Jerusalem

by J. Miller | Category: The Growth Of The Fellowship | Feb 1959

Jerusalem and not Rome saw the planting of the first church of God in this dispensation. That planting was on the day of Pentecost, fifty days after the Lord's resurrection. There were the twelve apostles, Matthias having been divinely chosen by lot to fill the place of Judas, so that there might be a collective witness of twelve to all the things which they had heard and seen from the beginning of the Lord's ministry, and especially to the Lord's resurrection. There can be no doubt whatever that the eleven apostles were in the mind of God in their action in the choice of Matthias, for the inspired words of Psalm 109.8, "Let another take his office," which Peter quoted, show that they were carrying out the Lord's command. Peter and the rest of the apostles were men whom the Lord sent forth to preach the word which He gave them.

The Lord at His appearances to His apostles during the forty days told them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father (Acts 1.4, 5). The promise of the Father was the gift of the Holy Spirit. He referred to John the Baptist, and no doubt to John's prophecy in Matthew 3. 11 regarding baptism in the Holy Spirit, and said, "Ye shall be baptized with (Greek En, in) the Holy Spirit not many days hence." Further, He said to them, "Ye shall receive power, when the Holy Spirit is come upon you: and ye shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth " (Acts 1.8). This was the Lord's reply regarding their work when they asked if He was going to restore the kingdom at that time to Israel. They knew that it was the Lord's will to restore the kingdom to Israel at some time, for the Scriptures of the Old Testament clearly taught this. But was this the time of such restoration? It certainly was not, and neither had it been in the days of the Lord and John the Baptist. Israel nationally could not believe on Christ, though many of the rulers did believe (John 12.86-48). Consequently they could not receive Him as King Messiah. But the day will come when they will receive Him, when they look on Him whom they pierced (Zechariah 12.10-14), when "there shall come out of Zion the Deliverer; He shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob" (Romans 11.26). Not till then will there be a national repentance and turning to the Lord whom they rejected and still do. The mystery of Israel's hardening of heart is clearly explained by Paul in Romans 11. The Church which is Christ's Body had to be built to fill its unique place in God's purpose, a purpose which is eternal, and did not come in by the way as an alternative purpose of God in view of Israel's condition of heart and consequent rejection of the Lord.

It was this eternal purpose of God that was in view in the sending of the apostles from Jerusalem to the uttermost part of the earth. Though we have in the Acts of the Apostles the Lord's work connected with the apostles Peter and Paul, we must not assume that the other apostles were not fully engaged in other work of and for the Lord. To have told us all that went on in those great days during the time of the history of the Acts would no doubt have confused our minds somewhat, so the Holy Spirit was pleased to follow the acts of Peter so far, and then to turn to the story of Paul.

At Pentecost when the Lord began to build the Church which is His Body, God's eternal purpose, which He purposed in Christ Jesus, (Ephesians 3.11), a Fellowship was also brought into being by the Lord, which found its expression in Jerusalem, first of all, in the church of God in that city; and this Fellowship was later to extend in the planting of Gentile churches, in which all held the word of the Lord as a sacred and common trust. It may seem that we are using words, sacred and common, in a loose way, for in a sense what is sacred is not common. The use we make of "common" is in the sense in which "common" is used by Jude, who writes of "our common salvation (verse 3). "Common" here is used in the sense of being possessed by all saints, not in the sense of ordinary or of little value. The word of Christ is holy as the Old Testament Scriptures are holy. Indeed, in the Lord's teaching we have laid open things which were but dimly understood in Old Testament times, and much was not revealed to saints of old at all. They lived in dim light, but we now live in the daylight of divine revelation. Fellowship means a community who have or hold in common. The word has various applications. It is derived from the Greek word Koinos, meaning "common." We must be careful in our interpretation of the words, "And all that believed were together, and had all things common; and they sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all, according as any man had need" (Acts 2.44, 45). We must not conclude that those words teach that the Lord's will was that there should always be a community of goods for a community of people. The Scriptures, neither in the Old Testament nor in the New, teach that there should be such a thing as a common purse into which the whole profits and earnings should be cast and from which the whole community of those together would have their needs supplied. The need was such in Jerusalem that this was how those early disciples acted to meet the need of those who, because of their acceptance of Christ through the teaching of the apostles, were cast out by their Jewish friends. First those who had goods sold them, that is, their things moveable. Then later, as the need still continued, those who had possessions of lands and houses, things heritable, sold them, "and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto each, according as any one had need" (Acts 4.34, 35). The Fellowship into which the disciples were called, which first of all implied the holding in common the word of the Lord and carrying out what it enjoined upon them, involved that those therein should, according to their ability, meet the- need of those who from various reasons might be in want. But, as recorded in the Old Testament, there was private ownership of the land of Israel, and of the profit derived therefrom the people had to give a tenth of their increase. Besides, there were sundry other offerings, those of the firstfruits, freewill offerings, etc. In the millennium it will be like as it was in the time of Solomon, of which we read, "And Judah and Israel dwelt safely, every man under his vine and under his fig tree" (1 Kings 4.25), for of the latter days we read in Micah 4.1-4 of the state of peace which will then exist, when

"they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree." Note the force of " his" vine and " his " fig tree.

1 Corinthians 16.1, 2, gives clear instructions as to giving, that each one is to lay by the Lord's portion" as he may prosper." This matter of giving is further dealt with by the apostle in 2 Corinthians chapters 8 and 9. Thus we see clearly that giving was not a matter of giving all one's wages and profits to a central fund to be distributed as administrators of the fund thought fit. At the same time there were those who were appointed to see that an equal distribution of what was given was justly and faithfully shared out of the available givings of the saints, as is seen in the appointment of the seven brethren in Acts 6.1-6.

Coming now to the spiritual side of the Fellowship and to the events immediately preceding Acts 2 and the happenings of that great day of Pentecost, we find in Acts 1.15 a numbered company of about 120 names. It should be carefully noted regarding the statement about the number of the names together that these words are in brackets, and that they do not form part of the narrative about the choosing of Matthias as an apostle. This 120 included women as well as men, whereas those whom Peter addressed were all men. The A.V. is correct here when it gives the word " men " as well as " brethren." "And" is in italics which shows that it is not in the Greek. We have an unfortunate omission of "men" in the R.V. Man here is the word Aner which means a "male of fullgrowth." Those who were together were the eleven apostles met to carry out the scripture in the psalm relative to another taking the office of Judas Iscariot.

Again the A.V. is better than the R.V. relative to the 120. The latter gives "and there was a multitude of persons gathered together," but the former gives "the number of names together were," etc. It seems a strange alteration that the Revisers should put "persons" in the text and say in their margin, "Greek, names." Further, they add the word " gathered " and show, by putting it in italics, that there is no word in the Greek for" gathered." These names were together (Epi to Auto), which means "upon the same thing." What was that thing upon which they were together? It was the word of the Lord. These 120 took their stand on the word of the Lord as truly as Israel did at Sinai when all the people answered together (Hebrew, Yachad, as one, unitedly), and said, "All that the LORD hath spoken we will do" (Exodus 19.8). David, as he thought of Israel united as one on the basis of God's word, said,

"Behold, how good and how pleasant it is

For brethren to dwell together in unity " (Psalm 33. 1).

"Together in unity " is the word Yachad, which means " as one." Obedience to the word of the LORD, as professed by Israel at Sinai, David saw as something both good and pleasant for his brethren of the children of Israel. It was to this end that "he fed them according to the integrity of his heart; and guided them by the skilfulness of his hands " (Psalm 78. 72).

In the LXX the word Yachad is rendered in the Greek by the words "Epi to Auto," which shows that the Greek words have the same thought of oneness, of unity. The thought of being together in one place is secondary to the meaning of being united according to the will of God as revealed in His word. This is seen in the divine command in Deuteronomy 22.10,

Thou shalt not plow with an or and an ass together"

(Hebrew, Yachad. Greek, Epi to Auto).

The idea of place does not enter into this matter of plowing; it is a matter of the yoke. They must not be yoked together, thus being one in the same yoke.

Thus it was that the 120 were yoked together, as the Lord indicated in Matthew 11.29, "Take My yoke upon you, and learn of (Apo from) Me." They formed a divine unity and all their names were together as in one thing. They were those who formed the church of in Jerusalem when the Holy Spirit came upon them. We are told that when the day of Pentecost was now or fully come they were all together in one place. Our Opinion as to the words Epi to Auto is, that "in one place" is a secondary idea to that of the oneness or unity that existed in the Lord's disciples who were together that day. No doubt they were gathered in one place, for we are told that the sound as of the rushing of a mighty wind filled the whole house where they were sitting.

The coming of the Holy Spirit marked the beginning of the dispensation of grace (Ephesians 3.1-6). Besides the sound of the rushing mighty wind, there appeared tongues parting asunder like as of fire, and it sat upon each one of them. Then we are told that "they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." Much has been written and said about this gift of tongues. Some have thought that the Holy Spirit gave those who spoke, said to be Galileans (Acts 2.7), the ability to speak in a variety of languages, languages of the countries from which those assembled Jews and proselytes hailed, but the Spirit did not give them the power to know what they were saying. Is such a thought contained in Acts 2? We say it is not. When God gave to Adam in the beginning the power of speech, did He not give him the power to know what he said? Surely the answer must be "Yes," to such a question. Then again, when God miraculously gave to men different languages at the time of their building Babel and its tower, did He not give men power to know what they meant when they spoke, or were they like demented men going about uttering sounds the meaning of which they did not understand? Surely the answer must be that God gave to the builders of Babel the power both to speak and to know what they said in their new languages. The difficulty was that they could not make each other understand the meaning of what they said, and so their new languages were the means of scattering them and keeping them apart, even as the language barrier continues to do to this day. The gift of tongues is mentioned in two other places in the Acts, in chapters 10.46, and 19.6. In Acts 2.11 they spoke in the languages of different lands" the mighty works of God." In Acts 10. 46 they "magnified God," and in Acts 19.6 they "prophesied." Paul sheds much light when he deals with the gift of tongues in 1 Corinthians 14. In verses 2 to 4 he deals with speaking in a tongue, which is unknown to the church, and prophesying. In the first case he speaks not to men but to God, for no man understands him, but in the spirit he speaks mysteries. In contrast, he that prophesies speaks to men a message from God to the edification, comfort and consolation of the hearers, and in this way he edifies the church, but he that speaks in a tongue unknown to the church edifies himself. How can he edify himself if he does not know what he is saying? Could a man edify himself, if we could imagine that he could speak French, yet did not understand what he said? Certainly not! We cannot think without words. Such as speak English think and speak in English and also edify themselves in English. So that those who spoke in tongues must have known what they themselves said in order to edify themselves. This same thought is further strengthened by what we read in verse 28, "But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God." God knows all tongues of men as well as of angels, but how can a man speak to himself if he does not know what he is saying? It is the height of folly to think such a thing. Speaking, or attempting to speak, in a tongue that is unknown to the speaker, the speaker would be a barbarian to himself. But this is just what some interpreters of Scripture put over to us for our consumption, and it finds a home among the various sections of what are called "the tongues people." Perhaps we should further add that there is no instance of women speaking with tongues in the New Testament. The Spirit of God through Paul says, "Let the women keep silence in the churches" (1 Corinthians 14.34), but in this day women are much in error in this matter.

At Babel the gift of tongues was in order to scatter men on the face of the earth; at Pentecost the gift of tongues was to bring men together. God did not do away with languages at Pentecost, but gave men power to proclaim to men the mighty works of God in their own tongues. Let us state definitely that a tongue is a language, that is, a language spoken by some people, not a tongue that has never been heard on earth before.

Following the disciples speaking with tongues, the multitude were perplexed, and were asking one another, "What meaneth this?" But others said mockingly that those who spoke with tongues were filled with new wine. When Peter stood up and addressed the multitude, first of all he corrected the mockers, that this speaking was not the result of alcoholic spirit, but the result of the outpouring of the Spirit of God according to the prophetic words of Joel (Joel 2.28-32; Acts 2.16-21). There will be a further outpouring of the Spirit before the day of the Lord, when all that was spoken by Joel will be fulfilled. Peter wound up his remarkable address, in which he outlined the crucifixion and resurrection of the Lord, with an accusation of the Jewish people that they had crucified the Messiah. " Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly, that God hath made Him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom ye crucified" (verse 86). "They were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and the rest of the apostles, (Men) brethren, what shall we do?" Peter's answer was, "Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (verse 38). Peter's statement here relative to the remission of sins has often been compared with his statement in Acts 10.43, "To Him bear all the prophets witness, that through His name every one that believeth on Him shall receive remission of sins." Why is baptism before remission in Acts 2, and the command for those to be baptized after they had received remission of sins through faith in Acts 10? Was Peter carrying out the commission which the Lord gave to the disciples in Matthew 28.18-20 in both cases? Surely the answer must be, "Yes." Then why the difference?

In Paul's clear definition of the meaning of John's baptism we see that repentance and faith were separated. He said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on Him which should come after him, that is, on Jesus" (Acts 19.4). The substance of Paul's gospel message was "repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ" (Acts 20.21), for by the time of Paul the Lord had been manifested. In John's time He had not. In a few cases we have both repentance and faith mentioned, such as in Mark 1.15, "Repent ye, and believe in the gospel," but generally when repentance is mentioned we have no reference to faith, and contrariwise, when faith is mentioned there is no reference to repentance. Generally speaking, throughout John's Gospel, it is the word believe that is used. Indeed I think that it is correct to say that John does not once use the words "repent "or "repentance" in the whole of his Gospel. Thus we properly conclude that where the word" believe (or faith) "is use4, the word "repent" is implied, and where the word "repent" is used the word "faith (or believe) " is implied, for now that Christ has come no one can repent without believing, and no one can believe without repenting. From Acts 3.19 we learn that repentance is the basis on which God blots out or forgives sin.

"Repent ye therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out."

But why did God require both in John the Baptist's time, and in Acts 2 that those who repented should be baptized? The answer must be found in the state of the Jewish people. They were a people long steeped in hypocrisy. The Lord said to His disciples, "Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy" (Luke 12.1). It was thus that the Lord coupled together baptism, the outward evidence of an inward change, with repentance (which literally means a change of mind). Baptism, the literal being dipped in water, was nothing in itself, if it was not the outward sign of an inward fundamental change in the individual who was baptized. We shall see later the different treatment by the Lord of the Jewish believers in Acts 2, the Samaritans in Acts 8 and the Gentiles in Acts 10.

Those who gladly

(1)Received His Word were

(2)Baptized: and there were

(3)Added unto them in that day about three thousand souls.

And they continued stedfastly in

(4)The Apostles' teaching, and in

(5)The Fellowship, and in

(6)The breaking of the bread, and in

(7)The prayers (Acts 2.41, 42).

In Proverbs we read of the seven Pillars of Wisdom.

"Wisdom hath builded her house,

She hath hewn out her seven pillars" (Proverbs 9.1).

As you approach any community, and these seven things, mentioned above, which may be compared to pillars, are not in evidence, that is no place for the God-fearing and obedient saint to enter. There was no open table, no open communion at the beginning of the dispensation. All saints then received Peter's word relative to salvation and separation, all were baptized, all were added together (Epi to Auto, see Acts 2.47, R.V. marg.), all continued stedfastly in the apostle's teaching (the commandment of the Lord-Acts 1.2which governed the acting of those together), all were in the Fellowship, in which all were fellows or partners, all continued stedfastly in the breaking of the bread in the remembrance of the Lord, and all similarly continued in the prayers, that is, the prayers of the church, in which only those who were in the church shared. Here are the fundamental features of that 4ivine Fellowship, called "the Fellowship of His Son Jesus Christ our Lord" (1 Corinthians 1.9).

J. Miller | Feb 1959
The Growth Of The Fellowship

Share this article: