Haggai 1:1 - 8, 12-end; Haggai 2:1 - 5, 10 - 19; 1 Corinthians 3:11.
G.R.C. I have in mind our work as builders, our business being in whatever manner it falls to us to do it, to build God's house. If the house is to be built, the foundation must first of all be laid. I think there is a danger of the language of the second verse coming into our mouths, and our being tempted to say, "The time is not come, the time that Jehovah's house should be built". That is to say, we might feel that what marks the present time is scattering; and the enemy would suggest that now it is not possible to work out anything collective, thus leading us on to independent lines -- individually independent, and companywise independent of other companies -- and we may settle down to build our own houses. But the question is raised in verse 4, "Is it time for you that ye should dwell in your wainscoted houses, while this house lieth waste?" That has its application to our own personal dwellings to which we may devote our minds; but I think it also has application to the possibility of our saying to ourselves, 'Well, as long as we can keep comfortable in our own little meeting, we won't bother about anything further afield. We will just be a little independent meeting, and remain neutral on issues of the truth; why should we let them concern us?' But when in Jerusalem the Lord said, in relation to the temple, "Your house is left unto you" (Luke 13:35).
If we go on independent lines we are treating the local meeting as our house and not as God's house, so that we want to make it more comfortable for ourselves, and to leave out anything which might disturb us. We are then not really considering for God,
because God's house is not my meeting. God's house is spread over the earth, it is commensurate with the one body, there I am not in line with God's thoughts or the Lord's commandment if I limit my thoughts to my own locality. If I am simply thinking of making it comfortable for myself the Lord will say eventually, "your house". He will refuse to own it as His. So Haggai writes to encourage us to work. If God is to have any features of His house in broken days, or at any time really, it entails work and toil.
Things had all gone wrong at Corinth on almost every point; they were wrong; God had not been considered. They were temple of God but they were not acting accordingly. So Paul exhorts them at the end to be "Firm, immovable, abounding always in the work of the Lord, knowing that your toil" -- it involves toil -- "is not in vain in the Lord". Is it worth toiling for God? Or is it better to sit down and make ourselves comfortable and leave Him out of our thoughts and practice? -- To just have little, comfortable times of fellowship on our own, and to think that so long as we enjoy things a little nothing else matters. Well that is not the divine thought and we shall not be blessed on that line. Even our own matters will not flourish.
J.R.C. While the thought of individuality has been greatly re-emphasised in recent happenings, are you suggesting that although we may move accordingly we must never lose sight of the fact that what is individual has what is collective in view?
G.R.C. That is right. It is of the utmost importance that in, and as a result of, the present crisis we should strengthen our individual links with the Lord, have even closer communion with Him, and that He should become everything to each one of us. But if so, the house of God will become our great concern. As the Lord said prophetically, "The zeal of thy house devours me". So it is no good speaking of our close
links with the Lord if we are not marked by a similar zeal.
A.G.J. Has the apostle in mind the danger of this kind of thing when speaking to the elders in Acts 20?
G.R.C. He puts the responsibility on them to shepherd the assembly of God and that would mean that the assembly of God should answer to what it really is as the house of God, "the pillar and base of the truth".
A.G.J. And he brings them an account of his own toil, his own example.
G.R.C. Yes, showing them his hands. How he toiled to that end! His was a life of toil and unremitting suffering, and we have got to be prepared for that. We have, for many years, been lulled into a false sense of ease and security, and we have got to learn to accept that it will be toil and suffering till the Lord comes. That is the order of the day. If you look back broadly over the Christian dispensation it has been toil and suffering for all who sought to put God first.
Ques. So in 1 Corinthians 1:2 the apostle says, "with all that in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ". Would that preserve us from isolationism?
G.R.C. It would. It is, "all that in every place ..." And even the Old Testament ends with that, "in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure oblation". It is a question of God's portion "in every place". And that is why the epistle to the Corinthians was written. That was the great end in view, God's portion in every place, in the assembly of God.
J.R.C. Would that correspond with verse 8: "I will take pleasure in it and I will be glorified?" Is that the objective we should have before us?
G.R.C. That is the objective. And how is God glorified? "Whoso offereth praise glorifieth me". God
is glorified when incense and a pure oblation are offered to His name "in every place", because every place in that respect should be uniform. We have suffered from strong pressure for uniformity in outward details, but from one standpoint God delights in variety, variety in unity; there is no thought of regimentation. But there is uniformity in this, "incense ... and a pure oblation", offered to His name in every place. Each prince in Numbers 7 brought exactly the same offering, without being told to do it as far as the record goes, because that is what would mark all the tribes. All the local companies throughout the world would be uniform in this, that they would bring to God the incense and a pure oblation which He desires.
J.McC. The wood is brought from above; the word is "Go up".
G.R.C. That is right. "Go up to the mountain". That brings us to the great point of this book, and that is, laying the foundation. They had not got very far at the time of Haggai. They had been back from captivity 15 or 16 years when Haggai wrote, and even the foundation of the house was not finished. Within a short time after they arrived back in the land the foundation was stated to be laid, and Ezra 3 records their celebration of this. But it is evident that while the foundation was laid then, it could not have been anything like complete. I would assume it must have been the beginning of it, they laid the foundation stone. But after about 15 years' delay and consequent on the prophecy of Haggai they laid the foundation completely on the four and twentieth day of the ninth month of the second year of Darius. God speaks of that day in chapter 2: 18: "Consider, I pray you, from this day and onward" -- from that particular day, from the four and twentieth day of the ninth month, from the day that the foundation of Jehovah's temple was laid. Consider it! But
1 cannot see that we have yet laid the foundation.
J.McC. Do you feel we may tend to be too much occupied with what is around and what we have left?
G.R.C. Yes. It is an important matter, this, because God calls our attention to it. "Consider ... from this day ..." See the importance God attaches to a foundation being laid that is right. And we are told in Corinthians that as far as the house of God is concerned "other foundation can no man lay besides that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ". From the divine side it is laid. Paul laid it; others have laid it. "The foundation of the apostles and prophets". What was that foundation? Jesus Christ! They laid it. But then you see in a day of recovery we have got to lay it; we have not got the apostles here to lay it for us. We have to lay the foundation, and if it is to be the house of God that we are building, it will not be the house of God in character unless it is on this foundation. We can lay another foundation but the structure that will arise will not be the house of God. We might lay a foundation for a legal system. That is not the house of God. We can lay a foundation for an 'open' system, but that is not the house of God.
The foundation must be Jesus Christ.
Ques. You were linking with this the mountain and the wood, were you?
G.R.C. Yes. In Matthew S the Lord went up into the mountain, and His disciples came to Him, and He opened His mouth and taught them. What did He teach them? It was about Himself. He taught them the features of Himself, Jesus Christ. He opened His mouth and said, "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of the heavens. Blessed they that mourn, for they shall be comforted. Blessed the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. Blessed they who hunger and thirst after righteousness" -- they who must have righteousness -- "for they shall be filled". Now I believe you get the idea of the wood
there. On the one hand you have gone up into the mountain and then as the Lord further says in Luke 6 "he that comes to me and hears my words and does them, I will shew you to whom he is like. He is like a man building a house, who dug and went deep and laid a foundation on the rock". Well, the rock is Jesus Christ in another aspect. If you think of the tabernacle the foundation was acacia wood which speaks of Jesus Christ. If you think of the structure from the standpoint of Solomon, the foundation would be the rock, that is Jesus Christ.
Ques. Does that suggest what is stable?
G.R.C. When you refer to what is stable, you mean the foundation? There is no stable foundation other than Jesus Christ. Well now, did Jesus Christ ever compromise? He loved righteousness and hated lawlessness. And He looks to us to hunger and thirst after righteousness. But in the way we do it, it is as poor in spirit. Not the hard legal righteousness of the Pharisee which is not righteousness at all, but according to God utter uncleanness. A righteous man, as the chapter shows, would be poor in spirit; he would be a mourner because of the unrighteousness and lawlessness around; he would be meek, never standing up for his own rights but for the rights of God; he would hunger and thirst after righteousness, the longing of his soul being to have things right according to God. He would be merciful; not laying down rules to be mercilessly carried out even if they are in themselves literally right. Even if a thing is right in itself you do not carry it out without mercy. "Blessed the merciful, for they shall find mercy. Blessed the pure in heart, for they shall see God. Blessed the peace-makers ..." But you cannot have peace unless it is based on righteousness -- there is no other true peace. It is "Peace, peace! when there is no peace" if you overlook righteousness; so "Blessed the peace-makers, for they shall be called sons of God".
Well, there you have the house, "... sons of God;" the ones who can serve God in His house. But then if you are on that path you will be hated and reviled, reproached and persecuted, and they will say "Every wicked thing against you, lying", for Christ's sake, but you are to "rejoice and exult". Now that is bringing down wood from the mountain, I believe. We may say they are the laws of the kingdom, and so they are, but the laws of the kingdom merge into and secure material for the house.
J.R.C. Do the features of grace and truth enter into this matter of laying the foundation? There is a tendency in many quarters to sacrifice truth that we held and loved; but we ought to hold on to that, ought we not? And though we are to hold it in the power of grace we must not sacrifice it for a broad outlook compromisingly.
G.R.C. We must not, because you cannot separate grace and truth. They are united in chapter 1 of John by a singular verb in the original text and the new translation. It reads, "grace and truth subsists", the verb being in the singular, as though grace and truth constitute one thing. As the note says, they go together in the Person of Christ. That is, it is not the grace of God if it is not truth, if it is not in keeping with truth. It may be what men call grace, but the grace of God is inseparable from truth; it is the true grace of God in which we stand. And to the Colossians, Paul speaks of the time when they heard and knew the grace of God, in truth. You cannot separate them. We are to maintain grace and truth which subsists through Jesus Christ. He is the foundation. What do you think?
A.P.C.L. Yes, I am enjoying what you are saying because it is so important. When the people came up from the captivity it says they set the altar on its base. This is the first thing that is recorded, is it not? While it says that fear was upon them because of the
people of the countries, what they had in mind was that there should be a portion for God.
G.R.C. And that is the great objective which we must keep before us. Why do we want the house to be built? So that priestly service can go on; so that God can be served as He desires to be served. And He can only be served in holy surroundings where He can dwell. The word "base" is not used anywhere else in Scripture relative to the altar.
A.P.C.L. Is it not the place where the blood of the sacrifices was emptied, the bottom of the altar? But Ezra 3:3 is the only place where the actual word "base" is used.
G.R.C. Yes, the reference is to the bottom of the altar, in Exodus and Leviticus, so that Ezra 3:3 seems to show that in a day of recovery foundations have to be looked to, and this is so whatever you are constructing; the first thing is the altar, and so it was at the beginning of the present recovery, that is, the idea was to separate from unsuited conditions so that the Lord's supper could be celebrated. That was the first idea, it was the idea of the altar, breaking bread and responding to the Lord and to God, because in sectarian conditions, though persons may come together to break bread they do not eat the Lord's supper, as Paul tells the Corinthians. Corinth was a fine and gifted meeting outwardly, but the apostle has to tell them that when they came together to eat, it was not the Lord's supper. And the moment we allow something out of accord with the foundation, we do not eat the Lord's supper, whatever we may claim about it. The Lord's supper is when the Lord is present. We can go on for some time perhaps and yet not realise that He is not present. The Corinthians might have thought He was present, but Paul says it was not the Lord's supper; He was not there; there were not the conditions, because they had divisions among them.
Ques. Would getting the gain of the passover as set out in Luke's gospel help us to eat the Lord's supper morally and truly?
G.R.C. It would; that is most essential, to be in the gain of the passover; to be sincere and true, in other words.
Well now, in the present crisis, brethren who have come 'out' have greatly enjoyed the Lord's supper. I believe the Lord has been there, and we do not want to miss Him. I dread lest somehow or other, something should be allowed and we lose the sense that we have of the blessed presence of the Lord. We can not link it with any position or any particular body of persons, whether ourselves or anybody else. What we do know is that it is very easy to forfeit the Lord's supper, and we not want to forfeit it. Since we came 'out', the Lord's supper has been a great thing to us, a wonderful time, but if that is to be preserved, if the altar is to be safeguarded and not exposed to influences around, you must have the house; so you must get down to this question of building. What foundation are we on? What is the ground of fellowship? Well, in Haggai's time though they had begun, for fifteen years the work lapsed. The work of building has tended to lapse with us in recent times, and if you do not get on with the work of the foundation you are in a very dangerous position.
I think the time has come when we ought to apply ourselves earnestly to ensuring that the foundation is well and truly laid. We must not stop at the foundations, we want to build the house, but let us get the foundations properly laid.
A.G.J. Do you mean that we cannot compromise on principles, on issues of the truth, as otherwise we are not laying the foundation and we are not building?
Is that what you have in mind?
G.R.C. Yes. If we do not lay the foundation we cannot start on the superstructure, can we? Then we
want to get the living stones built in. We do not want bricks, those we have left are brick-making, as in the case of the tower of Babel. They are trying to mould old and young to their one pattern of thought, which, sad to say, is antichristian in the main; but they want everyone in a mould, from twelve years of age -- or is it now much earlier? -- and upwards. That is brick-making. "Asphalt for mortar", it says. Well, asphalt is nasty stuff, and attempts are made to bind men together by all sorts of motives, usually self-interest, or pride, and that kind of thing -- that is just asphalt. But God is building with living stones bound together in the divine nature, which they are partakers of, which is the true binding element, and there is no other. There is plenty to get on with in building; but we must see to the foundations, then we can look out for the living stones coming to light, and in divine love bind them together.
Ques. You mean that evangelical activity will take colour from that?
G.R.C. Well, it should do; if we are right at the foundations we shall be right in our activities. It is evident we have not been so for many years, and thus evangelical activity has not been good. It has been taken up as a duty, such as you ought to be present in the open air preaching and you ought to pray for the gospel on Lord's day evening, and when you have carried out such formal matters you have fulfilled your obligation. But that is not the gospel or the level of the gospel. It is not the attitude of one who has really got glad tidings in his heart, for he is full of them; he is talking about them morning, noon and night, he cannot help it; he is so happy and living waters are flowing out from him all the time, he cannot keep it in; that is what we want to get to. And for that there has to be first love for Christ, and therefore loving God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength. If we were like that we should be good
evangelists, and God would give us living stones, fruit of His own work.
P.S. I have been thinking of the expression, "Consider your ways".
G.R.C. Yes. Do you not think we should do it now, at this minute?
J.R.C. And are you encouraging us in order that we might go forward in the defining of situations in each locality, so that the truth of the assembly might be recognised in a unified way?
G.R.C. Yes. We want to be poor in spirit, "an afflicted and poor people", and we want to keep like that, poor in spirit, in a spirit of mourning, and meek; so that it is not a question of my rights, or that I may have been overlooked, or anything of that. It does not matter what happens to me, the question is one of God and His rights. Meek, and hungering and thirsting after righteousness; but you do not set aside your poorness of spirit in order to get righteousness. These things blend, and while you are hungering and thirsting after righteousness you are merciful, "Blessed the merciful"; that is to say, you do not try to enforce righteousness in a legal way, you act in the spirit of the new covenant, in a merciful manner, yet without compromising. But you are merciful, and a peace-maker, you do not want war if you can avoid it.
Ques. Are you thinking of the continual burnt-offering the morning and evening lamb?
G.R.C. Quite so. We need to maintain these things all through the day. We need to be up in the mountain with the Lord, hearing His words afresh, as they reach us in living power, and seeing them all exemplified in Him, Jesus Christ the Man of God's pleasure, and you know it is not only that the foundation is Jesus Christ, but He is the headstone too. You see to the foundation, that is Jesus Christ, but then all the
building is Jesus Christ. You do not build anything in except Him. You know nothing except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified, so you are not building in any other man (whoever he may be) on the way up. It is Jesus Christ, and then when the building is complete there will be the bringing forth of the headstone with shoutings, "Grace, grace unto it!" What is the headstone? It is Jesus Christ. It is all Jesus Christ.
H.B. Is that the thought in His invitation in Matthew 11, "Come unto me"?
G.R.C. Yes. What we have to learn is that those invitations to come to the Lord in the gospels do not refer simply to an initial coming when we first come to the Saviour. I believe they are intended to be daily matters with us. "Come unto me all ye who labour and are burdened"; how often in the day do we get burdened? Well, the Lord says the moment you feel burdened, come to Me.
H.C. So that it is characteristic to keep on coming to Him, even as in Matthew S there is what is characteristic of the sons of God?
G.R.C. I think so, and, you see, if we come to Jesus now we can only come to Him as a glorified Man in the presence of God. That is where we come to Him; we come to the glorified Man as soon as we feel burdened. He says "I will give you rest". And when you feel thirsty you come to the glorified Man, "If any one thirst, let him come to me and drink". Well, you need to drink more than once a day. That is why the living waters are not flowing out, because we come to Jesus so little.
H.C. Is the plummet to be in the hand of the Lord?
G.R.C. Yes, that is when we get on to the structure. We have got the foundation, then when you come to the structure the plummet is there to ensure that nothing but Jesus Christ is put on the foundation; it is applied at every point.
H.C. There is always a tendency to deviate or compromise,
especially at the present time, in view of the pressures that are experienced.
G.R.C. Yes, that is always the danger.
R.R.H.B. The structure is to correspond with the foundation which is laid, which is Jesus Christ -- that order of manhood. The boards of the tabernacle were of acacia wood, overlaid with gold.
G.R.C. The foundation of the tabernacle system, in a way, was acacia wood, all the way through, although in another way the foundations were the bases of copper in the public position, and the bases of silver in the inside position. But the foundation of the structure generally was of shittim or acacia wood. The gold was put on that.
Rem. And if the work of construction is to go forward more and more living stones are needed, are they not? I was impressed by the reference you made to the gospel preaching. Paul was a great preacher and he always had that in mind, yet his spirit was painfully excited in him at one time seeing men going on without God. Is that what is needed?
G.R.C. That is just so. So he spoke every day with those he met in the market place. There was living water flowing in Athens. I would like to think of living water flowing here in Airdrie every day, rivers of it. Rivers of it, because it is all very well to say, "whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely", but where is the water of life? If he is to get it, where is it? Well, it is flowing out of the bellies of believers. It should be. There should be plenty of it in every town where there are believers.
A.P.C.L. One citizen, at one point, was accused of preaching about "a certain Jesus". That would be the laying of the true foundation, would it?
G.R.C. Yes, it would indeed; go on, Mr. L.
A.P.C.L. It is all so important, is it not? But then when you speak about Jesus Christ, people immediately say, 'Well, I know Mr. So-and-so, and he is a
very nice person, just like Jesus, and why can I not break bread with him?' The very fact of the character of the thing being so simple and so perfect, is, in a certain sense, a difficulty to some persons, who do not discern that a person's associations have to be considered according to the instructions laid down in scripture. I was only wondering as to setting the altar on its base; it is a question of "the altar of the God of Israel", but according to the word of "Moses the man of God". Now would that mean that while the thing is there, and you value every believer, yet you must take into consideration their associations?
G.R.C. So in Haggai God says, "The word that I covenanted with you, when ye came out of Egypt, and my Spirit, remain among you". Of course, persons who say, 'He is so like Jesus', may not have apprehended Jesus very much, because they may have omitted to realize that He loved righteousness, and hated lawlessness; hated it, He would not tolerate it. He would be gentle and gracious to those who were learning righteousness, and ready to learn, however many times they made mistakes, but for a man who turned his back on righteousness, like the Pharisees who yet, in fact, claimed it, He says, "I have not come to call the righteous". They claimed to be righteous but they were not righteous; it was the worst form of unrighteousness to make such a claim in that way. The Lord left them and went away. And in Matthew chapter 23 we can read the unsparing condemnation of them from the lips of the Lord Jesus. So that one great feature is hungering and thirsting after righteousness. If people say, 'he is such a nice man, and like Jesus, I would like to walk with him', I would say, 'well, so would I, but I cannot walk with him unless he is hungering and thirsting after righteousness. If he is ignoring righteousness, well, I am not, therefore we cannot walk together'.
H.B. Is that "lay hands quickly on no man"?
G.R.C. Yes, when it is a question of fellowship.
Ques. "Shall two walk together except they be agreed?"
Rem. Paul discerned, in Acts 16, that Lydia was one he could identify himself with. She was judged to be faithful to the Lord.
G.R.C. That is so. She was good material, and so was the jailor -- excellent material; and Paul speaks in his Philippian epistle of the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ. Now the Spirit of Jesus Christ involves hungering and thirsting after righteousness, as well as being meek and poor in spirit. So there is no compromise, some just do not understand Jesus in that aspect.
J.R.C. I was wondering if you would say a word in regard to this matter of righteousness. It might seem, as Mr. L. has suggested, that a person exhibiting features of Jesus was moving in a path of righteousness to some extent, but have you in mind that righteousness has a much broader application, every-day righteousness?
G.R.C. Oh, yes! Righteousness involves keeping God's commandments. If you take, say, 1 Corinthians, just as an example, what is included in that is not only the passover, that I should be sincere and true in all my words and deeds -- that in itself would put an end to compromise -- but that I should recognise the truth of the body as part of the Lord's commandment. I could not possibly be a righteous man, if I have the light of that, and yet go on with independent meetings on the principle of independency; I could not possibly, if I have the light of the body, and am a righteous man, go on with sectarianism in any shape or form. Otherwise I disobey the Lord's commandment, which is that we should govern ourselves by the fact that we have all been baptised into one body.
H.C. There is no suggestion of there being more
than one house. In Haggai 1:8 God tells them to "build the house".
G.R.C. Quite so, that is just it. The house of God is one. And the body is one, and therefore every locality should be governed by the light of the oneness of the thing they belong to. We belong to one body, that is the secret side of it, and the one body, being the assembly, is God's house.
A.P.C.L. I would like you to say some more about independent gatherings especially, because it seems to me that the brethren are weary. They have suffered a lot, and they may not seem somehow able to face up to crises that arise, and it is such an easy way out if someone comes along and says, 'Well, you can just be a nice quiet independent company, and it does not matter what is happening among your neighbours, there is no issue for you'. It seems to me that it is a direct attack of the enemy, because of the conditions of weakness, weariness and tiredness, that are upon the saints generally, and we have to recognise it. Now can you tell us how we can help one another to strengthen ourselves in these circumstances?
G.R.C. Well, I hope we shall strengthen one another this afternoon. I need it, because I know that feeling well enough, that tired and weary feeling, that longing for peace. You would almost have peace at any price, you long for it so, but then that would be, "peace, peace, when there is no peace". Peace at any price is not peace. Before long, however much you tried to guard your locality, it would be invaded. Satan will see to that, and if you give way on this principle long enough you will find that when the time comes to make a stand, you are weak, and if you are not careful you will be overthrown.
H.C. In chapter 2 verse 9 Jehovah of hosts says, "and in this place will I give peace".
G.R.C. That is very good. "In this place will I give peace". Well, that is the kind of peace we want.
H.C. So that Jerusalem will then correspond with its name.
G.R.C. Yes. You mean Jerusalem means "the place of peace". And if God gives peace that is what we want, the peace He gives.
J.McC. What about the man that stops at home, and does not go anywhere but says he is waiting on the Lord to show him what to do, or something like that?
G.R.C. Well, that is a somewhat similar sort of thing taken to a greater extreme. The Lord does not want people to stop at home; we are soldiers of Jesus Christ; we are to go forth in the conflict. We do not help anybody, not even ourselves, by stopping at home.
J.McC. And we are denying the Lord of His rights, His own personal rights.
B.G.H. And are we not rather mistaking the scripture that has been quoted, "Shall two walk together except they be agreed?" (Amos 3:3). The two referred to are God and His people. It is not an agreement between persons as to what they shall do. But that was an appeal from God to His people. It is a matter of recognising what God requires, and not a human arrangement at all.
G.R.C. That is very important. So that the first element in fellowship is walking with God; then we can think about walking with one another.
A.G.J. So that at the end of chapter 2 verse 4
Jehovah says, "for I am with you".
G.R.C. Well, if God is with us who can be against us, who can disturb us?
E.R.S. Is not the timing of the prophetic word in Haggai 1:15 and Haggai 2:1 significant, in view of Leviticus 23:26 - 36? The day of atonement and the feast of tabernacles would have been celebrated in between the starting of the building and Haggai's word.
We cannot build rightly except in the continued
sense of the greatness of Christ's atoning work.
G.R.C. Yes, very good. Haggai's name means "feast of Jehovah" according to the note. As though the maintenance of the feast is important to strengthen us.
Ques. You referred to the Lord's commandments. Is there a danger of confusing what we are "in Christ" which refers to all Christians, and the Lordship of Christ which involves certain rights over us?
G.R.C. Yes. And then you see the enemy's attack is on anything corporate and collective. That is why we have come out of "the camp" because collective associations in the camp are man-made, based on man's rules -- sometimes one man's rules -- and ordering. And everything man-made we have to leave. God calls us out. The true tabernacle was pitched by the Lord, and not man; therefore we leave everything of man, we want nothing of it. Personally, I define the camp as what is man-made in religion.
B.G.H. And we do not want to bring those man made things into the preaching of the gospel, do we?
G.R.C. No, we do not. We have left it, we have left the camp, as I think a brother said the other day. It is no good asking a preacher to your meeting, if you have to tell the convert afterwards, 'Well, do not go with the preacher; we are not walking with him really'.
E.R.S. You would be confronting the convert with a testimony to division and forcing him to choose between two men, instead of leaving Christ supreme in his vision.
G.R.C. How could I take someone to hear a preacher, if I have got to tell him afterwards, 'Whatever you do, do not follow the preacher; you have got the blessing through him, but do not go with him'.
Anyway, we must be free of the camp -- though God does not forsake the camp, and that confuses some people. We are never told that the manna stopped,
nor that the water from the rock ceased to flow. God did not abandon the camp, but those who sought the Lord went out to the tent of meeting, far from the camp. We must not be confused with God's faithfulness, for "God is faithful"; so that manna, and some spiritual refreshment, are still there in the camp. Brethren who have not been brought up among the saints mostly see this, but those who have been brought up amongst brethren, when they find there is manna and some refreshment in the camp, may be so surprised, that they say, 'Well, the camp must be right then'. But it is not so at all. Those of us who were brought up in 'system', so-called, know well enough that God does not forsake Christians in system, we have got no illusions on that at all. We know there is manna there, but manna, wonderful as it is, and attractive (and we neglect it far too much), is for support in our daily responsible life. And Satan does not make his great attack on that, because he rather likes to have people who are godly and upright, and feed on Jesus as the manna, and to attach them to his system; it makes his system look respectable. What Satan is particularly against, however, is corporate and collective truth which secures to God His portion. So Satan is against the truth of the body, of the house, and of the temple which is linked with the house, as the inner part of it; he is against the truth of the bride, and the city. He would destroy every vestige of testimony to those things if he could. And that is what is paramount, to ensure that the features of the body, and the bride, and the wife, and the house, and the temple, and the city, are maintained. For that you need not only manna, but also priestly food, and other foods such as the old corn of the land. And you find such food is not generally appreciated in Christendom; if you were to talk about these foods, they would not want you; and you will find that in the case of brethren who are wanting to
go on 'open' lines, the only kind of ministry they want is that which just encourages them to individual godly devotedness in their homes and businesses, and so on. Well, Satan is not much against that.
P.H. It says, "The Lord knows those that are His;" He does not forsake them, and "Let every one who names the name of the Lord withdraw from iniquity". It is a question of what is here connected with the name of the Lord.
P.H. That is, we go forth to Him without the camp.
G.R.C. That is just it. The name of the Lord is a great matter, and the name of God. We should be gathered to the Lord's name. Now where does God put His name? He put His name in His house at Jerusalem, and it is as we are true now in character to the house of God that we shall have the Lord's presence, because that is what it means by being gathered to His name. It is not just a formal matter.
You may say, 'Well, we are Christians, and we come together and we pray to the Lord'. That does not mean you are gathered to His name. His name is inseparably linked with His house, and with what is proper to His house, that is where He puts His name.
G.W. Do the living stones come to light for the building up of God's house in persons moving to Christ as Lord, that is, going forth to Him without the camp?
G.R.C. They do. Yes, very good. That is how living stones are made, I believe, in going forth to Him.
Ques. Would 1 Timothy suggest that the true pursuit of piety would lead to our finding our place and knowing how to conduct ourselves in God's house, which is the assembly of the living God?
G.R.C. Yes. Well, that is just it. So that the manna, nourishing people on the manna, has in view securing pious men for Himself and His house, as you
say, not stopping short and adorning this world.
A.G.J. So if I find that a divine principle is denied in another gathering, is there not an obligation on me to face the matter, that is if I value the corporate truth?
G.R.C. If it is another gathering at a distance, any individual can write to them about it, and lay it on their conscience, but if any administrative action is to be taken, it must be by the nearest gathering. We have to abide by the rules, it says, "he that strives must contend lawfully". Great care is needed before we intrude on another locality without reliable knowledge of the local facts. There is great danger in baseless meddling.
A.G.J. I was thinking of the way it is to be worked out with them, with priestly feeling, and no legality.
G.R.C. Well that is what we need help on, how to face it in a right spirit and according to the law of God.
A.P.C.L. Other localities' matters cannot be adjudicated in meetings at a distance, can they?
Unless there has been a definite issue at the place where they are, where they lie.
G.R.C. Well that is what I understand.
J.McC. And you feel that we may be obligated to write to them, particularly if they are at a distance, if we have a particular matter?
G.R.C. Yes, I think we have to keep it to an individual writing, generally. If we are writing to another meeting about problems, put it on an individual basis first, and then if we cannot get satisfaction refer it to the nearest meeting, I would judge, to get their judgment on it.
A.P.C.L. Yes. I would think that. The tendency in confused times like these may be to take some kind of action that is not fully in keeping with what you were saying about striving lawfully, and keeping to the rules. But if we expect matters to be done according
to the principles of the house of God, we have first to apply those principles to ourselves.
G.R.C. That is what I feel, that in standing for what we know is right we may ourselves depart from the principles of the house, the principles we are trying to maintain, not perhaps on the line of looseness, but on the line of not handling things according to divine arrangements.
B.G.H. We need to act constitutionally, do we not?
A.T. So that if a complaint is made against a locality on the part of any other locality or anyone in it, we should not accept it without first inquiring of the locality against whom the charge has been brought.
G.R.C. Well, we should first enquire whether the rumour is true; that would be better than to talk about it -- but withal not forgetting the responsibility of the nearest meeting according to Deuteronomy 21.