which clearly says that He would "gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad" (Jn. 11:51-52, Matt. 18:20).
We are certain that the Spirit of God will not work contrary to the Word of God. On one hand, it is said that we should not underestimate God's grace to gather His saints wherever He wants to, but on the other hand we limit His power to link them together in practical fellowship so that the truth of the "one body" might be visibly expressed in the earth! This reasoning makes distance and communication a hurdle that the Spirit of God cannot overcome. If there is any limit to the Spirit's work it is only that of the Word of God, for the Spirit of God will never work contrary to the Word of God. When the Lord sent out the apostles He said, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." He also said, "All power is given unto Me in heaven and in earth" (Matt. 28:18-19). This shows that the Lord has "all power" in "all nations." Distance is no obstacle to God. We must not limit His power to work according to the principles of His Word when He gathers His saints to the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, regardless of where they are. He carefully brought the saints together into practical fellowship in the early church when travel and communication were far less developed, and He can still do it today. "Is anything too hard for the Lord?" (Gen.18:14). "I know that Thou canst do everything, and that Thou canst be hindered in no thought of Thine" (Job 42:2). To accept this will take faith on our part.
It seems that the problem with this whole hypothetical question, as it is so often with most ecclesiastical errors in the church, is that there is a lack of faith in the Spirit's power to gather Christians together universally unto the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ.
The Charge of Sectarianism
Nonetheless, the idea that God has one divinely owned testimony to the truth of the one body, on earth, sounds too exclusive for some. But it really shouldn't seem strange to us, for the whole revelation of Christian truth is exclusive. Think of what the Christian faith must sound like to those of other religions such as Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam. They look at Christianity and say, "So you Christians think you're the only right ones – that you're the only ones that are going to heaven!" They might look at Christianity as proud, arrogant, and exclusive – but it is the truth of God. We can only bow our heads and humbly thank God for the grace that has led us to the One (the only One) Who is "the Way, the Truth, and the Life:" Who said, “No man cometh unto the Father, but by Me” (Jn. 14:6). The way of salvation and eternal life are very exclusive. “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other Name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).
Others think that those gathered to the Lord's Name have become sectarian for believing that God has one divinely owned testimony to the truth of the one body on earth. We ask, “How could they become sectarian for holding these things when it is what they have held since the middle of the nineteen century after the truth had been recovered?” It is not some new idea. Either the movement has been sectarian from those early days or it is truly on the proper ground of the assembly, and is owned of God. Others warn, "Be careful of the pride of position." In a sense, they are right! Pride is a terrible thing, and we certainly do need to be on guard against "the pride of position." But being gathered to the Lord’s Name is not being on sectarian ground; those whom the Spirit has gathered are at the center where Christ is in the midst.
It is said that we should not speak of ourselves and of other Christians as "us" and "them" because it is not in keeping with the truth that we are all "one body." It is true that we should never speak in a proud "holier than thou" attitude when referring to others, as John did (Mk. 9:38-39, Isa. 65:5), but it is not wrong to say "us" in relation to other believers, because the Lord Jesus Himself did. (Mk. 9:40) How else could we distinguish those whom God has graciously gathered from those who have not been gathered? If the grace of God that has gathered us to the Name of the Lord Jesus was properly understood in our souls, it would not make us proud – it would take the pride right out of us! (Compare Eph. 3:8) What have we to be proud about anyway? If those gathered to the Lord's Name are a testimony, they are a testimony to the fact that the whole Christian testimony, of which they are a part, is in ruin!
It is also said that it is presumptuous pride to declare that we are at the one gathering center God has in this world. Again, this very well may be right. It would be inconsistent with the spirit of Christian grace to declare or proclaim such a thing, just as it would be out of character for a Christian to proclaim that he is an evangelist, a pastor, or a teacher, though he might be. A Christian should not proclaim that he is at the place of the Lord's appointment; though he may believe with conviction of heart that God, in grace, has brought him there. It is not pride; it is faith.
Our Responsibility Toward Those Who Are Not Gathered
It may be asked, "What then is our responsibility toward those who are not gathered? Shouldn't we tell them something about the truth of the assembly?" Our answer is yes. All of the truth is for all of the church; both those gathered and those scattered. We are to make it available to every seeker. We should be "ready always to give an answer to every man" who asks "a reason of the hope" that is in us (1 Pet. 3:15). Paul received all that came to him seeking the truth (Acts 28:30-31). A type of this is found in the book of Ezekiel. He was to "shew the house to the house of Israel" (Ezek. 43:10). That is, he was to show them the pattern of the house of God so that they could see the order of it for themselves. We are, likewise, to give the truth of the church to the church. However, we need to be in communion with the Lord as to when and how we give the truth of gathering to someone. By indiscriminately spreading the truth of the assembly to everyone we meet, we might inadvertently give what is “holy unto the dogs” and cast “pearls” before “swine” (Matt. 7:6). A “swine,” in Scripture, is often used to describe a false professor. A “pearl,” in Scripture, refers to the assembly (Matt. 13:45-46). And this truth is exclusively church property. Truth concerning the assembly must be disseminated carefully. May we be guided by the Lord in this service.
One reason we should be careful in this matter is that it's possible to force the truth on people when they are not ready for it. Sometimes we can be so eager to give people the truth of the assembly that it turns into an argument. The consequence can be that they will be damaged concerning such truth; and thereafter, reject it without giving it space for consideration. W. Kelly said, "There was sufficient advance in truth in what the apostle [Paul] taught, but he would not run the risk of making a split among the saints in Jerusalem. Had he been indifferent to the state of the saints, he would have brought out all the heavenly truth in which he was so far beyond the others. But there are two things that have to be taken account of in communicating truth. Not merely should there be certainty that it is the truth from God, but it must also be suited truth to those whom you address. They might have needed it all, but they were not in a condition to receive it; and the more precious the truth, the greater the injury, in a certain sense, if it is presented to those who are not in a state to profit by it...this appears to be one reason why, in the epistle to the Galatians, the apostle never touches on those blessed truths. This wisdom of omitting them is apparent. Such truths would be unintelligible, or at least unsuitable, to souls in their state. To have developed them could have done them no good." See also Mark 4:33 and John 16:12.
Let us remember, the truth is for those who want it (Jn. 7:17); though we may guide and instruct, we have no business trying to force it upon those who have little or no interest in those things. J. N. Darby said that he had never tried to coerce anyone into the path that he was walking (being gathered to the Lord's Name) who had not the faith or the conviction for it.
W. T. P. Wolston warned, "Don't pitchfork your converts into the assembly." Gathering Christians to the Name of the Lord Jesus is a work that God has never laid upon His people. In Luke 10:33-35, we find that the Samaritan, who is a picture of the Lord Jesus, brought the wounded man to "the inn" (a picture of the assembly). We also read in Luke 22:10-11, that a man “bearing a pitcher of water,” who is a picture of the Holy Spirit, led the disciples to the place of the Lord's appointment. This shows that the work of gathering belongs to the Lord Jesus and the Spirit of God. He may associate us with Himself in that work, but it is all His work.
The danger in this area of service is that there is a tendency with well-meaning servants to enter a path of compromise in an effort to give people the truth. We are to love all of the children of God (Eph. 1:15). While our love and concern is to go out to all the saints of God, our feet must remain in the path of obedience to God's Word which calls us to separate from the disorder in the "great house" (2 Tim. 2:20-21). Just because we see people in various church denominations who need the truth doesn't mean that we are absolved of our responsibility to walk in obedience. We are not to forsake the principles of separation in order to reach someone. Let us remember that the whole work of gathering is the Spirit's work. We need to rest in the fact that God is sovereign and can reach people wherever they are. "The Word of God is not bound" (2 Tim. 2:9). But because He uses His Word where He pleases (Isa. 55:11), it does not mean that we can walk anywhere we please in order to give it to them.
Our Responsibility Toward Those Who Have Left the Divine Center of Gathering
What is often more dangerous than "pitch forking" persons into the [local] assembly is going after those who have left the assembly.
When considering this subject of the Spirit's gathering, we need to understand that scattering is as much a work of God as gathering (Gen. 3:23-24, 11:8-9, 1 Ki. 12:24, 2 Ki. 17:20-23, 24:1-4, Jer. 15:1, 4, 31:10, Ezek. 36:19, 24, Matt. 23:37, Jn. 10:12, 16 Eph. 1:10). At times, the Lord sifts His people. He tests them and sometimes He allows them to be scattered. Satan is the great divider and scatterer, and the Lord, by the Spirit, is the great Gatherer. However, the Lord, in the governmental chastening of His people may allow Satan to get in among the saints to do his work of scattering.
In the past, the Lord sifted the children of Israel in the wilderness (Deut. 2:14, 1 Cor. 10:5). He also sifted them in the land (1 Ki. 12:24, 2 Ki. 17:20-23, 24:1-4), and in a coming day, when He restores Israel, He will sift them again (Am. 9:9, Ezek. 20:33-38). God does this in His ways with His people, and the Christian testimony is not excluded (1 Cor. 10:11-13).
If a person who has left the assembly does not show signs of repentance, we do well to leave him with the Lord until such time there is that evidence. Surely we wouldn't say that the Lord is trying to gather those who go out in a division! He is plainly scattering them, even though they are His own. Trying to get people like this back into the assembly because “their place is there,” without this consideration, may be loving and well meaning, but it usually brings trouble with it. We are warned by Joab's attempt to get Absalom back into the kingdom before there was any change in him. It led to a major conspiracy and many fell in a battle that resulted from it. (2 Sam. 14-18) In the end, we find that it was Joab that killed Absalom. The very one who had tried to get him back ended up destroying him! The lesson here is that if we go after someone to get them back before there is a change, we will certainly not do them any good. Besides jeopardizing the welfare of the assembly, it may ultimately destroy the person in respect to that truth.
It is true that God would have us to look after those who have gotten cold or those who have strayed away from the assembly. The Word of God says, "Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted" (Gal. 6:1). The Lord remonstrated with the shepherds who would not go after the sheep that had lost their way (Ezek. 34:4). Abraham went after Lot who had been carried away by an enemy when he was living in Sodom – a type of the world in its corruption (Gen. 14). The case of the attack on Ziklag is another example. David inquired of the Lord as to whether he should go after those who had been carried away by the Amalekites (a type of the flesh) (1 Sam. 30:8). The Lord told him to pursue them; and when he did, it was a success. He recovered all. See also James 5:19-20.
Many other passages of Scripture could be quoted to show that we definitely have a responsibility toward the erring. But after repeated calls and visits, there comes a time when we need to stand back and ask, "Is this person in a state to be gathered, or is this just an effort of mine?" If God is not presently working to that end with such persons, we could be working against Him, or at least, getting ahead of His work in them. Our continual badgering of people who may not have the faith or conviction for such a path, may well be nothing but a work of the flesh. At some point, we need to leave them with the Lord until His work is evident in them. It takes communion with the Lord to know when we should go after certain ones who have gone away from the assembly. Some may be real troublemakers (Prov. 6:19), and we need to be careful not to bring such ones among the saints. While we may have to leave people with the Lord for a time, we should never cease to pray for them (1 Sam. 12:23).
All Christians Will Be Gathered Eventually
There is a wonderful day coming when all the saints of God will be gathered together unto Christ at His coming (2 Thess. 2:1). We look forward to that day with glad anticipation! Until that time, let us have confidence in the Lord that He will maintain His remnant testimony to the truth of the “one body.”
B. Anstey
1991/1994/2002/2004