by

A. J. Gardiner (1884 - c. 1972)

EXTRACT FROM

“RIGHTEOUSNESS AND THE PURSUIT OF IT.”

Reading at Rochester, NY, U.S.A., May, 1918.

2 TIMOTHY 2:19-26.

A.N.W.  Iniquity is a strong word. What is your thought about it?

J.T.  It expresses evil or unrighteousness. Of course the Christian must judge and refuse it in himself; but withdrawal from it implies that it is accepted and practised by others, so that in withdrawing from it you have to withdraw from them.

189
B.T.F.  What about false creeds held in religious systems around?

J.T.  I suppose they are what is called “systematised error.”

G.A.T.  As a rule, do we not understand that as having withdrawn from “system,” that is all the evil we have to withdraw from?

J.T.  We have a specific case here, men saying, “the resurrection is past already.” That is a concrete case of iniquity. It takes other forms now, but we are called upon to judge it in its varied features and withdraw from it as inconsistent with the name upon which we call—the Lord Jesus Christ.

J.D—s.  What we have to do, therefore, is to separate from those who, like Hymenæus and Philetus, are in any way practising or identified with evil.

J.T.  Yes, so the apostle goes on to say, using the figure of the vessels: “If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master’s use.” Evidently the separation is from persons.

J.D—s.  Just so. Would you give us the force of the expression we have in the New Translation, “names“—“Let every one who names the name of the Lord”?

J.T.  I think the Lord’s name implies His renown—all that came out in Him. That is what you are committed to in your profession.

J.D—s.  That is, to use “profession” in the proper sense of the term; if you profess the name of the Lord and all it involves, in that way name the name of the Lord, it is for you to separate from evil as seen in men such as those we have here before us.

G.W.W.  It is important to bear that in mind. You separate from persons only by reason of their identification with what is evil. That has to be borne in mind to convey the right thought to people from whom we do separate. There are some who are not

190
personally evil, but because they are identified with evil principles we are compelled to separate from them. That puts us on right ground. People may say they are Christians as much as you are, they are children of God, but because they are going on with principles contrary to the name of the Lord we have to separate from them.

J.D—s.  It says, “The Lord knoweth them that are his.” That is our refuge.

J.T.  We leave them with the Lord. We cannot say whether they are genuine or not, but He knows.

W.L.P.  Do we not think a little too much sometimes of the company separating from evil, instead of us as individuals separating from evil?

J.T.  It is individual here.

W.L.P.  But do we not often use the thought of withdrawing from evil in a collective sense?

J.T.  Basing our position on this scripture, the principle now is withdrawal.

A.A.T.  It is not “putting away” exactly.

J.T.  In Corinth the assembly prerogative is formally recognised, and there was power in the meeting to deal with the person who was guilty. Instead of withdrawing from him they put him away.

B.T.F.  Do you withdraw from vessels to honour, or is it only from vessels to dishonour that you withdraw; 2 Tim. 2:21?

J.T.  “These” are the last mentioned. “If, therefore, one shall have purified himself from these in separating himself from them,” etc. “These” would be vessels to dishonour.

B.T.F.  There might be vessels to honour in systems that you might have to withdraw from.

J.T.  All are to prove their genealogy, you see. You do not know. The fact that they say they are true does not prove it. The test is that they separate themselves as naming the name of the Lord. As a matter of fact it is consistency with the truth of

191
Christianity that is the test. What I think should be pressed as much as anything is consistency, and following upon that transparency. In Revelation the real ones are seen on a sea of glass. Things are all transparent. We know, however, thank God! that there are many pious ones in the several denominations, but we cannot walk with them because of their associates.

J.S.  If the church was in power there would be no need for withdrawal. There would be power to deal with evil by putting away those who practise it. Now it is a question of withdrawing from it.

J.T.  That is the principle now. Whatever words we may use we make it clear that while we do not pretend to be the assembly of God, we must maintain the order and holiness which marks it.

J.D—s.  This instruction is for the servant, is it not?

J.T.  The epistle affords instruction for all for the last days, but especially for the servant or man of God. In verse 19 we have “every one.”

G.A.T.  Another scripture says, “They went out from us because they were not of us.” Is that another side?

J.T.  They went out from the apostles.

G.A.T.  My thought was that if a company were in a good spiritual state the wicked man would go out himself. Would you agree to that?

J.T.  We have to deal with evil, however, when it manifests itself. It will not do to leave it to remove itself.

G.A.T.  Only in Corinthians do you hear of one being “put away.”

J.T.  Yes, but you see evil may exist without any overt acts and you have to wait for an overt act in order to exercise discipline. Even in the case of Judas, there was no overt act until he went out to betray the Lord. He was allowed to go on. The

192
antichrists John speaks of probably would not commit anything in an outward way that would be regarded as a sin. Being servants of Satan, they would avoid that.

G.A.T.  I thought that if the Lord’s presence were known amongst a company, wherever you find it, you find evil going out. In the second chapter of John’s gospel the Lord drove it out, but I thought if the rights of God were maintained amongst us, and the Lord had His place amongst us, evil would go out of itself.

J.T.  No doubt there is some truth in that, but we have to deal with it. We judge those within. There has to be that principle.

B.T.F.  You would say there should be priestly discernment, but you cannot go beneath the surface.

J.S.  It would not do to assume apostolic authority.

J.T.  I think the principle of withdrawal is what holds. It may be asked as to those calling on the Lord out of a pure heart, “What will they do with evil?” I would say, if it is there we must deal with it, but the ground each individual takes in his own soul is that if it is not dealt with he cannot go on with it. That is the ground to take: you cannot go on with evil.

W.H.F.  Would you think that for “putting away” you must have the assembly to do it? You have the authority in Scripture not to go on with evil—to separate from it? In the present time the assembly is in ruin, there is failure, etc., so if evil arises you have to separate from it.

J.T.  The question is what is within and what is without (1 Cor. 5:12) now. It was very clear when Paul wrote to the Corinthians that “they that are without God judgeth.” That was simple enough because it referred to anybody outside the assembly at Corinth; but when you come to the “great house,”

193
what is within and what is without? They are all inside of it, the good and bad vessels.

W.H.F.  Then the point is, vessels to honour and vessels to dishonour, and, “if a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified and meet for the master’s use, and prepared unto every good work.”

J.T.  That is still inside, all are inside.

W.H.F.  But my point is that as believers we have been a great failure in assuming to be the assembly, and all that.

J.T.  As far as I see, “inside” to-day as always, is the sphere of Christian profession, and “outside” is heathendom or Judaism. What do you say about that?

J.D—s.  I have great difficulty. I quite realise that 2 Timothy 2 is what would stand. We used it years ago and would use it now—there is no change in that respect—but what I see is that there is serious danger of giving up and excluding from our thoughts principles that actuated the church of God in the beginning, given in apostolic times but given, in my view, for the guidance of the church of God in all times, and for me to do that would be peril.

J.T.  The first thing is to determine what it is that is to govern me primarily in the ruined state of things. Now if you take Israel, the immediate word that governed them in their recovery was the decree of Cyrus, which had no place in the law of Moses. It had no place in David’s instructions nor in any that followed. Now that was an extraordinary situation, but Cyrus’ command was the immediate word that was to govern them. After they were governed by that they were gradually led, in principle at least, into all the light given to Moses and David; but then, they had to come in, so to speak, by that gate. It was a very humiliating gate. It meant their utter shame, that they had sinned, that God had to take up a

194
Gentile monarch to tell them what to do. But afterwards they reached a height spiritually that exceeded even David’s day or anything subsequent to that. In other words, if we come in by the appointed way, all that God has for us is before us. There is not a bit of it that is not open to us. I think 2 Timothy is the gate of entrance now to what is of God. But as children of wisdom we recognise the altered conditions and act accordingly.

W.H.F.  I can understand that it is our privilege to walk individually in the light of that which was set up at the beginning, but I see the danger of assuming to be anything in the way of the assembly.

J.T.  You do not assume to be anything in an outwardly formal or official way, although cherishing the light of the church in your heart, and conforming to it as far as conditions admit.

J.D—s.  We often say that God permitted a number of things to be arranged in apostolic times that we might have guidance in these days, and, while I am quite sure that we are in 2 Timothy times, and I am quite clear that what you say is correct, that we must approach things in that way, still I would be sorry myself to see the principles that underlie the epistle to the Corinthians, for instance, given up or in any way belittled.

J.T.  I am sure every one would say Amen to that, but the question is how you approach them. As I remarked, the Jews came back to Jerusalem by the decree of Cyrus, and it was also to build the house, but when they came back they set up an altar. That was what they did before they laid the foundation of the house. They reared up an altar. Cyrus did not tell them to do that. He simply, as it were, opened the gate for them, and it was a very humiliating one, but it led to the feast of tabernacles, which exceeded what was in David’s time. So there is nothing to fear on these lines. You will get Corinthians, and Colossians,

195
and Ephesians if you go in by the appointed way.

J.D—s.  If that is clear I have nothing more to say; but I am not so sure that it is in some people’s minds.

J.T.  It is humbling to have to acknowledge that what was once owned of God is now a “great house” in which vessels to honour and dishonour are present. Good and bad are admittedly there, and whatever our exercise and zeal for God, we cannot get out of this great house. We are not called upon to leave it, but to separate from vessels to dishonour. Each one has to do this, and then follow righteousness, faith, love, peace with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart. This is the gate of recovery; going in by it, all that God has for us is available. All the light of the epistles—of all Scripture indeed—is for our furnishing. But as children of wisdom saints in such a position would use Scripture soberly, always having the sadly altered conditions in mind.

G.W.W.  If evil arises in the midst of a company of saints who are walking together in the light of divine principles it can be no more tolerated than it was at the beginning—the evildoer must be dealt with. That is clear. Therefore that company, without assuming any corporate position at all, does act collectively in reference to that evildoer.

J.T.  You and I act together if we can, but the principle that governs us both is that we cannot go on with evil. All should surely have this judgment—be of one mind about it—and so act together in dealing with it. But at the same time, we do not assume to be acting with the authority of the church, nor do we use any formula that would imply this.

A.A.T.  You do not assume to put the evildoer away?

J.T.  You cannot go on with the evil. There can be no question that evil has to be judged and refused

196
as really as it was at the beginning. Here 1 Corinthians 5 helps, as showing how the apostle judged it as affecting the saints, and how he sought to get them to judge it and clear themselves of it. But what has ever to be before us is that no company of saints now can occupy the same position as the church at Corinth, and so we cannot act formally as they were commanded to. “Putting away” then was from the assembly—indeed from the sphere of Christian profession.

A.R.S.  Do you mean that if there is evil in a meeting and the rest of the assembly do not see it, you would be responsible yourself to withdraw from it ?

J.T.  That is the ground you take. Of course you would seek to exercise the others so that there might be united action, but at any rate, you cannot go on with the evil.

A.N.W.  Would Thessalonians apply to this: “If anyone obey not our word by the letter, mark that man and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed of himself; and do not esteem him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.” Would not that apply to-day?

J.T.  I think it would. Such an one is not regarded as a “wicked person,” however.

G.W.W. Here it is a wicked person with whom we are going to walk no more. He has ceased to follow righteousness.

J.T.  That is the judgment you have come to in your soul, and, as walking with you, I have come to it too, so we act together in judging the sin or the person who has sinned; but we do not assume to act as the church. But at the same time, as seeking to maintain the holiness of the house of God, the Lord supports us in a very real way. As there is power there would be moral authority present, and this would make itself felt. But there is no claim to church authority.

197
G.W.W.  I suppose what we do is we declare that that man is unfit for any Christian company.

J.T.  You do so far as your act is concerned, but that would not alter the man’s outward position ecclesiastically. He is in the great house and you cannot alter his position as there. You are altering your own position as regards him. Although there may not be much to object to as to the manner of dealing with sin arising among the saints, we do well to enquire—where is a person put away from, and, inferentially, where to?

A.R.S.  To go back to what happened in the Bethesda trouble years ago, when the question of false doctrine came up, Mr. Darby, as I understand it, took a very decided stand with regard to a certain man and exercised the consciences of others about it, and the result was that they withdrew. Then that caused division amongst the saints, didn’t it? His action did not put that man out of the great house, did it?

J.T.  It did not alter his position at all in that sense. Mr. Darby separated, and so altered his position as regards the others, and those with him.

J.S.  As regards vessels to dishonour?

J.T.  That is, he kept himself clear. The ”vessels” are all in the great house. “In a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth and some to honour and some to dishonour.” You cannot get out of the “great house” unless you become an apostate. But although there is no claim of assembly position or prerogative, if we act against evil to keep ourselves pure as in the light of the house of God—having part in it indeed—the Lord will be with us, and whatever judgment is arrived at will carry the consciences of all exercised persons. Indeed I believe the action will be ratified in heaven. The principle of binding and loosing will be there. This will be known to those who are with

198
God. It will not be assumed in any formal way, however. In a word, things are on moral ground.

A.N.W.  Your point is to make clear that the iniquitous system has become a great house.

J.S.  You would be exercised in respect of others in the company so that all might be on this ground.

J.T.  So gradually, as governed by the truth, you come to realise the power of God, and you are led into all the blessings of Christianity in this way; but it is a most humiliating state of things. We are beset all around by people who call upon the Lord as we do, but they are not consistent. The ground you take is that they are there and you cannot help it, but you cannot ignore the fact.

W.L.P.  Had the great house been formed in the apostle’s day?

J.T. I think he suggests that it already existed. In writing this letter he speaks of certain things that happened that had brought about the change: “Of whom is Hymenaæus and Philetus.” The sin evidently had not been dealt with.

B.T.F.  Would naming the name of the Lord be simply profession?

J.T.  That is what it is, but everyone that does it proves his genuineness by separating from evil.

G.W.W.  We find we can follow righteousness, peace, etc., with certain ones, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart. That would seem to be our charter for the moment, so to say. Very well, if one of those ceases to follow righteousness, etc., I want to know how far collective action comes in in respect of him. I am not saying anything about corporate action, but we find ourselves in the presence of very definite directions given in Corinthian days, showing the mind of the Lord about His people going on with an evildoer. Well, we say, it is not God’s will that we should walk with an evildoer. I see it. I see that His people should not walk with

199
an evildoer, but you see it too, and others see it. His evil doing is plain. Therefore we say, This man is unfit for Christian company. He is a wicked man. Isn’t that so?

J.T.  Yes, certainly, so long as you just leave it that way. The great thing is to bow to the actual situation, and act in keeping with it. As we draw nearer to the end the way becomes more perilous, and hence the need of adhering strictly to divine principles.

G.W.W.  What we want to get at is that the point must be reached that the company is kept pure; that it is not God’s mind that any company of His saints should be found walking with an evildoer.

J.T.  That is the definite attitude you take up in spite of the ruined condition of things that exists.

G.W.W.  That is, you do not assume to act as though the failure had not come in. We admit that. Although the failure is present it isn’t the mind of the Lord that His people should be found walking with evildoers.

J.T.  1 Corinthians 5 affords light as to this. It is thus to be before us, although as children of wisdom we see that we cannot act on it literally.

G.W.W.  You have the light of 1 Corinthians.

J.T.  Only circumstances have changed. In 1 Corinthian days “without” was heathendom and “within” the Christian circle, where the Spirit was. To-day the outward continuation of that has become a huge distortion; it still bears the name of Christ, however, and you cannot get outside of it. You do not attempt to.

G.W.W.  But the thing we discern from 1 Corinthians is that the Lord never expects His people to walk with an evildoer.

J.T.  That is truth of the last importance.

G.W.W.  We know He is going to support us if we refuse to walk with an evildoer. How we get it does not seem to me to be of much consequence.

200
J.T.  We are children of wisdom and much is left to us as to how it is done. Instead of saying that such a one was put away, it is better to keep to the principle of withdrawal, which is embodied in this letter.

J.S.  That is what is laid down in this letter.

J.T.  And you do not sacrifice the light of 1 Corinthians.

G.W.W.  That is really our ground of withdrawal.

J.T.  It is this one letter that makes so much of Scripture. “From a child thou hast known the holy scriptures which are able to make thee wise unto salvation, through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” All Scripture is given of God (1 Corinthians, of course, is included) and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof (so 1 Corinthians is a wonderful scripture to-day) and for correction and instruction in righteousness; 2 Tim. 3:15, 16.

G.A.T.  Do I understand from what you say that we cannot act as the Corinthians did?

J.T.  While we cannot take the same position, the principle remains the same as theirs. We cannot go on with evil. It must be refused.

B.T.F.  What would you say in that connection about the loaf representing the circle of fellowship?

J.T.  We certainly include in our affections every saint. The apostle does here in principle—”The Lord knows those that are his.” We include all the saints in the breaking of bread in that way. The others are just as precious to Christ as we are. The sorrow is that they are not available to us. You go on with those that are available.

B.T.F.  That is the thought, so the breaking of the loaf would bring a soul under a solemn sense of responsibility.

Ques.  The question then comes up—if we declare a man unfit for any Christian company, and he refuses to be subject—suppose he says, “I will come here and

201
break bread next Sunday morning no matter what you say"—what is to be done?

J.T.  Leave him; even leave the room to him. You maintain the principle of separation.

Ques.  Such a one would be eating and drinking judgment to himself, wouldn’t he?

J.T.  Yes; but you can always withdraw. The proverbialist said, “It is better to dwell in the wilderness, than with a contentious and an angry woman,” Prov. 21:19. If there is that sort of thing amongst the saints of God you would rather be alone than go on with it. The happy thing is you do not need to go on with it. It is sometimes assumed that you cannot help it, but you have always the resource of withdrawal.

G.W.W.  And in regard to one guilty of sin, and who does not judge it, we do not deal with him simply as affecting a few in a given locality, but the whole Christian company. We take the ground that such a man is not fit for the fellowship of Christians.

*     *     * 

Sonship of Christ

Table of Contents