The Acts of the Apostles gives us our only Scriptural history of the early church. It takes us from her inception, around 30AD, until a date shy of 70AD. In it we first read of the labors of Peter and then of Paul. The unique character of Christianity is established by Paul. He was chosen by God for the revelation of the mystery concerning the church. As Christianity spread throughout Asia Minor, and then into Europe, assemblies formed wherever souls were saved. In this book we see the early church in practice. Many of Paul’s epistles were written at this time and in them we find teachings concerning the church. With the Lord’s help, we will go through the book of Acts looking at those principles which will guide us concerning the function and operation of the local assembly. References will be made to the epistles. This will not be an exposition of the book of Acts; rather, just those portions relevant to our subject will be taken up.
In One Place with One Accord (Acts 2)
When the Day of Pentecost had finally come, we find the disciples “all together in one place” (Acts 2:1 JnD). They were filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke as the Spirit gave them utterance. This was the first day of the week; the day the Apostle John calls the Lord’s day (Rev. 1:10). Even though this was the inauguration of the church, the same principles still apply to the local gathering of the saints. We may not be filled with the Holy Spirit; nevertheless, we should be found together in one place, waiting for and seeking the Holy Spirit’s guidance. As we go through the book of Acts, we will see the Spirit of God, as a divine person, directing the assembly and the activities of God’s servants. We do not look for visible displays of the Spirit’s power as at Pentecost; nevertheless, the church of God remains the habitation of God through the Spirit.
In the second chapter, we see a faithful remnant from among the Jews saved and brought into the assembly. “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. ... And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved” (Acts 2:38,47). Next, we read of the Samaritans: “When the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost” (Acts 8:14-15). The Spirit’s reception by the Samaritans is outwardly connected with Peter and John. The Samaritans were hated of the Jews (John 4:9), and one could easily picture the formation of two churches—one Jewish and the other Samaritan. The laying on of hands was not the conferring of position but the sign of identification (Acts 8:17). This very public identification with these Samaritan believers, by these two prominent apostles, was a tangible expression of the unity of the body. “There is one body, and one Spirit” (Eph. 4:4).
In the tenth chapter we read of a Gentile, Cornelius, with his kinsmen and near friends. They also received the gospel, and were saved, and were added to the church. “While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 10:44-45). There was no laying on of hands in this instance. God, in His wisdom, saw to it that the Gentiles would be brought into the church quite apart from the Jew. The Jews did not form a body to which Gentiles were added. The church, the body of Christ, is something distinct and new. “Having annulled the enmity in His flesh, the law of commandments in ordinances, that He might form the two in Himself into one new man, making peace” (Eph. 2:15 JND).
Although believers of that time met in homes and upper rooms (Acts 1:13; 2:46; 20:8), they were one body, under the guidance of one Spirit, with one rule of government, and in one communion. At Jerusalem there were more than five thousand believers (Acts 4:4) meeting in various homes (Acts 2:46); nevertheless, there was only one church: “Being arrived at Jerusalem, they were received by the assembly” (Acts 15:4 JND). It is the assembly and not an assembly.
At a later time, we find both Jews and Gentiles in the assembly at Rome—both are addressed in that Epistle (Rom. 1:7). In the fourteenth and fifteenth chapters, the saints are exhorted to be mindful of those weak in faith—in this instance, those who clung to Jewish traditions. Such a simple matter could easily have resulted in division—division that was so carefully avoided at the church’s inception. This wasn’t simply about getting along; there was something more significant at stake—the glory of God. “Now the God of endurance and of encouragement give to you to be like-minded one toward another, according to Christ Jesus; that ye may with one accord, with one mouth, glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 15:5-6 JND). God desires believers to come together with one accord. “I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10). This unity of mind and purpose will be broken whenever the flesh acts.
Sadly, Christendom has long been divided along cultural, racial, and national lines—quite apart from theological differences. The Protestant churches are largely rooted in national identity. This was never God’s intent. “Ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God” (Eph. 2:19). The local assembly is not an organization or fellowship of our making. We do not gather people around ourselves based on cultural, personal, or spiritual identities. Rather, believers gathered together by the power of the Holy Spirit will be found together in one place, with one accord, with the Lord Jesus Christ as their center. We are called into “the fellowship of His Son Jesus Christ our Lord” (1 Cor. 1:9). This is not simply fellowship with Christ—a fellowship of man’s making will also lay claim to this. The fellowship is His, both as to source and character, and we are called into it. Jesus Christ’s Lordship is emphasized.
Doctrine and Fellowship (Acts 2:42)
When those early believers came together, what do we find them doing? “They continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers” (Acts 2:42). Steadfastly is key; it may alternatively be translated to persevere, or, to adhere to. Perseverance is not something which characterizes man; it is in his very nature to constantly seek new things (Acts 17:21). Four things are mentioned in which the disciples persevered: the apostles’ doctrine, the apostles’ fellowship, the breaking of bread, and prayer. We begin our study of this verse with the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship.
The assembly is “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone” (Eph. 2:20). Established upon this foundation, the church is to maintain the truth here on earth. “The church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). She should have been a living testimony to the truth. The church does not teach—but she is the sphere of teaching. A failure to recognize this distinction is a serious error. Rather, the church is to be subject to the Word of God, remembering that the Word of God comes to us and not from us (1 Cor. 14:36). The local assembly is the place where the Word of God is ministered and taught through the Holy Spirit—it is a place of Christian learning. Gifts have been given by Christ for the edifying of the church (Eph. 4:11-12). The exercise of these gifts is not bound geographically; those persons spoken of in Ephesians four are for the edifying of the whole body of Christ.
A meeting of the saints for the reading of the Scriptures was an important part of the early church. “Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine” (1 Tim. 4:13). Reading in this context is not personal study, important as that is, but the public reading of the Scriptures as the connection to exhortation and doctrine indicates. Letters received from the apostles were read in the assembly: “When this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea” (Col. 4:16). We continue to read the epistles in the assembly, and, just as in earlier times, there are those who give the sense and cause others to understand. “So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading” (Neh. 8:8).
A meeting for the reading of the Scriptures is essential to the spiritual well-being of the assembly. The assembly must be well-grounded in the apostles’ doctrine. Without this grounding—if there isn’t that building up on our most holy faith (Jude 20)—then we will be as children, susceptible to every wind of doctrine. “That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive” (Eph. 4:14). Sound teaching is the bedrock upon which all other ministry stands: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16). Our spiritual education should begin as children (2 Tim. 3:15); their presence in the assembly meetings is very important. Each generation must learn these things for themselves and be willing to pass them along to the next. “The things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2).
To be self-taught in the absence of fellowship is dangerous; it can puff up (Col. 2:18). “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching” (Heb. 10:25). Conversely, we cannot enjoy the apostles’ fellowship without the apostles’ teaching. True fellowship rests upon sound doctrine. The unity of the church depends upon it: “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph. 4:5). False doctrine ultimately divided the church. We cannot express fellowship with those who preach a different Christ. “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. ... If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed” (2 John 9-10). Neither can we identify with any who preach a different gospel: “If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:9). Likewise, we must reject those who claim a different spirit (2 Cor. 11:4). The apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, however, brings us into fellowship with the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ. “That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ” (1 John 1:3).
The Breaking of Bread (Acts 2:42)
“They continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers” (Acts 2:42). These activities characterized the early church even as they should the assembly today. We have more details a few verses later: “Every day, being constantly in the temple with one accord, and breaking bread in the house, they received their food with gladness and simplicity of heart” (Acts 2:46 JND). They were together in the temple with one accord, but they broke bread at home. At the temple they undoubtedly witnessed to Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God, but when it came to the remembrance of the Lord, it was not a public spectacle, nor was it connected with temple worship. “We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle” (Heb. 13:10). There were no meeting halls, much less grand cathedrals, so they met in homes—not as independent bodies, for there was but one church at Jerusalem (Acts 15:4). Many assemblies continued to meet in homes throughout the first and second centuries as the epistles testify: “the church in thy house” (Philemon 2; see also Rom. 16:5; 1 Cor. 16:19; Col. 4:15). Our verse is commonly taken to mean that they broke bread daily, but the wording does not require it. Regardless, a pattern was ultimately established, and the disciples came together on the first day of the week to break bread (Acts 20:6-7).
In the breaking of bread there is an expression of fellowship. “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread” (1 Cor. 10:16-17). In this act we express fellowship with the blood and body of Christ. The expression “the body of Christ” encompasses, however, more than Christ’s physical body—it is also that mystical body taking in all believers: “we, being many, are one loaf, one body” (vs. 17 JND). Every believer is represented in the one loaf. In these verses the blood is mentioned first, as it is the blood which gives us admittance to the Lord’s table—and it is good to be reminded that it is His table and not ours. This is not the physical table on which we place the loaf and wine; rather, it is an expression representative of the fellowship of believers which the Lord has formed—a fellowship expressed in the breaking of bread each Lord’s day. In this expression of fellowship, however, there is also identification. It is the subject taken up in the second half of first Corinthians, chapter ten. Three expressions of fellowship are given: the Lord’s Table (1 Cor. 10:16-17), Israel’s peace offering (vs. 18), and an idolatrous feast (vss. 19-21). “Ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils” (1 Cor. 10:21). In this verse, the word partaker simply means to share in something. By sharing in a feast to an idol one has “fellowship with devils” (1 Cor. 10:20). Fellowship is a much stronger word; it is intimate communion. We may not have idolatrous feasts today, but the application remains; we express fellowship with the altar where we break bread. It is incumbent upon us, therefore, to understand what and with whom we are identified.
Men have taken the remembrance of the Lord down two paths. On the one hand, it has been turned into a sacrament with great pomp and ceremony, while on the other, it is little more than an adjunct to a service of praise and ministry—and that, too, infrequently. The Lord's Supper represents that which forms the basis of our worship—the death of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is our memorial for the present time to the One the world rejected and crucified. “They cried out all at once, saying, Away with this man” (Luke 23:18). It is the request Jesus made of His disciples before His death: “This do in remembrance of Me” (Luke 22:19). Some may demur, arguing that a weekly remembrance is liturgical—a prescribed ritual which quickly loses its meaning. When we respond to a request made by one whom we love, it will never be tedious or drudgery, no matter how often we may do it. Nevertheless, we must confess there are times when the remembrance of the Lord may seem repetitious—the same themes triggering the same hymns and expressions—but equally, those same themes can be expressed with a freshness that leave us filled with praise and worship. We own that it is the coldness of our own hearts which is to blame for the former condition. If unhindered, the Spirit of God always brings the freshness of Christ’s death before us.
Prayer (Acts 2:42)
Prayer is the final activity mentioned in our verse. Prayer is essential for the proper functioning of the assembly. The apostles’ doctrine defines the fellowship, the breaking of bread expresses it, but it is prayer which maintains it. Sadly, the time established for prayer is often the quietest. It does not require a gift to pray. Prayer should flow naturally from the heart of every child of God. It only takes a burden for the saints of God and a willingness to be the Spirit’s mouthpiece, for prayer to be made. Prayers do not need to be long nor eloquent. If the Spirit of God lays just one thing on your heart, be willing to open your mouth and pray! It is unnecessary, and quite inappropriate, to pad a prayer with flowery expressions. The Spirit completes that which is left unsaid: “For we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered” (Rom. 8:26). Conversely, don’t condemn the long prayers of those whose hearts are in tune with the many needs of the saints.
We find both individual and collective prayer mentioned in the Word of God; both are important, and neither should be neglected. Four aspects of prayer are given by Paul in his first letter to Timothy. “I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men” (1 Tim. 2:1). In supplication we make requests of God—it is a petition. Prayer is also an expression of communion with God. Intercession, on the other hand, is the interceding on behalf of others for good. Thanksgiving needs no explanation, but it is frequently neglected. Each of these four aspects should have their expression in the assembly prayer meeting.
Various examples of assembly prayer may be found in the Word of God. “Peter therefore was kept in the prison; but unceasing prayer was made by the assembly to God concerning him” (Acts 12:5 JND). Paul acknowledged the prayers of the assembly in Philippi: “I know that this shall turn to my salvation through your prayer, and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 1:19). To the assembly of Thessalonians, he wrote: “Finally, brethren, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may have free course, and be glorified, even as it is with you” (2 Thess. 3:1). In his first letter to the Thessalonians Paul had written: “Pray without ceasing” (1 Thess. 5:17). Prayer should characterize God’s house: “My house shall be called the house of prayer” (Matt. 21:13). Although our prayers are often characterized by supplication and intercession, we should not be forgetful to give thanks. “Be careful for nothing; but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God” (Phil. 4:6). “Continue in prayer, and watch in the same with thanksgiving” (Col. 4:2).
In regard to the things we’ve been considering from Acts 2:42, we may look to the life of Mary as an example to follow. Mary was found at the Lord’s feet on three occasions: in the first she listened and learned; in the second, it was with tears of supplication; finally, we see Mary anointing the feet of Jesus in an expression of devotion and worship. “She had a sister called Mary, which also sat at Jesus’ feet, and heard His word” (Luke 10:39). “When Mary was come where Jesus was, and saw Him, she fell down at His feet” (John 11:32). “Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus” (John 12:3). The local assembly will not function unless we each have a personal desire to be found in the Lord’s presence for learning, for prayer, and in the memorial of His death.
Holiness Becometh Thine House (Acts 5)
Ananias and his wife, Sapphira, sold a piece of land and laid the proceeds at the apostles’ feet (Acts 5:1-2). They presented it as the full amount, despite keeping some back. This lie of omission (James 4:17) was a deliberate deception. It was within their power to keep some (vs. 4), but they made a choice so they might have glory from men (Matt. 6:2). In retaining a portion for themselves, were they motivated by doubts as to the goodness of God to provide, or was it covetousness? Regardless, they wanted to appear to be something they were not. “For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God” (John 12:43). The matter was hidden to all but God. In so acting, they were tempting the Spirit of the Lord—would the Spirit respond to this lie? (vs. 9) These were early days, and the response was swift and severe. Both Ananias and Sapphira lost their lives—parallels may be drawn with the man who broke the sabbath early in Israel’s history (Num. 15:32-36). Holiness would be maintained in God’s house. As a result “Great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things” (Acts 5:11). Many signs and wonders were done by the apostles (vs. 12), but, for a time at least, people were deterred from attaching themselves to the assembly merely for the outward blessing. Nevertheless, many true believers were added. “Of the rest durst [dared] no man join himself to them: but the people magnified them. And believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women” (Acts 5:13-14). It was similar when Jesus was here; some were attracted by His miraculous power, but “Jesus did not commit Himself unto them, because He knew all men” (John 2:24).
This state of things did not last long, and we soon read of Simon the sorcerer taking his place, through baptism, in the house of God (Acts 8:13). The falseness of his character was only revealed when he sought to purchase the power which, he thought, the apostles possessed over the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:17-18). Simon had to be exposed for who he really was, and he had to be rejected: “Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee” (Acts 8:21-22).
We earlier touched on the case of the incestuous man in the assembly at Corinth. The assembly was puffed up and had not mourned. Even if they were too weak to address the situation, it should have been a cause of grief to them. If the right spirit had been present with them, God could have acted to take away the wicked man from among them (1 Cor. 5:2). Although little consideration is shown toward it today, holiness isn’t merely an individual thing; God would also have His house to be holy. Assembly discipline isn’t simply for the good of the one involved, although it should be exercised in view of restoration. Defilement in the assembly is like yeast in a lump of dough; it spreads until the whole is leavened (1 Cor. 5:6). We do not, as an assembly, sit in judgment on our brethren; rather, discipline is enacted because it is the house of the living God—He is not passive nor indifferent to the goings-on in the assembly. God has established a conduct suited to His house. There was nothing for the Corinthians to weigh up—the behavior of the individual was unquestionably immoral, and it was defiling to the house of God. The matter was known to them, and they should have been subject to the Scriptures and the lordship of Christ (1 Cor. 5:4). “Christ as Son over His [God’s] own house; whose house are we” (Heb. 3:6). As a servant, Moses was faithful in the tabernacle; Christ, as Son, is even more so—He is over the house of God’s making. It is noteworthy that Paul charges Timothy “before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels” (1 Tim. 5:21). He even brings in the angels, those ministering spirits, who, unseen by us, observe all the goings-on in the house in which they serve. The assembly has a solemn responsibility to conduct itself in a way which is honoring to the Lord Jesus Christ, and which glorifies God.
Ministers & Deacons (Acts 6)
The subject we’re about to take up is a large one, and a fuller treatment has been developed in a separate pamphlet. We touched on some points earlier; nevertheless, we have yet to discuss service in the context of the local assembly. Before we do, we must, however, begin by untangling the confusion surrounding gift and office.
Gifts have been poured out upon the church by an ascended Christ (Eph. 4:8-12). The gifts mentioned in Ephesians are persons—apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers. They are given for the edification of the whole body of Christ. Christ continues to confer gifts upon the church; we still have evangelists, pastors and teachers—although, we should caution, not in the way these words are typically used. We’ve already spoken of apostles; they have passed from this scene and there is no provision to replace them.
A prophet is one used by God to make known His mind. Old Testament prophets are renowned for foretelling events, yet their first mission was to turn the hearts of the people to Jehovah. As to New Testament prophets, we read: “The revelation of the mystery, as to which silence has been kept in the times of the ages, but which has now been made manifest, and by prophetic scriptures, according to commandment of the eternal God, made known for obedience of faith to all the nations” (Rom. 16:25-26 JND). The prophetic scriptures referenced here are not those of the Old Testament; the verse speaks of its silence as to the mystery. In his letter to the Ephesians (the subject of which is the mystery) Paul again writes: “In other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto His holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit” (Eph. 3:5). These men, uniquely given of God at the church’s beginning, laid that doctrinal foundation upon which the church rests (Eph. 2:20; 1 Cor. 3:10). We do not seek a new foundation, nor do we look for new revelations; the Word of God is complete (Col. 1:25 JND; Rev. 22:18). Those prophets given to the early church have also passed from this scene, their work having been completed. Nevertheless, God continues to use prophecy as a gift within the assembly for the building up of the saints, and for bringing His Word in power to the conscience of His people (1 Cor. 14:3).
An evangelist takes the good news of God’s saving grace to lost souls—their work is primarily outside the assembly. Pastors and teachers, although distinct persons, are linked in a way the other words are not. A pastor—literally a shepherd—must be willing to teach. Conversely, successful teachers are those with a shepherd’s heart. The word pastor has taken on a meaning of its own. Nowhere in the Word of God do we read of pastor being used as a title for one who leads a church, nor is it used as a synonym for one who preaches. For that matter, we never read of a man leading a church—except, perhaps, Diotrephes, and he is denounced (3 John 9)! We leave the subject of gift with this observation: gifts are from Christ; He alone distributes gift. To appoint individuals, or to suppose that one can obtain gift through education, is to usurp Christ’s authority; it is a serious error.
Office, on the other hand, speaks of those roles local to an assembly and especially those relating to its order and care. The Greek word for office appears only once and that in Romans twelve: “As we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office” (Rom. 12:4). In this verse, however, office is used in a very general way, and it would be better translated function. The King James unnecessarily introduces the word office in the verse: “If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work” (1 Tim. 3:1). The concern with the word office—and with bishop and deacon—is because they suggest an ordained position which the original Greek text does not speak of. A reading closer to the original may be given: “If anyone aspires to exercise oversight, he desires a good work” (1 Tim. 3:1 JnD). Bishop and deacon are used as titles, a practice which masks their true meaning. They are the anglicized forms of the Greek episkope (ἐπισκοπή) and diakonos (διάκονος) which simply mean overseer and servant. Another word must also be mentioned, presbyteros (πρεσβύτερος), meaning elder. Out of these words the various ecclesiastical systems of man’s devising have been built—episcopalian, presbyterian, and everything in between.
Turning our attention to deacons—elders and overseers will be discussed later—aside from the third chapter of First Timothy, the King James translation uses the word deacon in just one other place, in the first verse of the Epistle to the Philippians. The underlying Greek word, however, appears many times—28 verses in all. Again, by using an untranslated word the role has been exalted to a position where its simplicity has been lost. Modern translations persist in this usage—men love titles. A deacon is everywhere else (in the King James) given as servant or minister. The word minister has, similarly, taken on a meaning divergent from its Scriptural usage. A dictionary, for example, gives the meaning as: one officiating or assisting the officiant in church worship. The deacons of Scripture served in the local assembly in temporal things. It is necessary to note, however, that the word service has broad application. Paul calls himself a minister (servant) of God (1 Cor. 3:5; 2 Cor. 6:4; etc.). We must examine the context to determine the nature and scope of the service described.
In Acts chapter six, the Greek speaking Jews criticized the Hebrews for neglecting their widows. The apostles rightly declined to intervene; temporal matters of the assembly’s making were not their responsibility—theirs was the Word of God and prayer (Acts 6:4). The assembly can furnish tables; it can also furnish those who serve them. The men chosen for this work were well reported of, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom. Even in temporal matters the servant of God must hold “the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience” (1 Tim. 3:9). One who fails to conduct themselves in a dignified manner, who slanders others, or is intemperate in their conduct—and this list is incomplete—disqualifies themselves from service in the house of God (1 Tim. 3:11). Although the assembly, in the sixth of Acts, chose these individuals to serve, official recognition came from the apostles alone (Acts 6:6)—a title was never conferred upon them; that’s a fabrication of men.
A desire to be of service in the assembly is to be encouraged, especially among those who have exhibited faithfulness and maturity. In Paul’s first letter to Timothy, the qualities which are to characterize one who serves in the assembly are enumerated (1 Tim. 3:8-12). Those who serve well will grow spiritually. “They that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 3:13). We see this exemplified in Stephen, one of the seven, of whom it is said: “They were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake” (Acts 6:10). In the seventh chapter of Acts, one can read Stephen’s remarkable defense before the Jewish council. The assembly, however, has an administrative responsibility to refuse any who, although seeking to serve, lacks the prerequisite qualities.
Service in the house of God is important. Individuals are recognized for this place of service. Paul does so, for example, in his letter to the Philippians (Phil. 1:1). We also read of Phebe: “I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant [διάκονος] of the church which is at Cenchrea” (Rom. 16:1). There is an especially nice reference in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians: “Ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry [διακονία] of the saints” (1 Cor. 16:15). The house of Stephanas devoted themselves to the service of the saints. We reemphasize that this service is local—Phebe served the assembly at Cenchrea.
Practical Fellowship (Acts 11:29)
One way in which the unity of the body may be expressed practically is through gifts of help. “Then the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judaea: Which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul” (Acts 11:29-30). That the Gentile believers should send gifts to their Jewish brethren was a remarkable thing. Nevertheless, it was simply a practical expression of the reality that now existed within the church of God. “There is neither Jew nor Greek” (Gal. 3:28). When the brethren in Judaea suffered, the saints elsewhere felt it. “Whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it” (1 Cor. 12:26). Similar gifts were made at other times; these weren’t one-off events (Rom. 15:26). Paul instructs the Galatians and the Corinthians to make the collection an orderly part of their coming together on the Lord’s day. “Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come” (1 Cor. 16:1-2). No amount is specified; they were to give as God had prospered them. This was not a tithe.
A tithe—literally a tenth part—was an obligation under law. Giving for the Christian is not bound by obligation; it is to be the result of the grace of God working in the heart. “I speak not by commandment, but by occasion of the forwardness of others, and to prove the sincerity of your love” (2 Cor. 8:8). “Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver” (2 Cor. 9:7). Grace manifests itself in love working. The motivation springs from an altogether different source than a tithe. Furthermore, grace is not limited to ten percent. It is remarkable that the two chapters which take up this subject for Christians, second Corinthians eight and nine, do not reference tithing under the law of Moses. Instead, Paul evokes the imagery of Israel gathering manna—some gathered much whereas others gathered little; those with much shared so they had none left over; conversely, those who had little did not go without (2 Cor. 8:15). The ninth chapter touches upon general principles found in the Old Testament—the importance of helping the poor, and the blessing resulting from liberality (vss. 9-10). Neither chapter, however, mentions tithes.
The assemblies in Macedonia, although poor, had a generous spirit and they gave willingly; they needed no exhortation to give. “We make known to you, brethren, the grace of God bestowed in the assemblies of Macedonia; that in a great trial of affliction the abundance of their joy and their deep poverty has abounded to the riches of their free-hearted liberality” (2 Cor. 8:1-2 JnD). The wealthy saints in Achaia, however, needed some urging: “Therefore, as ye abound in everything, in faith, and utterance, and knowledge, and in all diligence, and in your love to us, see that ye abound in this grace also” (2 Cor. 8:7). There had been an outward willingness, but they seemed reluctant, as the saying goes, to put their money where their mouth was. “Herein I give my advice: for this is expedient for you, who have begun before, not only to do, but also to be forward a year ago. Now therefore perform the doing of it” (2 Cor. 8:10-11).
In the Epistle to the Hebrews, such expressions of communion follow upon those for praise: “By Him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to His name. But to do good and to communicate [fellowship] forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased” (Heb. 13:15-16). The Word of God calls these gifts fellowship—they are a practical expression of that intimate union which binds the saints of God. Such gifts allow an assembly to express fellowship with another assembly, or with the work of an individual, or with the various needs of the saints. Although the practical follows the spiritual, it is not inconsequential—with such sacrifices God is well pleased. We are both a holy priesthood (Godward) and a royal priesthood (manward) (1 Pet. 2:5,9). By our actions we “show forth the praises of Him who hath called you out of darkness into His marvelous light” (1 Pet. 2:9).
Paul’s letter to the Philippians is a letter thanking them for their gift of fellowship—it is far more than this, but their expression of fellowship led to this communication: “I thank my God upon every remembrance of you, always in every prayer of mine for you all making request with joy, for your fellowship in the gospel from the first day until now” (Phil. 1:3-5). At the close of the letter Paul gives further details. “I rejoiced in the Lord greatly, that now however at length ye have revived your thinking of me, though surely ye did also think of me, but lacked opportunity” (Phil. 4:10 JND). The Apostle did not seek gifts for himself; rather, he desired fruit to abound to their account (Phil. 4:17). That such fruit was forthcoming rejoiced the heart of this imprisoned servant of Jesus Christ—it meant much to him. “Notwithstanding ye have well done, that ye did communicate with my affliction” (Phil. 4:14). The Epistle is affectionate, and we have personal touches not found elsewhere. This shared affection between the Apostle and the saints in Philippi is normal Christianity; anything else is an aberration.
Those with oversight in the assembly are responsible for the handling and distribution of funds. The specific greeting to overseers and deacons in the Epistle to the Philippians hints at this (Phil. 1:1). We elsewhere read of responsible brothers being selected to handle gifts; fellowship had to be hand delivered and brothers were carefully chosen for this task: “We have sent with him the brother, whose praise is in the gospel throughout all the churches; and not that only, but who was also chosen of the churches to travel with us with this grace” (2 Cor. 8:18-19). The Apostle saw to it that the care of this gift should be above suspicion. “Avoiding this, that no man should blame us in this abundance which is administered by us” (2 Cor. 8:20). Likewise, it is prudent that at least two brothers be present whenever money is handled. Assembly bank accounts, similarly, should be managed by more than one individual. The carefulness needed cannot be overstated. When the temple vessels were returned from Babylon to Jerusalem, they were numbered and weighed prior to their journey and again upon their arrival (Ezra 8:25-34). This was not, I would suggest, because the integrity of those carrying them was in question, but rather, to protect them from suspicion and false accusation. In this spirit, an accounting of all assembly transactions should be presented before those in administration on a regular basis. Such information should also be made available to any who has a legitimate care. As with those in Ezra’s day, accurate written records are essential (Ezra 8:34).
The Right Hand of Fellowship (Acts 13)
“The Holy Ghost said, Separate Me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away” (Acts 13:2-3). The prophets and teachers in Antioch were directed by the Holy Spirit to separate Barnabas and Saul for the work the Lord had called them to do. Having fasted and prayed, they laid their hands upon them and sent them on their way. The direction to do so did not come during the laying on of hands—nor did it with Timothy on a later occasion (1 Tim. 4:14). In both instances, a word of prophecy led to this step. The laying on of hands expresses identification—it is not ordination, it does not consecrate, nor does it confer title. Rather, by it fellowship is expressed with the individual and their ministry. Timothy is warned against taking this step hastily, for in so doing he could become a partaker of another man’s sins. “Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men’s sins: keep thyself pure” (1 Tim. 5:22). When Paul and Barnabas returned from their first missionary journey, they went up to Jerusalem—an event we will shortly consider in some detail. No official commission was given to Paul by the apostles there either. Paul’s commission and apostleship were not of man but by the revelation of Jesus Christ (Gal. 1:12; 2:7). Instead, the apostles extended to Paul the right-hand of fellowship (Gal. 2:9)—that same expression shown by those in Antioch a year or so earlier. Although we may not have a word of prophecy as with Paul or Timothy, one who is led by the Holy Spirit to be the Lord’s servant should desire the expressed fellowship of their local brethren. This is not a decision of the assembly; it is the responsibility of those with spiritual discernment.
Conversely, the saints in Rome were to note those who caused division and offences contrary to the teaching they had received. “I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them” (Rom. 16:17). This was no mere cautionary warning; it would seem that the enemies’ attacks had already begun. The saints were not to encourage these ones; instead, they were to turn away from them. A similar warning is given to the elect lady in John’s second epistle. “If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed” (2 John 10). In this instance, the specific false doctrine is mentioned—some were denying that Jesus Christ had come in flesh. These false teachers weren’t even to receive the courtesy of a common greeting. These exhortations are to be heeded by each one of us; they are instructions to individuals.
There may come a time, however, when an assembly must put away a heretical person. They are to be rejected after the first and second admonition: “A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself” (Titus 3:10-11). As we earlier noted, heresy isn’t necessarily heterodoxy although it may well result from it. Nevertheless, the assembly is to guard against evil doctrine. Timothy was to remain in Ephesus: “That thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine” (1 Tim. 1:3). Titus was warned concerning Crete: “There are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: Whose mouths must be stopped” (Titus 1:10-11). It was the responsibility of the elders to address these false teachers. The assembly in Pergamos was rebuked for being careless as to this: “So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate” (Rev. 2:15).
Elders (Acts 14:23)
As Paul and Barnabas traveled, they chose elders in each assembly. “Having chosen them elders in each assembly, having prayed with fastings, they committed them to the Lord, on whom they had believed” (Acts 14:23 JnD). God saw to it that these new assemblies were not left without oversight. Before proceeding, we must clear up the misunderstanding surrounding elders and overseers—an elder is an overseer; these are not distinct offices. Elder speaks to the spiritual maturity of the individual; oversight is the responsibility they bear. Elders are responsible for oversight in the assembly. “For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou mightest go on to set right what remained unordered, and establish elders in each city, as I had ordered thee ... For the overseer must be free from all charge against him as God’s steward” (Titus 1:5,7 JND; see also Acts 20:17,28). Each assembly had multiple elders; this oversight did not fall to a single individual (Acts 14:23; 20:17; Phil. 1:1; Titus 1:5). The separation of roles—a single bishop presiding over elders—happened very early in church history, within decades of the Apostle John’s death. Ignatius, in writing to the Smyrnaeans, proclaimed: All of you follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and follow the council of elders as the apostles.
Elders were appointed by an apostle or a delegate of an apostle. Paul directs Titus to establish elders in Crete to set things in order (Titus 1:5). Never are elders or assemblies instructed to appoint elders. And to suggest that a bishop, that is to say an overseer, can appoint elders is an oxymoron—we repeat, an overseer is an elder. The very fact that the apostles, and those delegated by them, appointed elders to a position of oversight, shows us that the assembly lacked the authority to do so. The instruction to Timothy isn’t a warrant for the church to appoint overseers—it’s an epistle written to an individual commissioned by an apostle. By the time we get to the end of Acts we read concerning the elders in Ephesus (Acts 20:17): “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which He hath purchased with His own blood” (Acts 20:28). Here we find that it was the Holy Ghost who established the elders as overseers in Ephesus. In the present day the Holy Spirit continues to direct those who have a burden for the flock of God to take up the mantle of oversight in the assembly. Although there is no authority to appoint elders, the gifts that are necessary remain in spite of the ruin, just as does the moral authority based on the practical holiness of the one exercising it. Paul’s instruction to Timothy gives invaluable instruction for any who “aspires to exercise oversight” (1 Tim. 3:1 JnD). The moral qualifications listed may disqualify one from taking on this role—in this, the assembly has an administrative responsibility.
The things which we have been speaking of fall under the general heading of church organization. When considering this topic, it is hard to displace the biases entrenched within Christendom and to consider it solely in light of what we find in the Word of God. Quoting Lewis Sperry Chafer: There is little said in the Bible regarding the organization of churches, though there is nothing written to oppose it. This conservative Bible scholar declared that the Bible said little as to organization, and, in so saying, he opened the door for organizations of our own making—there is nothing written to oppose it. The ‘little’ Scripture does say is sufficient for faith—indeed, it is the lack of faith which appoints what God has not appointed. Nowhere in the Word of God do we ever find a local assembly selecting individuals to lead in the ministry, to be an elder or pastor, to teach, and so forth—and we certainly have no instruction for doing so. The authority assumed by the church in ordaining men is an indictment against itself—it reflects the absence of the Spirit’s power. Throughout the book of Acts, we see the Holy Spirit directing the work of ministering to the saints. “Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot” (Acts 8:29). “The Holy Ghost said, Separate Me Barnabas and Saul” (Acts 13:2). “Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia” (Acts 16:6). “Over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers” (Acts 20:28). In creating arrangements of its own ordering, Christendom has usurped the Spirit’s power and authority. We may not feel the Holy Spirit’s guidance, but that reflects upon our state; it is not something which can be corrected by substituting an organization of our own making.
We now turn our attention to the characteristics and responsibilities of those elders who have the oversight of the assembly. The third chapter of First Timothy lists the qualities required: above reproach, hospitable, peaceable, not covetous; one who conducts his own house well; not one newly saved, lest he be lifted up in pride; of a good report in this world. These are a few of the characteristics God looks for. All are moral with the exception, perhaps, of “apt to teach” (vs. 2) and “ruleth well” (vs. 4). No gift is mentioned, although certain gifts found elsewhere are applicable: “Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us ... he that ruleth, with diligence” (Rom. 12:6-8; see also 1 Cor. 12:28). Elders aren’t required to have a gift for teaching; nevertheless, there must be the capacity to teach when necessary. “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially they who labor in the word and doctrine” (1 Tim. 5:17). In Paul’s directions to Titus, we have these qualities echoed and additional responsibilities added. The overseer is God’s steward, a house manager, and, as such, he is to be free from all charges against him; he must be above reproach (Titus 1:7). The elder is to hold “Fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers” (Titus 1:9). They are to address unruly ones, vain talkers, and deceivers: “Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith” (Titus 1:13).
Peter also speaks to this subject, but, in the context of his Epistle, these exhortations are more general, addressing the elder brothers and not necessarily the office. Nevertheless, that being said, the exhortations remain applicable to those in a position of assembly oversight. Interestingly, it answers the question: What happens when an assembly has no one in a place of oversight? The older brothers still bare a responsibility toward the flock of God. “Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock” (1 Pet. 5:2-3). The elder is to shepherd God’s flock, not for personal gain, but willingly and readily—it is always the flock of God and never the elder’s flock. The rewards in this life may be few, but “when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away” (1 Pet. 5:4).
Paul’s instructions to the Ephesian elders confirm the things already written. “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which He hath purchased with His own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock” (Acts 20:28-29). Solemnly, some of their own number would arise, teaching perverse things, drawing disciples after themselves.
A Meeting of the Brothers (Acts 15)
“Certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved” (Acts 15:1). The events described in the fifteenth of Acts are commonly referred to as the First Council of Jerusalem. Scripture does not speak of it in this way; it is a title given much later by men. By thus labeling the occasion, the purpose and manner of the meeting has been lost to the fog of history. Various councils of men have thereby been justified—the first council of Nicaea, the second, and so forth. Conversely, the teaching of the chapter and its importance in connection with the local assembly is very instructive.
The assembly in Antioch had been troubled by the teaching of certain men from Judaea: “Certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved” (Acts 15:1). The assembly arranged for Paul and Barnabas, along with certain others from among them, to go up to Jerusalem about this matter (Acts 15:2).
Two years earlier Barnabas had sought Paul in his hometown of Tarsus (Acts 11:25) and had brought him to Antioch; both cities were in the Roman province of Cilicia (Acts 21:39). Paul and Barnabas then remained with the assembly in Antioch for a year, teaching the people (Acts 11:22,26; Gal. 1:21). They began their first missionary journey in Antioch, and it ended with their return to that same assembly (Acts 13:1; 14:26). The troubling teaching had probably begun during their absence, and it was shortly after their return that they went up to Jerusalem.
The problem had arisen in Jerusalem, and so it was to that assembly they must go—not because Jerusalem had primacy. Indeed, the Apostle Paul is careful to distance himself from Jerusalem. His apostleship was of God and not of men; it had not been conferred by Jerusalem, and Jerusalem held no special authority (Gal. 1:12-22). That being said, the early church had its beginnings with the faithful Jewish remnant and so, for a time at least, Jerusalem was the center of this movement. Furthermore, all were linked: Jerusalem may not have had primacy, but neither was Antioch independent, nor was Jerusalem independent of Antioch. With the stoning of Stephen and the introduction of Paul’s ministry, we see a distinct shift away from Jerusalem. It was at Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians—this is notable and not just a passing observation (Acts 11:26). The saints in Jerusalem, it would appear, remained in bondage to Jewish customs much longer (Acts 21:20) than those assemblies at a distance from that center of Judaism—these things proved a weight and a hinderance to spiritual maturity (Heb. 5:12; 12:1).
In Jerusalem Paul and Barnabas were received by the brethren, apostles, and elders, to whom they declared all the things which God had done during their recent journey (Acts 15:4). The conversion of so many Gentiles had earlier brought joy to the saints in Phoenicia and Samaria (Acts 15:3), but there was a different response among some in Jerusalem. “There rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses” (Acts 15:5). God allowed the matter to be brought out into the open. This resulted in the “apostles and the elders” coming together to discuss the matter. The matter was not taken up in a gathering of the whole assembly. Local brothers of responsibility and moral weight came together for this purpose (Acts 15:6). In the present day we no longer have apostles, nor appointed elders, but there should be those who have a care for the local assembly. Peter addresses this company as “men, brethren” (vs. 7 JND). A gathering of brothers for questions such as this, and for the care and oversight of the assembly, are foreshadowed by this chapter.
“Much discussion having taken place ... ” (Acts 15:7 JND). Such matters may result in a vigorous discussion—the word in the Greek suggests mutual questioning, a back-and-forth with questions and answers. We note, however, that the details are omitted; it seemed to be of little profit as it so often is with ourselves. It wasn’t until Peter arose and pointed out that which could not be denied; the Holy Spirit made no distinction between the circumcision (Jew) and the uncircumcision (Gentile). Peter alludes to Cornelius; the Holy Spirit had fallen upon them without circumcision and quite apart from law (Acts 10:44). “Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as He did unto us” (Acts 15:7-8). Remarkably, Peter adds: “We believe that we shall be saved by the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same manner as they also” (Acts 15:11 JnD). That is to say, the Jew would be saved in the same manner as the Gentile—by grace quite apart from law. This silenced the other brothers and gave opportunity for Barnabas and Paul to confirm Peter’s statement with their own experiences of what God had wrought among the Gentile nations. It remained for James to establish that all was in harmony with the Prophets. Not that this was a fulfillment of them, but that God had clearly purposed blessing for the nations without their becoming Jews. James concludes with: “Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God” (Acts 15:19). He doesn’t go as far as Peter, and the question of circumcision and law-keeping is only answered with respect to the Gentile. It remained for the Apostle Paul to address the broader question in his epistles, and in particular, that to the Galatians.
The matter was then presented before the whole assembly, and it pleased them to send Judas and Silas with Paul and Barnabas to return to Antioch with a letter laying out the decision. The assembly didn’t resume the debate, but the matter was established before all. This is an important principle to be observed: brothers do not make decisions without the knowledge of the assembly—such a lack of transparency and highhandedness will result in resentment and contention. “Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas” (Acts 15:22). The letter laid out the judgment arrived at, not through the common agreement of men, but, rather, through the testimony of the Spirit of God as spoken of by Peter. “For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things” (Acts 15:28). Four necessary things are laid upon the Gentiles, things common among them but which were contrary to God’s holy nature. “Abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication” (Acts 15:29). It is wrong to suppose that these constitute a new law; rather, they reflect holy conduct in the believer—three of the injunctions predate the flood.
The Unity of the Spirit (Acts 16)
The various assemblies—those already in existence and those formed where souls were newly saved—did not act independently. They formed one body, and they acted as such, as directed by the Spirit of God. When Paul and Silas journeyed, they delivered the decree from Jerusalem. “As they passed through the cities, they instructed them to observe the decrees determined on by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem” (Acts 16:4 JND). The action taken in Jerusalem was just as binding upon them as it was in Jerusalem and Antioch. We do not read of the assemblies independently taking up the matter—the very idea seems absurd. And yet, this is the principle upon which most meet today. Some may point to the apostles as giving the decree authority. The letter, however, is from the assembly and speaks of their common judgment. It was a decision based upon the precedent of the Spirit of God and the guidance of the Scriptures. It did not rest upon apostolic authority. When Paul takes up this question in his epistles, the decree is not even referenced. The Epistle to the Galatians addresses the subject more fully. In it, Paul establishes the matter for both Jew and Gentile with all the authority of an apostle. “Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead)” (Gal. 1:1).
“He that has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the assemblies” (Rev. 2:7,11,17,29; 3:6,13,22 JnD). It is one Spirit who speaks to a plurality of assemblies, and each assembly is to listen for and hearken to that one voice of the Spirit. There aren’t multiple voices directing the assemblies independently. Through the Holy Spirit the saints collectively form the divine habitation of God (Eph. 2:22). The Holy Spirit is the power for everything that is according to God, and when the saints act according to that power, then the one body is on display. Submission to the Holy Spirit’s direction leads to a practical demonstration of the body’s unity. The body cannot be broken, but the testimony to it is surely very broken. The current state of things doesn’t give us liberty to act as we may choose; these very principles can, and should, still guide us. We are to use diligence in keeping the unity of the Spirit in the uniting bond of peace.
We cannot expect to hear the Spirit’s voice when the assembly is going along with evil. The Corinthian saints were divided; Christ’s place as Lord was being ceded to men. When Christ is set aside, man’s loyalty will be found elsewhere. As a result, the Corinthians were acting carnally, and evils of every kind were being permitted. This disorder further developed with the departure of the apostles. An outward unity was quickly established through the imposition of a strong hierarchy—a bishop reigning over elders, who ruled over a body of believers. This state of things progressed until the church held sway, not simply over the flock of God, but also over authorities and kings. It devolved into the very state of things described in Matthew’s gospel: “My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken” (Matt. 24:48-49). With the Reformation, the stranglehold of Roman Catholicism was broken, but rather than the individual being subservient to the church, the church was now subservient to the individual. Protestantism leaves much to the exercise of the conscience. In so doing, the individual has usurped the Spirit’s role. We now have a state akin to that found in the time of the judges: “In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25). Whenever the church of God is guided by man’s principles, the Spirit’s leading and that practical testimony to the unity of the body is lost.
Shepherding Care (Acts 18:26)
Shepherding isn’t the function of the assembly; it is the responsibility of individuals who have a care for the flock of God. Furthermore, that care is often exercised privately: “I held back nothing of what is profitable, so as not to announce it to you, and to teach you publicly and in every house” (Acts 20:20 JND). Shepherds, also called pastors, have been gifted by Christ to the church (Eph. 4:11). A pastor, as Scripture uses the word, is not bound to an assembly; his authority to exercise his gift is from Christ alone, and he has liberty to exercise it within the church at large (Eph. 4:11-12). Elders, on the other hand, who exercise oversight within the local assembly also bear a responsibility to: “Shepherd the assembly of God” (Acts 20:28 JND). More general yet, those who are physically and spiritually mature are, likewise, exhorted to: “Shepherd the flock of God which is among you ... being models for the flock” (1 Pet. 5:2-3 JnD). We have already touched upon each of these, but the subject of shepherding itself warrants further comment.
Paul, in his first letter to the Corinthians, writes: “Ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers” (1 Cor. 4:15). Far from being a condemnation of instruction (the Greek word refers to a servant who took children to school, and not to the teacher), it laments their lack of fatherly care. The slight expressed by this statement would not have been lost upon the Corinthians, puffed up, as some were, by their exalted assessment of their own abilities (1 Cor. 4:6). The message is for our exercise also—the need for spiritual fathers and the accompanying shepherding has never diminished; if anything, it has grown.
Turning to the eighteenth chapter of Acts, we find a practical example of such care. Apollos was a gifted brother, eloquent and well-versed in the Scriptures—ultimately he was much used of the Lord. Nevertheless, at the first, he needed shepherding care. “Fervent in the spirit, [Apollos] spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John” (Acts 18:25). John the Baptist preached repentance in preparation for the One coming after him, even Jesus (Acts 19:4). In the assembly at Ephesus we find a faithful couple, Aquila and Priscilla, who, having heard Apollos, took him aside and “expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly” (Acts 18:26). Shepherding necessarily includes correction. In Apollos’ case, his presentation of Jesus was incomplete; not wrong in its time, but he only knew the beginning. Those distinctive truths characteristic of Christianity and Paul’s ministry were unknown to him. Aquila and Priscilla were well acquainted with the Apostle Paul, and they knew something of his teaching (Acts 18:1-4). Led by a shepherding care, they took him unto themselves and added that which he lacked (Gal. 2:6).
The Lord, when he publicly restored Peter before his brethren, alternates between, “Feed My lambs” (John 21:15), “Shepherd My sheep” (vs. 16 JND), and “Feed My sheep” (vs. 17). All expressions relate to shepherding care but with this distinction: both lambs and sheep need feeding—put out to pasture beneath the shepherd’s watchful gaze; sheep, however, also need shepherding. This word carries a certain strength with it. In the second chapter of Revelation the same word appears in the verse: “He shall shepherd them with an iron rod” (Rev. 2:27 JND). David, the shepherd, in his oft quoted psalm wrote: “Thy rod and thy staff they comfort me” (Psa. 23:4). Both are corrective yet they have different characteristics. The principle use of the rod might be in fending off the grievous wolves (Acts 20:29), whereas the staff with its crook guides and recovers the sheep; nevertheless, both are needed, and at times we personally need to feel one or the other. To the tender conscience, they are a great comfort. The shepherd feeds, guides, protects, and corrects.
Within the first nine chapters of Proverbs we have the counsel of a father and mother toward their son. In all, there are twelve discourses addressing various stages of his life. In the fourth discourse we read: “Be not wise in thine own eyes” (Prov. 3:7). As we gain independence, our confidence often exceeds our experience, and, sadly, godly counsel may be rejected. Shepherding is not always well received, and, to be perfectly fair, we own that it isn’t always administered with the required care. For this reason, the Apostle Peter reminds the sheep: “Likewise ye younger, be subject to the elder, and all of you bind on humility towards one another” (1 Pet. 5:5 JND). Shepherds are worthy of honor and respect. Paul instructs Timothy: “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially they who labor in the word and doctrine” (1 Tim. 5:17).
Separation (Acts 19)
“When divers were hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude, he departed from them, and separated the disciples, disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus” (Acts 19:9). It was the Apostle Paul’s custom to seek out the synagogue in the towns he visited and to first preach there—the pattern was “to the Jew first, and also to the Greek” (Rom. 1:16). Scattered among the nations there were faithful Jews who needed the gospel—these were the “such as should be saved” (Acts 2:47). Many had life, but not that abundant life of which the Lord spoke (John 10:10). Timothy and his mother were two among many examples (2 Tim. 1:5; Acts 14:6-7; 16:1). God no longer recognized Jerusalem; the house of Judaism had been left desolate (Matt. 23:38). Salvation was to be had in a rejected Christ. In Ephesus some of the Jews responded to the gospel, but many were hardened and spoke evil of this way. It was at this point that Paul separated the disciples from them. Christianity is not a sect of Judaism, heretical or otherwise, as the Jews made it out to be, thereby justifying their persecution of believers (Acts 24:14). Christianity is altogether distinct. Judaism is occupied with an earthly people, Israel, centered on an earthly city, Jerusalem, and is taken up with earthly ordinances—all of which were but a shadow of things to come. Christianity lifts us out of this world and sets us in the heavenlies in Christ (Eph. 2:6). It was the revelation of this which stopped Paul in his tracks and set him on an altogether different path: “As he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou Me? And he said, Who art Thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest” (Acts 9:3-5).
For a faithful Jew, their forms and customs defined their life from the moment they awoke to the moment they lay down to sleep. It was difficult for many to break from those bonds and God bore with them in patience. In the book of Acts the transition from the trappings of Judaism was a slow one. For those, however, who did enjoy liberty in Christ, there was to be a sensitivity toward those who were weak in the faith (Rom. 14-15). Nevertheless, God never intended for the Jewish believer to remain under this yoke of bondage, and when the enemy sought to place the Gentile under that same yoke, the Spirit of God responded with vigor. Few portions of Scripture speak with such intensity and frankness: “O senseless Galatians, who has bewitched you; to whom, as before your very eyes, Jesus Christ has been portrayed, crucified among you? This only I wish to learn of you, Have ye received the Spirit on the principle of works of law, or of the report of faith? Are ye so senseless? having begun in Spirit, are ye going to be made perfect in flesh?” (Gal. 3:1-3 JnD).
Since the earliest days of Christianity, Satan has tried to keep Christianity bound to Judaism. The subject is touched upon in numerous places: Galatians, Colossians, Paul’s charge to Timothy to remain in Ephesus, Titus, and other like passages. Satan is a peddler of lies and he has something for the disposition of every man. For those who have a propensity toward ritualism, he promotes superior spirituality through ordinances—things that can be touched and tasted (Col. 2:20-22). For the intellect, on the other hand, he promotes a rationalism that degenerates into an empty and profane philosophy (Col. 2:8). Conversely, the believer is complete in Christ. The forms and ceremonies of the Jewish economy anticipated what was to come; but we now have the full expression of them in Christ. They were “a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ” (Col. 2:17). We are to “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage” (Gal. 5:1). This liberty is not a liberty to do as we please—this is another lie of Satan; self-will isn’t liberty at all, it is a bondage of a different sort; one who serves self is a slave to sin (Rom. 6:17). “Use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another” (Gal. 5:13). Our liberty is one which, for the first time, allows us to freely serve Christ and to be servants of righteousness unto holiness (Rom. 6:19).
Judgment fell upon Jerusalem in 70AD when it was besieged by the Roman army led by the future emperor Titus. The Epistle to the Hebrews is written to Jewish believers shortly before this event. “How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard Him” (Heb. 2:3). The Epistle lifts the eye heavenward and sets it upon things which are eternal; better things—a better hope, a better covenant, better promises, better sacrifices, a better resurrection; the word occurs numerous times. They had been hindered in their spiritual growth and the writer chastises them for being dull of hearing. “When for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat” (Heb. 5:12).
Christians are, by and large, ambivalent to the type of ceremonies and rituals of which we have been speaking; they ask what harm is there in them? If it promotes spirituality, surely that is a good thing? In fact, they hinder spiritual maturity; they are weights which slow us in the path that lies before us (Heb. 12:1). Paul counted the former things as dung so that he might gain Christ (Phil. 3:8). “Forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 3:13-14).
Despite all this, very early in her history, Christendom reverted to things which might be touched and tasted—in so doing, they displaced the person of Christ. She gloried in her clergy with their robes and titles, her fine cathedrals with their sanctuaries and altars, but which now stand, by and large, empty; tombs full of dead men’s bones. The call to the Jewish believer was: “Let us go forth therefore unto Him without the camp, bearing His reproach. For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come” (Heb. 13:13-14). The same also applies to us. As Gentiles we were never in the camp—an allusion to Israel in the wilderness—but Christendom has adopted the patterns laid down for Israel; she has placed herself within the camp.
What does it mean, however, to “go unto Him without the camp”? When Israel corrupted themselves with the golden calf (Exod. 32), “Moses took the tabernacle, and pitched it without the camp, afar off from the camp” (Exod. 33:7). If the anointed priest sinned, guilt lay upon the whole congregation; communion between God and the people had been broken and a sin offering was required (Lev. 4:1-12). The “Skin of the bullock, and all his flesh, with his head, and with his legs, and his inwards, and his dung” (Lev. 4:11) were taken without the camp unto a clean place and there they were burned (Lev. 4:12). Likewise, if the congregation sinned inadvertently (Lev. 4:13-21), the sacrifice of the sin offering was burned without the camp (vs. 21). In each instance, when the camp of Israel became defiled, the sacrifice had to be burned without the camp. Christ came unto His own but they would not receive Him (John 1:11). This might have been the end, but it was not in God’s counsel for it to be so. Instead, “Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood, suffered without the gate” (Heb. 13:12). We are called upon to leave those things which have been fully judged by God, and to go forth unto Him without the camp. When we are called upon to separate from something, it is because there is something better—it is unto Him; nevertheless, there is a reproach in so doing (Heb. 13:13). One who takes this position will be accused of self-righteousness, of being judgmental, of rejecting centuries of church teaching, and so forth. But all must be left behind; we cannot go along with that which is a practical denial of our position in Christ.
Earlier we noted that the local assembly was the gathering of believers at a locality. When souls were saved, a testimony to the one body, the body of Christ, was found in the local assembly. In the present day, we no longer find this to be true. In its place, we have numerous sectarian organizations each vying for believers; each with some particular ministry and appeal. Most have adopted patterns from Judaism which has resulted, for example, in the confounding of priesthood with ministry; many have even adopted pagan traditions. Nevertheless, for one bowing to the Word of God, there is a place outside all of this—not a new organization, but to be gathered together by the Holy Spirit to the name of the Lord Jesus Christ alone, in obedience to the Word of God, and in separation from all that has defiled the house of God (2 Tim. 2:20-21). Such a gathering is not the body of Christ at this or that location; nevertheless, it should exhibit in practice, albeit in great weakness, the principles given throughout this book, in the spirit of unity with other assemblies like gathered (Eph. 4:3). Those who now meet in one place and partake of the “one loaf” on this principle, are no more the body of Christ at that moment than at any other time. But they have faith in the truth of it, as seen in their practice, while others who speak of it without practice do not seem to have. The former can show their faith by their works—the only way in which such can be done.
The Assembly in their House (Acts 18-19)
When Paul first visited Ephesus, towards the end of his second missionary journey (Acts 18:18-19), he was accompanied by Aquila and Priscilla. The Apostle’s stopover was brief, being but a waypoint on his return to Caesarea and Antioch (Acts 18:22). Aquila and Priscilla, however, remained in Ephesus. The Apostle later returned, staying for more than two years (Acts 19:10; 20:31). The first Epistle to the Corinthians was written on the eve of his second departure. At the conclusion of his Epistle, Paul sends salutations including this: “The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house” (1 Cor. 16:19).
In contrast to Judaism, there is no city central to the practice of Christianity—not Jerusalem and certainly not Rome. “The hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father” (John 4:21). We are gathered together, by the Spirit of God, unto the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, this doesn’t take away the significance of the physical place altogether. Paul on multiple occasions identifies an assembly by the house in which it met (Rom. 16:5; Col. 4:15; Philemon 1:2). The location was known to him and to the saints. In the case of Ephesus, at the time of Paul’s writing, the assembly met in the home of Aquila and Priscilla. In no way does this suggest that the church was in any sense theirs; they did not form it. Paul is careful to identify the church with the house and not the person: “Greet the church which is in their house” (Rom. 16:5). There was a recognized place of meeting.
Each of the seven churches addressed by John in Revelation are identified by their city. The assemblies are viewed as candlesticks—as responsible light bearers (Rev. 1:12-13,20). They were held accountable to be a testimony in their location. John begins his addresses with Ephesus: “Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write” (Rev. 2:1). This style of introduction is adopted for all seven assemblies. Clues within the addresses point to the angel’s representative character, rather than to a heavenly being. The angel represents those whom God holds accountable in the assembly; everything that is wrong is ascribed to the angel. In the address to Smyrna, the angel is addressed in the singular (as with all seven churches) but John, by the Spirit, says, “the devil shall cast some of you into prison” (vs. 10)—the Spirit seamlessly shifts from the responsible element within the assembly to the assembly itself. This would be an odd transition if the angel were a heavenly being. That there is a responsible administration is affirmed elsewhere. In the Epistle to the Hebrews, we read: “Obey your leaders, and be submissive; for they watch over your souls as those that shall give account” (Heb. 13:17 JND). Titus was sent to Crete to establish oversight within the assemblies (Titus 1:5). Returning to our address to Ephesus, she is called upon to: “Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent” (Rev. 2:5). When believers are gathered together unto the name of the Lord Jesus Christ in a location, they are to be a testimony to Christ Himself, and also, as members of His body, to the true character of the church. The overseers in the assembly are accountable to the Lord to act for Him in the assembly. Nevertheless, the call to “He that hath an ear” (Rev. 2:7) is personal; restoration begins with the individual. The assembly itself is accountable to Christ, its head. God can remove the testimony; He warned the assembly in Ephesus that the candlestick would be taken away if they failed to repent. In the New Testament we find gatherings wherever souls were saved. Overseers were appointed by the apostles or their delegates, or they were raised up of the Holy Spirit (Acts 20:28). Where we find such a gathering, God holds them accountable as an assembly.
We earlier considered the situation in Jerusalem. The early believers broke bread at home. These individual gatherings are not referred to as assemblies; the saints met in this way for practical reasons. Initially there were 3000 believers, but that number quickly grew well beyond 5000 (Acts 2:41; 4:4). No building could accommodate such a number, especially a heretical sect as they were labeled (Acts 24:14). Nevertheless, there was but one assembly in Jerusalem. When Paul and Barnabas visited to address the bad doctrine being promulgated by some, they were received by the assembly (Acts 15:4). When God in His wisdom brought the issue out into the open, we find that “The apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter” (Acts 15:6). They acted as one assembly with one oversight. Even though they may have met in their homes, they were all part of the assembly in Jerusalem. Similar situations may arise today when individuals are unable to come together. Also, isolated believers may find it necessary to break bread in fellowship with another assembly. It’s not a question of that assembly asserting its authority over them, but rather, of maintaining unity and fellowship, and those relevant principles found in the Word of God as we have sought to highlight them.
This, nevertheless, raises another question: Can there be only one assembly within a city or town? What about a district? Clearly Galatia, a Roman province, had multiple assemblies (Gal. 1:2). To suppose that an assembly is defined by civil boundaries runs counter to everything we know about the church. In some parts of the world, parishes exist that are both civil and ecclesiastical subdivisions. Nevertheless, political divisions do not form the basis for an assembly—nor should the ecclesiastical become political boundaries. Consider towns which have coalesced into a metropolitan area; it would be strange to suggest that individual assemblies should become one because of political re-labeling. Assemblies may grow or diminish, and they may be formed or dissolved—not always as a result of God’s government. Nothing precludes a city, because of practical considerations, from having more than one assembly. That being said, we live in a day where Biblical teaching concerning ecclesiastical truth has been openly rejected or denied in practice. Even among those who acknowledge these principles, sadly, there are numerous divisions. With such confusion, one cannot be too careful in establishing the ground upon which one is gathered—in a practical way, not merely with words. We are part of the one body with Christ as its head, and assemblies must be established on that principle; they are not independent entities. An assembly has a responsibility and the authority to maintain godly order. Likewise, it must recognize and bow to decisions made by like-gathered assemblies. As head, Christ may act in the body whenever and wherever He chooses.
It is true that upholding the light of the truth in the present day may do little more than reveal the state of the ruin within the Christian profession. Even so, let it be. Obedience to the Word of God must result in such a testimony. To shine a light on the ruin is not the same as contributing to it.
The First Day of the Week (Acts 20)
The Lord remained in the grave on the sabbath; He arose on the first day of the week. Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week (Mark 16:9). The Christian is not bound by the sabbath, a day given to Israel, an earthly people, as a sign of Jehovah’s covenant relationship with them (Ezek. 20:12,20). It was a relationship in which they were unfaithful. “The house of Israel rebelled against me in the wilderness: they walked not in my statutes, and they despised my judgments, which if a man do, he shall even live in them; and my sabbaths they greatly polluted” (Ezek. 20:13).
The word sabbath derives from rest: “Tomorrow is the rest of the holy sabbath unto the Lord” (Exod. 16:23). God rested when He had completed His creation work and saw that it was very good. “God saw everything that He had made, and, behold, it was very good ... and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He Had made” (Gen. 1:31; 2:2). A laborer may take a break from his work, but until the task is complete there is no true rest. God’s rest is founded upon perfection and completeness. In the third chapter of Genesis, sin entered this world and with that God’s rest was disrupted. The sabbath, as given to Israel, should have been a foretaste of God’s rest and a mercy to the people, but they could not keep it. The returning remnant entered into a curse to honor the sabbath (Neh. 10:28-39), but such oaths do not change the heart. Under the Pharisees it became a heavy burden. The denouncement of the miraculous healings performed by the Lord on the sabbath only served to expose the infirmity of the nation and the hypocrisy of the religious leaders. Truly, “The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath” (Mark 2:27). So long as sin remains there is no rest: “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work” (John 5:17). Consequently, we read: “There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God” (Heb. 4:9).
At the cross the foundation for a new covenant founded upon the shed blood of Christ was laid; that which had been established with Israel was now old and ready to vanish away (Heb. 8:13). Furthermore, Christ is the beginning and head of a new creation. Every believer is a part of that new creation: “If anyone be in Christ, there is a new creation; the old things have passed away; behold all things have become new” (2 Cor. 5:17 JND). Crucified with Christ, Christ now lives in me (Gal. 2:20). We are to walk in that newness of life which is ours in Christ (Rom. 6:4). The believer is not under law, but under grace (Rom. 6:14). What can the law say to a dead man (Rom. 7:4)? The righteous requirements of law are, however, fulfilled in those who walk according to the Spirit (Rom. 8:4). Make no mistake, the requirements of the law are righteous; it is holy, just, and good (Rom. 7:12). Indeed, nine of the ten commandments are echoed in the New Testament; they are characteristic of a godly life lived for Christ (1 Cor. 10:7; Col. 3:8; Eph. 6:2; 1 Pet. 4:15; etc.). The one commandment, however, never touched upon for the Christian is the observance of the sabbath. Our relationship with God is now founded upon grace, a principle entirely different to law. God has given us all things that relate to life and godliness so that we may live according to righteousness and holiness (2 Pet. 1:2-4). The law is never set before the Christian as the standard to live by; the fruit of grace exceeds the requirements of the law.
It was on that resurrection day, the first day of the week, that the Lord appeared to His disciples. “Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you” (John 20:19). This was repeated a week later when Thomas was with them (John 20:26). What a delightful foreshadowing of the assembly—that little company gathered together with Christ in their midst. When the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place (Acts 2:1). The day of Pentecost fell on the day after the sabbath (Lev. 23:15-16), that is to say, on the first day of the week. And so it was when that company were once again gathered together on the Lord’s day that the Holy Spirit fell upon them, and the church was formed. That believers should be together on the Lord’s day is again confirmed by Paul’s instruction to the Corinthians regarding the collection (1 Cor. 16:2).
The first day of the week, which the English-speaking world calls Sunday, has long been acknowledged by Christians as the Lord’s day. When John uses this expression in the Revelation, he uses it without explanation (Rev. 1:9-10). I would suggest that no ambiguity was intended. The writings of the Apostolic Fathers, so-called, attest to its recognition and the distinctiveness of the day. In his letter to the Magnesians, Ignatius of Antioch wrote, No longer keeping the sabbath but living according to the Lord’s day, on which our life also arose through Him and His death. The early church took great care to avoid confounding the Lord’s day with the Jewish sabbath. This distinction ultimately became confused, and the Lord’s day became, for many Christians, the sabbath. Things have further degenerated, and the character of the Lord’s day has been almost entirely given up. A few treat it as a day of legal rest, but for most it is a day of recreation. The sabbath was not moved, nor does the Lord’s day have the same meaning as the sabbath. It is the Lord’s day, and our failure to acknowledge His lordship over the day has led to the present indifference. The Lord’s day is a most precious gift from Him, and the true Christian enjoys it with all his heart; and, if he is faithful, he finds himself in the Spirit to enjoy God, happy to be freed from material labor to adore God as his Father, and to enjoy communion with the Lord. It is always a bad sign when a Christian talks of his liberty and makes use of it to neglect the Lord, in order to give himself to the material work of the world. However free a Christian may be, he is free from the world and from the law, in order to serve the Lord. How much good may he not do on the Lord’s day!
“Upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread” (Acts 20:7). It is evident that Paul waited seven days in Troas (vs. 6) so that he might be with the assembly on the Lord’s day for the remembrance of the Lord. The breaking of bread was the reason for their having been assembled. It was while they were thus gathered that the Apostle also had occasion to preach until midnight. It must be noted that the eleventh verse, “When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten,” refers to Paul’s refreshment in anticipation of his departure; it does not speak of the Lord’s Supper; that had come earlier. We find similar behavior in Tyre and later in Puteoli where the brethren desired that Paul would be with them seven days. “Where we found brethren, and were desired to tarry with them seven days” (Acts 28:14). The Apostle would be with them for the remembrance of the Lord.
The remembrance is a memorial; a memorial in a world that has rejected the Lord Jesus Christ. By it we “show the Lord’s death till he come” (1 Cor. 11:26). It is therefore our joy and privilege to do so. Another has written: The Lord’s Supper, as representing that which forms the basis of all worship, is the center of its exercise, around which the other elements that compose it are grouped. The worshipper is thereby reminded of that which is the most precious of all things in the sight of God—the death of His beloved Son. The Lord’s supper, however, has become, on the one hand, a mere reminder and, on the other, a sacrament. Both views place the focus on man and not the Lord Jesus Christ and that which is precious in the sight of God the Father. The Spirit’s focus for our being gathered together on the Lord’s day is the Lord Himself and the memorial of His death; ministry, and that which is manward, is secondary.
Edification, Exhortation, and Comfort (Acts 20)
We earlier spoke about the importance of the assembly meeting for the reading of the Scriptures and their exposition. This does not, however, preclude preaching. We have examples in the Word of God where individuals stood forth and preached. Such an occasion may be found in the twentieth chapter of Acts: “Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight” (Acts 20:7). We know, too, from the fourteenth chapter of First Corinthians, that there were also meetings where liberty was given for individuals to speak according to the direction of the Holy Spirit and the gift they possessed. This chapter completes the subject begun in the twelfth—the manifestation of the Holy Spirit through the exercise of gift in the assembly. The twelfth chapter of First Corinthians gives us the machinery—doctrine; the thirteenth the lubrication—love; and the fourteenth the orderly operation of it all.
The fleshly energy of the Corinthians had turned these meetings into a free-for-all where men, as moved by their own spirit, jockeyed for a position of prominence. They coveted sign gifts, especially tongues, which they misused for their own glory and not the glory of God. “Let no man glory in men” (1 Cor. 3:21). Paul urged them to desire the greater gifts, especially prophecy; not for themselves, but in others for the benefit of the assembly. “He that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort” (1 Cor. 14:3). Edification means to build up. Exhortation, on the other hand, speaks of one who comes alongside the saints of God and urges them on in their pathway. Comfort, I trust, we all understand. We find an example of these three in the Apostle Paul. While journeying from Lystra to Iconium, and then on to Antioch, along the way he was to be found: “Establishing the souls of the disciples, exhorting them to abide in the faith, and that through many tribulations we must enter into the kingdom of God” (Acts 14:22 JnD).
An assembly meeting which is opened up for the ministry of the saints, under the leading of the Holy Spirit, is to be conducted decorously and orderly (1 Cor. 14:40). Men are to maintain self-control (1 Cor. 14:32), and they are not to interrupt each other but: “one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted” (1 Cor. 14:31). Two or three were to speak while the remainder were to listen discerningly. This is not only orderly, but God also recognizes our limits. “He knoweth our frame; He remembereth that we are dust” (Psa. 103:14). A prophet speaks to the conscience of the people. A multiplying of messages does little more than excite the intellect, puffing up the mind, and leaving the conscience untouched. “Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge” (1 Cor. 14:29).
The open meeting, so-called, isn’t a venue for all who have something on their mind to express it. The three chapters we have touched upon (1 Cor. 12-14) address the display of gift in the assembly through the power and leading of the Holy Spirit: “There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:4). This takes more than ability; it requires a suited state of soul and a message from God Himself through the Holy Spirit. As with the Corinthians, we are apt to confuse the eagerness of our own spirits with the Spirit’s leading. Ahimaaz, the son of Zadok, was a very good runner, and his heart was surely in the right place, but it wasn’t his time to give David a message. When, on his own insistence, he was allowed to run, he overtook Cushi but, upon coming to David, he had no message (2 Sam. 18:22). Open meetings can all too easily be filled by those who have little to say, while the prophets who have a message, sit by (perhaps out of a false modesty) holding their peace.
Women in the Assembly (Acts 21)
When it comes to our standing before God in Christ Jesus, no distinction is made between male or female. The woman is not disadvantaged because of her sex—every spiritual blessing is hers in Christ; He is the same for every believer. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28). Nevertheless, when it comes to roles and responsibilities in this world, and, in the context of this book, within the assembly, there are distinctions. God has not, however, set the woman in an inferior position as some would claim and as the religions of man’s devising, by and large, do. That which God establishes is never inferior.
The woman’s role in the assembly is not a public one; for example, she does not speak publicly. “Let your women be silent in the assemblies, for it is not permitted to them to speak; but to be in subjection, as the law also says” (1 Cor. 14:34 JND). The reference to the law isn’t a legal one, nor does it challenge our liberty in Christ. It simply acknowledges a principle established long before. Elsewhere, Paul reaches beyond the law to creation and the fall of man when he touches upon the woman’s place: “Let a woman learn in quietness in all subjection; but I do not suffer a woman to teach nor to exercise authority over man, but to be in quietness; for Adam was formed first, then Eve: and Adam was not deceived; but the woman, having been deceived, was in transgression” (1 Tim. 2:11-14 JND). The woman is to neither teach nor exercise authority over the man. The quietness spoken of, although it does not preclude the tongue (Acts 22:2), does not necessarily speak of silence; it addresses itself to the stillness of the woman’s spirit.
The woman acknowledges her position through obedience to the Word of God and by the outward sign of a head covering. “Every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoreth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven” (1 Cor. 11:5). The man likewise acknowledges his headship and subjection to Christ by not having his head covered. “The head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head” (1 Cor. 11:3-4).
We recognize that the teachings of which we speak are almost universally rejected in this present day—this certainly hasn’t always been the case. In the 1950’s and 60’s, denominations who had long practiced them found ways to nullify them. The abandoning of head coverings became ubiquitous. As this outward sign yielded to popular pressure, so did the distinction of roles; the ordination of women followed. Conservative teachers of the present era, while they may agree to the essence of these teachings, balk at their implementation; congregations would abandon them wholesale if they insisted on them. Their stance is that so long as the woman’s heart is in the right place, the outward sign isn’t needed. It isn’t coincidental that the abandonment of these Scriptural principles parallels the demand for equality of roles between the sexes in the secular world. In the present day we see a complete rejection of any distinction between the roles of men and woman and, indeed, between the sexes themselves except when biology demands it. “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:22).
The unique place of women is marked throughout the Scriptures. When death entered the scene, Eve became the mother of all living (Gen. 3:20). The promise to the Serpent is that the woman’s seed would crush his head (vs. 15). It was through Jochebed’s faith and wisdom that the life of the baby Moses was preserved (Exod. 2:2). Miriam, the sister of Moses and Aaron, was a prophetess; her exhortation to the women is recorded: “Sing ye to the Lord, for He hath triumphed gloriously; the horse and his rider hath He thrown into the sea” (Exod. 15:21). Rahab’s extraordinary faith led to her place in the Lord’s lineage—she was the mother of Boaz, whose wife Ruth (another shining example of faith) bore Obed, David’s grandfather (Matt. 1:5-6; Ruth 4:13,17). Deborah was raised up to be a prophetess and judge in Israel when “Israel again did evil in the sight of the Lord” and Jabin, king of Canaan, “mightily oppressed the children of Israel twenty years” (Judges 4:1,3 JnD). At the Lord’s direction Deborah summoned Barak and sent him into battle. She accompanied him to Mount Tabor, but Barak, and not Deborah, led the battle—she was no Amazon. Ultimately, it was a woman, Jael, who drove a tent-peg through the head of Sisera, Jabin’s captain, while he slept in the family tent (Judges 4:21). Deborah was “a mother in Israel” (Judges 5:7); her role and actions were becoming for her sex. Hannah, amid the grossest evil and especially that within the priesthood, prayed for and received a son, Samuel, who became the last judge in Israel and the first in a line of prophets (1 Sam. 1; Acts 3:24). With Hannah, we have the first record of one addressing Jehovah as the Lord of Hosts—reflecting a true understanding of Israel’s corrupt state (1 Sam. 1:11). Whereas her second prayer, a remarkable prayer of thanksgiving, concludes with: “The Lord shall judge the ends of the earth; and He shall give strength unto His king, and exalt the horn of His anointed” (1 Sam. 2:10). This was before there had been any anointed king in Israel! Hannah prophesies concerning the coming of the Lord’s anointed in judgment, an event which is still future (Psa. 2; Psa. 110). Space does not permit us to speak of Abigail, nor the widow of Zarephath, the great woman of Shunem, Naaman’s wife’s little maid, Esther, and the many other women of faith, whose service is recorded for our learning in the Old Testament.
Turning to the New Testament, Mary the mother of Jesus received the angel’s testimony with “be it unto me according to thy word” (Luke 1:38); moreover, she recognized that the coming of the Child was a fulfillment of the unconditional promises given to the fathers: “He hath holpen His servant Israel, in remembrance of His mercy; as He spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and to His seed forever” (Luke 1:54-55). Anna remained in the temple and spoke of the Lord to all who looked for redemption in Jerusalem (Luke 2:38). Joanna, Susanna, and many other women attended to Jesus with their substance (Luke 8:3). Mary of Bethany’s spiritual intelligence exceeded that of the twelve; her act of worship, although she uttered not a word, has been recorded for posterity (Matt. 26:13). Lydia was the first Christian in Europe, and she opened her house to the brethren—her husband is not mentioned; she was quite possibly widowed. Aquila and Priscilla, husband and wife, always appear together, with Priscilla’s name coming first in three of the six references—but when it’s a question of expounding to Apollos or of a salutation to another assembly, it is Aquila who becomes the public face of the couple. The Epistle to the Romans concludes with the commendation of Phebe to the assembly in Rome: “Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea” (Rom. 16:1). The closing salutations of the same Epistle includes various women (vss. 6,12, etc.). Although their ministry may not have been public, it was valued in God’s sight, and He records it.
In the twenty-first chapter of Acts, we read of the four daughters of Philip the evangelist: “We entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him. And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy” (Acts 21:8-9). It is remarkable, but consistent with the teaching we have presented, that the prophet, Agabus, must come from Judaea to show Paul what would happen to him in Jerusalem. Why didn’t God use the daughters of Philip; He clearly acknowledges their gift? A woman isn’t to teach nor to exercise authority over a man (1 Tim. 2:12). On the other hand, the elder women are exhorted to teach the younger women (Titus 2:3-5). The woman’s sphere of responsibility also includes the teaching of children, for she is to rule over her house (1 Tim. 5:14). Timothy, whose mother and grandmother are counted among the faithful (2 Tim. 1:5), knew the Scriptures from a child (2 Tim. 3:15). Faithful widows, without financial support, are to be brought into the number if they are: “Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints’ feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work” (1 Tim. 5:10). Although no public ministry is mentioned in connection with these faithful sisters, their works aren’t hidden either for they are well reported of. The sister’s role is critical to the proper functioning of an assembly. Conversely, a woman’s misconduct can cast a cloud over an assembly; this will become a serious hinderance if left unaddressed. The Apostle Paul called out two sisters by name in Philippi that they be of “the same mind in the Lord” (Phil. 4:2).