Gospel Explosion (06/11/26-06/12/26)

As Luke wraps up his coverage of this first day of the church on mission, as it were, he presents us with a wonder every bit as stunning as the outpouring of the Holy Spirit which occasioned its developments.  “There were added on that day, as it were, three thousand souls.”  That is the YLT presentation of his words.  So, three thousand is an approximation, and one supplied from the recollections of one or more who had been there at the time.  Bear in mind that it’s been 20 years or so since that time before Luke could avail himself of their memories.  But still, a large number; even a ridiculously large number of new converts suddenly get added to the few who had been together for so long.  And he speaks of them all being baptized which, given the excitement of this response, would seem to have been something done rather immediately.  And how would that work?  Where did they find that could accommodate such a massed operation, and how did they have the time?

But before I get to that, I just want to touch briefly on this term which Luke employs, speaking not of people, but of souls.  It’s not just Luke, actually.  Peter and John use the same language, and in John’s case, at least the example brought in by the parallel verses, doesn’t even refer to people, but merely to such creatures as live in the sea.  This ought to serve as a bit of a caution when we seek to find all sorts of significance in mention of the soul.  There is a tendency to see this as being set in contrast, even in opposition to the spirit, and certainly, the use of the term to refer to such things as fish would indicate that the term speaks to something far different than spirit.  But that does not necessitate us concluding that every mention of soul is mention of what is earthy or earthbound.  It is not the fallen nature.  It is simply the life force, the immaterial component which animates the hard substance of flesh, blood, and bone.

To be clear, there are occasions where soul and spirit are set in contrast one to another, but again, be cautious of pressing the point too hard.  Even with the soul we are often considering far more than mere vital force.  Thayer quotes somebody who goes unnamed, as saying that psuche addresses, “the soul regarded as a moral being designed for everlasting life.”  The soul, it would seem, is every bit as immortal as the spirit.  Yet, I don’t suppose I would look upon a jellyfish or a shark as being a candidate for eternal life, certainly not as a moral agent.  And how do we fit plant life into this depiction?  Do plants, too, have a soul, for they are as alive as any fish, even if they do not enjoy as great a range of motion?

Simply said, let context inform your understanding of what is intended by the word.  Here, we could simply say people, and many translations do something along those lines.  But I do think the choice of addressing them as souls indicates a greater significance, or a greater value to the event of their receiving the Gospel message gladly and being baptized in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.  This was not a matter of excited response to a cool event.  This goes beyond the applause for a particularly exciting concert, or some sporting event where our team performed particularly well.  This is not a matter of momentary diversion, but of eternal consequence.  It might, perhaps, enhance our willingness to proclaim the Gospel to those we meet if we viewed it with an eye to the eternal consequences which attach to their response.  It might also lead us to pray that much more diligently for those whose response has been negative, knowing that their rejection, should it persist, likewise has eternal consequences.

But step into this scene and simply consider what was happening.  Three thousand or so people suddenly become regular attenders at your church.  Let’s set the stage a bit.  At this point, the church consisted of 120 people gathered in rented space in the midst of a thronged city at some distance from home.  I don’t know exactly how Capernaum would have compared for scale and populace, but I dare say it was no match for the environment of Jerusalem on a feast day.  And Bethsaida would have been quieter still, bustling well enough, but effectively a fishing village.  And now, of a sudden, that number has increased dramatically.  And it didn’t stop with this one influx of newcomers.  “The Lord was adding to their number day by day,” as we read at the close of this chapter.  It kept growing.

But where do you gather 3000 people?  So, for a point of comparison, the Orpheum Theater in Boston, where I used to go for concerts in my younger days, seats 2700 people, according to their website, and while the speak of it as an ‘intimate’ theater, it is hardly that.  It’s multi-story seating.  Compare and contrast with our church, which is not particularly small, yet the sanctuary might seat 300 if you packed them in right, and even with 120 or so would look reasonably full.   Try to serve 3000 in that building?  If you used all the rooms, perhaps you could.  But more reasonably, you’d be doing them in shifts throughout the day just to deliver one sermon.  And what level of teaching can there be with such a crowd.  It’s not like Peter had a PA system to make himself heard.  But then Jesus, of course, had addressed much larger crowds to good effect.  I tend to think that ‘The Chosen’ had the right of it, when it depicted the scene with the disciples acting as relay stations for the message, thereby allowing those more distant from Jesus to hear what was being said.

But that was outside in the countryside.  This is somewhere in downtown Jerusalem.  I have difficulty grasping how that many had even been able to be present close enough to whatever building the disciples were gathered in, so as to have heard this.  And nobody took notice of so great a crowd?  No contingent from the local garrison came by to see what was going on?  And now, we’re talking about ongoing events.  Get past this initial matter of their baptism, and we learn that they were ‘continually devoting themselves’ to gathered discipling, gathered fellowship, gathered prayer.  Where?  How?  And they were all together, having all things in common.  Again, where?  How?

And if that is not stunning enough, factor in that before the Apostles could come to grips with this first influx of new believers, more were being added.  It would not suffice to find a building large enough to accommodate what you had for attendees today, because tomorrow, who knows?  It might double again.  Just ask yourself what would happen were such waves of converts to arrive at your church?  I suppose we could move things outside and use the field or the parking lot, as long as the weather cooperated.  I’m sure, though, that were we to begin doing that on the regular, there would be complaints from the neighbors.  This is just a wonder, and while it is assuredly cause for great rejoicing – these are souls we are talking about, not just attendance numbers – it does present one heck of an administrative burden, doesn’t it?  Of course, we shall come to see how the Apostles handled things, at least in some degree, but still, it’s something of a, “be careful what you pray for,” thing, isn’t it?  More rightly, I suppose, be prepared for what God may choose to do.

Three thousand and growing – growing daily!  That’s stunning.  That’s true revival.  And as such, that is indeed something most eminently to be desired.  But it’s no cakewalk.  I confess, as I looked at these questions in my preparatory explorations, I fell to contemplating them primarily from an earthly perspective.  The engineer in me, I suppose.  But the questions as to how this could ever work are hard to avoid.  As I think I have noted in other places, this event is every bit as much a miracle as was the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and in many ways, is a less believable miracle than many of the wonders performed by Jesus.  I mean, just look at how more cynical, or let us be polite and call it rational minds have sought to explain how the various miracles of Scripture might have transpired.  The splitting of the Red Sea, they will posit, may have been a purely natural occurrence.  Okay, but that still doesn’t address the timing.  The calming of the sea when Jesus spoke could have been coincidental.  The ones raised from death might have not been so dead as primitive diagnoses would have surmised.  To be fair, you have to ignore rather a lot to allow for such dismissals of the miraculous, but there’s at least a potential explanation.  Here?  I don’t see it.  What building, apart from the temple itself, would accommodate such a mass of people?  Where would you obtain sufficient food to feed them, and how would you pay for it?  The logistics just defy explanation.

And it continued to grow, this church.  And it continued to grow rapidly, even explosively.  Even if we allow for a bit of hyperbole in Luke’s description, or in the recollections of his sources, the scale is still wild, and every attempt one makes to rationalize this, to question it, is met by the irresistible force of Scripture.  This happened.  However improbable, it is historical fact.  And it was witnessed.  Some explanation may be found in that they were gathering at the temple daily.  That would at least supply a venue for teaching, though you might expect that opposition from the Sanhedrin would have arisen more swiftly than it did.  For all that, you might expect that the Roman authorities were going to be a bit antsy at having such a mass of religiously excited Jews stirring about for long.  But observe:  They were seen, and what was seen of them led to perceptions.  They had the favor of the people.  They were not a mob.  They were not causing trouble.  They were worshiping God, and it was clear that they were living their faith.  As yet, this was not something distinct from Judaic practice.  They may have been thought one more sect among many, perhaps somewhat like the Essenes, not altogether different from the Pharisees, at least from what could be observed of them.  At this stage, it would seem, they were not concerned about being noticed.  And it’s quite clear that they were in fact noticed, and it was on the basis of what was noticed of them that their number was increasing.

That strikes me as a prime example of the power of non-verbal testimony.  It is often said to us, “You are being watched.”  People learn you are a Christian and they’re looking to see what you’re like when you’re not on message, as it were.  People you work with, learning that you are a Christian are observing what sort of difference it makes in you.  Are you in fact any different than other coworkers?  Are you more honest, more humble, more helpful?  Or are you as ready to grumble as the next guy?  That’s going to matter.  If you have a bible on your desk, but prove to be a cheat, the bible will not get a hearing.  If you put up bold posters to indicate your faith, but then make your faith an excuse to disregard your work duties, it does not say much for the righteousness you purport to possess.  As you may suspect, I’m drawing from examples I have encountered.  I have encountered others of a more positive nature.  I think of the gentleman I worked with some years back who simply had a poster on the wall to remind himself what it might look like to be a Christian engineer.  And he, as best I could measure from my exposure to him, lived it out in his work demeanor.  He was one you would gladly call upon for help, knowing he would be helpful, and genial about it to boot.  I have to say, when it comes to my own condition, I’m rather glad I’m at distance from the office, because my innate ascerbicism comes too readily to the fore.  I’ll be helpful, but I will not necessarily be genial about it.

It does not come naturally, this life of the gospel.  It takes attentiveness.  It takes constant reminder.  Praise God that the Holy Spirit supplies that very thing, but still, we must accede to the appeal of conscience and steer ourselves back to the moral course.  This is not a matter of meriting salvation.  How could it be?  We were already saved, and that, while yet His enemies!  It’s not even so much a question of showing gratitude.  What it is, or what it should be, is concern lest by our example we give those who know us an excuse to blaspheme the Gospel.  Far be it from us!  And humility insists that I recognize that apart from the infilling power of the Holy Spirit, and apart from His constant cajoling, I should quite readily give manifold excuses for just such a response.

The wondrous improbability of this outcome ought not to cause us concern, but rather it should stir us to anticipate such a move of God in our own time.  This is not a call to try and manufacture such an occasion, or to undertake to create an atmosphere, as it were, such that emotions will be moved and people would respond.  Yet, we know this was not a one off event.  There have been other occasions when God chose to move, and the Gospel went forth in effectual power.  I may reasonably insist that the Gospel always goes forth in effectual power, for it does.  It may be that the effects are more quiet, or even that the effectual result for many is condemnation rather than salvation.  That’s not ours to determine.  But to long for the sort of impact we see here, or read of in regard to those other occasions, even that in western Massachusetts so long ago, hard as that is to believe under current conditions; that should be more than just a longing in our hearts.  That should be motive fire fueling our prayer life.  Oh!  That God would ignite such an explosive response to sound preaching in our day!  Oh!  That the Church, so long polling at a loss, would once more become an effective, radically impactful voice in the community!  May we be faithful in pursuing those things to which God has called His church in all ages whatever the result, but may we see a day when the impact of this message of hope causes such expansion as leads us to wonder how to cope with the increase.

For those there that day, accompanying Peter, how this must have hit.  This is more like it!  This is what they had expected all along, Messiah come and the masses drawn to Him.  It hadn’t fallen out the way they thought it would.  It still wasn’t falling out the way they thought it would.  And there remains ahead of them so much that would require adjusting their perspective, adjusting their response, correcting their mistaken beliefs and becoming more thoroughly established in His ways.  And we are no different.  We have our expectations of what church will be like.  Worse, we have what I would suggest is a rather unfortunate breadth of selection when it comes to churches.  If something in this one offends us, we can just go to the next.  And the next.  And people do.  And for some, nothing is ever satisfactory.  No church is good enough.  Well, no.  No church will ever be good enough, because no church has yet been found that was composed of saints perfected.  Every church remains a camp of saints in the making.  And just as in any family, there are going to be difficulties; there are going to be those we are close to and who think much the same as ourselves, and those who perhaps rub us the wrong way, or whose thinking seems to us to be shallow or misinformed.  And they, though I doubt we consider it very often, may very well think much the same of us.  Selah.

But let me draw in a later summation, and let us pray that this may be said of us when all is done and we have finished our course.  “The hand of the Lord was with them, and many who believed turned to the Lord” (Ac 11:21).  Beloved, if the hand of the Lord is with us, then I dare say this will be our story.  It may not have the spectacular numbers we see here at the outset, but then again, perhaps it will.  The outcome, as ever, is in the hands of the Lord.  Our part is to be faithful to the task to which we have been called.  Let us, then, be faithful servants, active in the fields of our Master, preparing for Him a rich harvest.  To Him who created all belongs the responsibility for watering what He will, and causing such growth as He desires to bring about, and we may take some comfort in knowing that He will do as He desires to see done.  We cannot direct the outcome, but He can and does.  What we can do, and should do, is be faithful in our pursuit of a Gospel-shaped life of Gospel-driven purpose.

New Life (06/12/26-06/13/26)

So, if we are to pursue this Gospel-shaped life, what does this entail?  What will it look like?  Our passage is swift to show us the answer.  It’s there in the very next verse.  Let me take it from the GNT.  “They spent their time in learning from the apostles, taking part in the fellowship, and sharing in the fellowship meals and the prayers.”  This is something more than rote habit.  How could it be rote?  They just discovered new life!  But there was constancy to it.  This is what marks the difference between the emotional response to revivalism and the real heart change that comes of true revival.  What is revival, after all?  Perhaps use a larger form of the word – revivification.  This is beyond mere restoration to life.  It’s full-on transformation.  It’s starting over again, newborn and everything new and wonderful.  What was it Jesus said?  “Whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it at all” (Mk 10:15).

That verse has suffered a wild sort of interpretation, some going so far as to insist that we are supposed to switch off our intellects when we come to Him.  But that can hardly be the point when God comes to us with the proposition, “Come, let us reason together” (Isa 1:18).  How could we suppose that He who created us with brains by which to reason would expect us to avoid that at all cost?  No, that’s not the point, nor can it be.  Yes, there is a certain innocence of heart, a freedom from the cynicism that so often plagues adulthood with its world-weariness.  But more, I suspect, it’s the matter of recognizing that all is new, and desiring to learn more about these new wonders.  Think of the curiosity that defines childhood.  You experience something new, and you’re not satisfied to have just that experience of it.  You want more.  You experience a train for the first time, as it thunders across the road before you, and become obsessed with the very concept of trains.  Suddenly, you’re dragging mom to the library to check out books on the subject.  You’re decorating your room with the imagery of the railroad.  And that enthusiasm may well carry right on through adulthood.  Or, perhaps it was something different in your case.  The specifics aren’t the point.  The enthusiastic interest and devoted effort – those are the point.

Weymouth, in his presentation of this verse, indicates that they were constant in these things.  It was a defining feature of life thereafter.  In what did it consist?  Listening with care as the Apostles taught.  Bear in mind that they could hardly go home and read this for themselves.  They might have access to the Old Testament, perhaps, but then, perhaps not in full.  But they certainly couldn’t go read what had yet to be written.  If one wanted to learn about Christ and about the Way, there was only one way to do it, and that was to sit with His Apostles and learn from them as the Holy Spirit brought to their minds all that He had said and done.  This was, after all, the most fundamental promise made in regard to the Spirit (Jn 14:26), and while I would hold that this promise extends to all who believe, it had particular application as to these Apostles, called to be eyewitnesses to Christ.

Yet, this was but one aspect of the Way.  It was more than an educational opportunity.  It was more than going to hear today’s sermon and then getting on with life.  No, there was fellowship as well, and as we see in what follows, that fellowship was something far beyond a cup of coffee and a bit of glad handing.  That term fellowship, koinonia, speaks to something far stronger.  As our pastor has been making clear these last few years, this is sharing life together.  And that is clearly what the church did in these early years, to a stunning degree.  Indeed, such was their sharing that one might mistake it for a sort of communism done right, and over the years, some have sought to make it just that.  But communism, even in this most enlightened of forms, cannot work in a world of man.  Even with everybody selling property and goods, eventually the goods run out and there’s nothing left to sell, no means by which to supply the needs of the growing family.

Let me just emphasize this point a bit.  While the example of the church’s founding ought surely to inform our practice, that is not to say that every aspect of its format is intended as a permanent, defining feature of the Church in all ages.  For but one obvious example, it can hardly be expected that the Church today would head over to the temple in Jerusalem daily, no, nor even to the local synagogue.  For one, we would hardly be welcome.  For another, it’s doubtful said synagogue would be open daily anyway.  Things have changed in that regard.  Neither are we given leave to suppose that the church having come to include specific properties where we gather together is somehow in violation of God’s plan, because it consisted of house-to-house gatherings at the outset.  Again, if you think this crew were getting together in one house I have to ask who you know that has a house fit to accommodate three thousand and growing?  We must read with understanding, and we must perceive the implications rather more than the details.

But there was fellowship, a real sharing of life.  And that sharing goes beyond greetings and, “How’s the weather?”  It goes beyond having some idea what’s up on each other’s schedules.  It goes to knowing each other well, knowing where the needs are, and doing something about it.  That’s the real point when we read of everybody selling their goods to provide for those needs.  It’s not some vow of poverty.  It’s not a veiled declaration that capitalism is evil.  It’s simply love in action.  You have made your need known, and I have the capacity to help.  Let me do so.  That used to be the way of charitable living before we made it a government function.  When the government is put in charge of charity, it is no longer charity, nor is it particularly charitable.  It becomes a tool for control, another lever of power, and that was never the way.  “If I give all I own to feed the poor, and deliver my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing” (1Co 13:3).  Governments cannot love.  Love is a personal response and a personal responsibility, and no government agency can be mistaken for being personal.

Okay, I must add that this term koinonia also has a more technical application to the observance of Communion.  Communion, as the word implies, is a matter of mutual participation.  We are announcing our fellowship with Christ, with His suffering and death as well as His glorification and resurrection life.  And as the name implies, this is not some private matter we do alone with nobody else.  It is a communal act, a marker of that fellowship we have with one another as partakers in God’s kingdom.  We are family, and this is our family meal.  We recognize that each one of us has drunk deep the blood of Christ, eaten well of His body.  It’s not some sort of ritualized cannibalism.  It’s the acknowledgement that all that is needful for life and godliness are found in Him and Him alone.  We declare our death to sin, declaring it with one another as witnesses, and thereby becoming answerable to one another should we slip into old ways.  We declare our hope, our new life in Christ, our assurance of eternal fellowship with Him and with each other.  As such, each observance of Communion is, after a fashion, and acknowledgement of family ties.  You, who partake in the pew next to me, are my brother, my sister, and as such, in Communion we also find opportunity to declare our love for one another.  There’s a reason these were first known as love feasts.  And it wasn’t some orgiastic free-for-all.  It was family getting together.  As Paul observed in correcting the church in Corinth, “Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ?  Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?” (1Co 10:16).  It’s not a competition or a campaign.  It’s an act of worship done together with those who, like us, have been redeemed by our Lord and Savior.

This together aspect matters.  “We bless…  we break.”  That’s not just Paul using the royal we.  It’s a fundamental aspect of Communion.  It is co, done together.  It may not be forbidden to observe this in private.  Indeed, we are called to recall Him whenever we eat or drink.  But the normative practice is one of community, as we find attested in Hebrews.  “Forsake not our assembling together, as some have done.  Rather, encourage one another, and all the more as the day draws near” (Heb 10:25).  The fellowship of the saints is itself a confession of our humble need.  We need Christ and we need each other.  It’s a hard world which surrounds us, and we are but a small outpost.  That man who seeks to be an island will find himself consumed, swallowed up by the ocean of sinful man.  But together, we may remain strong.  Together, we can lean one upon the other as we all together lean hard on Christ.  Again, where circumstances dictate that one must persist alone for a season, God is fully able to make you stand, and to preserve you against all.  But it is not the norm, and ought not to be treated as if it were.  Too many are taking the easy road out, and abandoning the Church rather than putting in the hard work of maintaining fellowship.  I know not what such a mindset will find as its result in heaven, when there can be no walking out, and we all must needs get along with one another, and indeed find joy in one another as we together rejoice in our Lord.

We have yet a third activity which defined the life of this vibrant new church.  They were devoted to prayer.  It wasn’t just a brief thing tossed off in the morning, or at bedside.  It wasn’t a hurried blessing spoken over the meal, rushed lest the food go cold.  It was a constant.  There is not much said here as to how that prayer looked, or what exactly the practice was.  But recall that this little group that seeded the church had been gathered upstairs to pray together as a group.  There’s something to that, isn’t there?  I, for one, find it difficult to maintain prayer for more than the briefest moment when I am alone.  The mind jumps too readily to other matters, things that need doing today, what’s next on the agenda, getting on with these studies, et cetera, et cetera.  Even when it’s just two together, I find it too easy to drift in thought while another is praying.  When my wife prays, sad to say, I often find I have drifted into a sort of waking sleep, my mind still active, but perhaps chewing over some residual challenge from the day’s work.  It does not feel as if I’ve slept, but I come out of this reverie and discover that she’s finished her prayer and is sitting quietly, wondering why her husband can’t pay attention.  Blame it on early mornings and long days.  Blame it on what you will, but the reality of the situation cannot be denied.

Yet, come to a roomful of fellow believers, joined together in purposeful pursuit of praying, and things change.  There is a greater attentiveness to what is being said in prayer.  Perhaps it’s merely that we feel the need to act appropriately before others as we do not feel so strongly at home.  But I think there’s more to it than that.  There is power in prayer, though I might find it difficult to explain that power.  It’s not that prayer is able to shift God’s course to our liking.  Hardly that.  If God were so readily manipulated, we should look for another to worship.  And honestly, a world in which any two or three believers could direct God to the course of their choosing would be even more chaotic than the world of self-willed men.  Can you imagine?  The farmer is praying for rain, but the vacationer cries for sun, and both are heard with response from heaven.  How would that work?  Stripes of rain and sun rushing past?  Neither would find satisfaction in such a result.  Rain restricted only to that one farmer’s farm?  That defies the testimony of experience, doesn’t it?  And honestly, if the weather were directed by our desires driving God to action, I suspect we would soon find the world made a desert, and ourselves crying out for relief.  No.  Such a relationship between man and God in prayer would result in destruction rather than salvation.  But I incline to believe that it is not God who is changed and directed by our prayers so much as ourselves.  Prayer tunes our thinking to godliness, directs our minds towards the Spirit’s advice.  And we, being thus changed, find ourselves strengthened, better situated to withstand the shocks of the day.

So, then, devotion to teaching, devotion to fellowship, devotion to prayer; these are the marks of a thriving church.  Of these, I suppose it ought not to surprise us that the first is the foremost, and certainly it ought to have primacy in our pursuit of holiness.  For it is the word of God which constitutes the teaching.  If that cannot be said of your church, then I must advise that you find another, quite frankly, for it becomes questionable whether where you are is a church in more than name.  Take Paul’s comment to that sign and wonder addicted church in Corinth.  They were so proud of their gifts; put them on display for one another to see at every opportunity.  Indeed, it seems they’d made it a competition in keeping with their favored Olympic games.  And into this, Paul writes with stern correction.  “If I come speaking in tongues, what good have I done you?  I contribute nothing to your benefit unless I speak by way of revelation and knowledge, in prophecy and teaching” (1Co 14:6).  Now, this isn’t just urging that the one who introduces his latest theory with the phrase, “Thus says the Lord,” is to be deemed superior to the one giving utterance to excited, ecstatic sounds of indeterminate meaning.  To prophecy in the sense spoken of here is to speak God’s words after Him.  It takes on something of the Old Testament prophetic office, which had far less to do with forecasting future events, and far more to do with applying Scripture to present circumstance, and generally in a sternly corrective fashion.

The prophet, the true prophet, in old Israel was not always a welcome visitor, for chances were he came with warnings and a requirement for course correction.  It was rare that a prophet was sent along simply to say, “Well done, child.”  He didn’t just make the feast circuit, touching base from synagogue to synagogue to drop a condescending note of encouragement.  He went where he was needed, to correct those who needed correction.  And one sees that the Epistles are fundamentally written in keeping with this same pursuit.  There is love in them, and fellowship.  But the primary function is one of correcting those places where thought and practice have gone astray.

And isn’t that the shepherd’s inherent duty?  His attention is not needed so very much where the sheep are compliant and doing as they ought.  It’s the heedless and the headstrong that require his watchful eye and his stern correction.  “Thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me” (Ps 23:4b).  David’s not just waxing poetic here, piling up phrases to say the same thing.  Rod and staff have different purposes, the one to defend the sheep by driving off predators, the other to give the sheep a good, corrective thwack, and get them back to safety when they’ve wandered yet again.  We need both.  We need the stern attack of truth to drive off the predatory false teacher, and we need the corrective rebuke to sharpen our attentiveness to our surroundings; the one to excise the disease of falsehood, the other to exercise our application of Scripture to life.  Forsake not our assembling together, for where else shall the sheep find safety except in number under the watchful care of their shepherd?

And that teaching!  Think in what it consists.  I have always thrilled to hear John’s description of the Apostolic message, and likely always will.  “What we have seen and heard we proclaim to you, so that you may have fellowship with us.  And our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son, Jesus Christ” (1Jn 1:3).  That is an effective summation of the New Testament.  That’s what is set before you in its pages.  Men wrote of what they had seen, heard, touched, lived.  They were eyewitnesses to the Son of God come among men to live and to die on their behalf, that they, dying to sin, might live to Him.  It was an odd message they had for the world, and one not readily received by many.  And yet, God was with them, and because God was with them, many were added to their number, not just occasionally, but rather constantly.

Forgive me one more Pauline quote in this regard.  But we live in a time when many a church seemingly feels the need to adjust its messaging and its image so as to be effective.  And to them I would offer this reminder.  “The word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but for those who are being saved, it is the very power of God” (1Co 1:18).  He did not come to baptize, though he did baptize some few.  He came to preach the Gospel.  Period.  And that, not with clever speech or stirring music, or programs contrived to attract.  He didn’t call for outreach activities, worldly entertainments to draw them in so that he could tack on a quick bit of scripture at the end.  He came to speak truth and welcomed whomever would listen.  And if they would not?  Let them be.

It’s not that he didn’t care about those who remained lost.  But he recognized the truth of Jesus’ teaching.  His task was not to chase down and browbeat the lost until they made a profession of faith just to shut him up.  No!  His duty was to speak the truth, and to leave the outcome to Christ.  It remains our duty to do likewise.  The Gospel does not need dressing up to suit modern tastes.  It needs honest and earnest proclamation, and leave it to God to decide the impact.

For our part, let us be concerned with pursuing the course prescribed for our growth, devoting ourselves to sound teaching, whether we preach or listen; devoting ourselves to fellowship, to time spent in shared life with our brothers and sisters; devoting ourselves to the prayerful seeking of God for direction, for strength, for our daily provision, both in our private times and more, in our shared times.  Let us pursue such a course and see what God shall do.

New Purpose (06/14/26)

As for the Apostles, they were now truly entering into their purpose, and that purpose was not entirely, but was undertaken with a new equipping by the Lord.  Here, Luke observes that signs and wonders were taking place through them.  Mark, in his gospel, which we generally understand as conveying Peter’s coverage of those first years, speaks much the same.  But I observe a signal difference.  As that gospel comes to a close, Mark writes that they went out and preached everywhere, the Lord working closely with them, confirming the word by the signs which followed (Mk 16:20).  There, it is dia ton semeion.  Here, it is dia ton apostolon.  In both cases, then, this little preposition of instrumentality.  In Mark, the signs are, to take Strong’s definition of the word, the channel of action through which the Lord confirmed that their words were His words.  Here, the Apostles are the channel of action through which those signs and wonders were being performed.  But understand this about the channel of action.  The channel does not cause the action, it but directs it, and even in that, it may be rather passive in its role.  The riverbed is the channel of the river’s action, directing the flow of the water, yet it does not do so with intent and purpose.  It is but the instrument by which the flow of water is directed.  It may be the result of natural influences, or it may have been altered by the will of another so as to cause the water to flow where that other desired.

I’m belaboring this point somewhat, but for good cause, I hope.  We get excited by the thought of signs and wonders, and rightfully so, given that, as the first term implies, their purpose is to be noticed.  But if that’s where we stop, or if we join the Corinthian church in becoming focused on the experience of wonder rather than coming to grips with the meaning, then we fail to perceive the true value of the experience.  A sign, even so mundane a sign as one indicating where the next highway exit might take you, is only of value to the degree we recognize where the sign is pointing and why.  A stop sign is highly valuable for drivers, giving us pause and warning of the potential for cross traffic.  That sign, if it is perceived and understood, leads to an orderly resolution to any potentially conflicting use of the intersection by multiple individuals.  But if the sign is ignored, and folks just plow on through, or if it is not understood as to what the sign is meant to indicate, the sign is pointless.  If we just point at it and say, “how pretty,” or, “how interesting,” and proceed unchanged, that sign is useless to us.

It must be understood that the signs and wonders do not come to entertain, nor to create a buzz such that the one through whom they occur gains fame and following.  The Apostles were not out to be influencers, as the term has come to represent in our, “look at me,” age.  They were intended, in point of fact, to point beyond the Apostles to Him whom they served.  They were more like the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval on the message these men delivered.  Or, perhaps you could equate it to the familiar tagline on political advertisements.  “I’m so and so, and I approve this message.”  That really is the purpose here.  The Lord who worked through these things which He did through the Apostles was making it abundantly clear that these men weren’t just off on their own, spouting whatever thoughts popped into their heads.  The things they spoke were truth, not opinion.  They were God’s truth, not man’s fabrications.  They were, as John made clear in his epistles, eyewitness testimony to that which they had seen and heard and learned personally from the Son of God, their explanation of His message was still a matter of declaring what they heard personally from Him, dia to pneuma to hagion, through the Holy Spirit.

Let’s hear Mark one more time, as he conveys to us what Peter conveyed of the words of Jesus to His disciples.  “When they arrest you and deliver you up, do not be anxious beforehand about what you are to say, but say whatever is given you in that hour; for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit” (Mk 13:11).  Let me suggest to you that this ought to define not merely how we respond under trials and persecution, but how we speak the truth of God more generally.  Arguably, and Peter’s example here could be taken as a case in point, even preaching ought to be less a matter of in-depth preparation of carefully crafted points and phrasings, practiced for correct delivery within the given time constraints, but rather, saying, ‘whatever is given you in that hour.’  I don’t suppose it’s a point I would wish to push too far, but it’s interesting to consider.

If I look at my own experience, limited as it is, I would have to observe that it takes a fair amount of preparation and effort to hone the message, excise the ramblings and side considerations, so as to retain focus on the point.  If you read my musings in these private studies of mine, you can likely well imagine how many diversions and distractions have need of removal.  And perhaps the language may need adjusting just a bit, since I’m no longer talking primarily to myself. 

But let me pause on that point – a little diversion!  This is the most fundamental matter of preparation, and perhaps the very reason it takes concerted time and effort.  We must first talk to ourselves with the word we would declare to others.  As my brother Peter spoke to me so many years ago, if we have not preached the message to ourselves – and received it to real effect – then we are not fit to preach it to anybody else.  In simplest terms, if we have not in fact received the Gospel, how shall we declare it to others?  We may be able to recite the words, but they are as empty as a politician’s promises.  Now, God may choose to work through them in spite of us, much as He worked through Balaam in spite of the man, or through his donkey, which clearly had no capacity whatsoever for the task.  But the normative practice must be that we declare what we have received, that we instruct as we have been instructed, and that we ask of our hearers only what we have asked of ourselves.  And let me just tack on that, having asked it of ourselves, if we expect to be effective in asking it of others, we had best be able to demonstrate that we have in fact done as we asked.  Why, after all, would anybody take advice from us that we clearly disregard for ourselves? 

Now, let me settle on this point.  We are not, nor could we become, Apostles.  We have not that authority, nor is there need for it at this stage.  We have their testimony, the authorized word of God.  I’m not talking KJV or the Authorized Version.  I’m talking those writings which have been preserved to us, which are clearly either the direct record of the Apostles’ teaching in their own words, or sufficiently Apostle-adjacent to be accounted much the same.  The Apostles were appointed men, authorized in delivering the message preserved to us in the New Testament.  In this, they are held parallel to the Prophets who were appointed for the writing of the Old Testament.  “Write these things.”  It wasn’t necessarily dictation on the part of the Holy Spirit, but it was assuredly supervised by Him as, shall we say, the Editor in chief.  Repeatedly these two offices are connected as concerns delivering the uncontested Truth of God.  We must recognize that not any old claimant to the prophetic title was a prophet, nor was every claimant to the apostolic mantel an apostle.  It is nothing to do with the claims of the individual and everything to do with the appointing by God.  With so many false claimants about, it was needful, then, that God undertake to mark out those who were His legitimate spokesmen.  Thus, signs and wonders.  “Yes, this one speaks for Me.”  And as with the Son, we can stand to hear appended, “Listen to him.”  Don’t just listen, receive, incorporate, and respond with obedience to his instruction.  It comes from Me.  “I am God, and I approve this message.”

New Family (06/15/26-06/17/26)

Now, when Luke says these believers were devoting themselves to fellowship, it quickly becomes clear that he’s talking about more than merely an occasional get-together.  Come to verse 44, and we are faced with yet another improbable outcome.  Taking from the Lexham translation, “And all who believed were in the same place, and had everything in common.”  Okay, so once again the simple logistics of such a thing defy me to apprehend.  Where does one find space to house 3120 people and growing?  What place would suffice for such a thing?  So here’s a point of comparison.  The Boston Park Plaza hotel, with 15 floors, offers 1300 rooms.  Let us suppose double occupancy, and as you easily see, it’s still not enough to hold this group, unless we’re counting children, and perhaps some of those rooms were triple occupancy or more.  And let that be assumed, this still says nothing about cooking facilities or mealtimes.  How long do you suppose such a crowd could abide even in that space in anything like harmonious fellowship?

Oh, I know.  Things were different back then, and Israelites hardly expected to live in houses such as we have come to know them here in the West.  But still!  Buildings were also much different, and I sincerely doubt one could find anything close to a 15 story building in Jerusalem at the time, and if one could, how were they to pay for it?  It boggles the mind.

Let me be clear on this.  I do not keep coming back to this point as a matter of disbelief, or casting doubts upon Luke’s veracity.  I merely say it is in itself a wonder.  Yet, it is a wonder that in its unfolding demonstrated a very real submission to the teaching of Christ as conveyed by the Apostles.  Two verses come up together in the parallels to our passage which, when seen side-by-side, really hammer this point home.  We are taken back to the occasion of the rich young ruler having come asking Jesus what he must do to be saved (Mt 19:16-23).  Now, his question ought to be seen as indicating awareness in him that as much as he had been seeking to obey Mosaic Law, something was still lacking.  It’s as though he came saying, “I’ve been doing everything I know to do, living according to the tenets of our religion, but it’s not enough, is it?  What am I missing?”  And Jesus answered by directing his attention to the one thing he could not bring himself to do.

It’s interesting that Jesus did not try to turn this young man’s attention back upon the places where he thought himself compliant so as to lead him to recognition that even here he was far short of what was truly required.  But then, He’s not dealing with a hypocrite like the Pharisees with their postured piety.  He’s talking to one who, by all appearances, sincerely recognized his need and sought answers.  It’s just that he couldn’t bring himself to accept the answer he received.  That answer forms the point of contact with our current passage.  “If you would be complete, go and sell all you own and give to the poor, so as to have treasure in heaven.  Then come and follow Me” (Mt 19:21).  Now, let us jump forward a few chapters in our text, and we read, “No one among them was needy, for all who had land or houses were selling them and bringing the proceeds to the apostles” (Ac 4:34).  That is exactly the response Jesus prescribed for this young man, except here, without coercion, was a group of believers doing exactly this very thing.  And let me tell you, that sort of mindset is going to be noticed.

Sadly, it’s also going to be met with misunderstanding and abuse.  The abuse part is probably the most readily recognizable concern.  We’ve likely encountered it.  The Church is known for being charitable, and that, as we see here, is by design.  But fallen man, seeing this charitable mindset, sees an easy mark.  He does not see a people ready to help.  He sees a path to easy money.  And this has played out through the ages, hasn’t it?  Indeed, fallen men have found the Church not only a resource to tap, but one to fully exploit, worming their way into the pulpits so as to turn what should have been an avenue for eternal gain into a palace of infernal greed.  Given the fallen state of man, this is as inevitable as wet roads after a rainstorm.  It’s the nature of things.  And so, Jesus calls us to be both innocent as doves and wise as serpents (Mt 10:16).  We ought make no mistake.  We are sent as sheep amidst wolves, and given the chance, they will do you harm (Mt 10:17-18).  But, lest I make this a study on Matthew 10, let me come back to our passage and its message.

All were together and had everything in common.  No squabbling over what’s mine, no cordoning off of personal space.  Pity the introvert in that crowd, if there was such a one!  And already, we read, they were selling off their property and goods to support this new life together.  Now, I have to say that suggests to me that Luke is telescoping events somewhat.  Selling property would take time, especially if, as it seems, many in this number were from out of town, and even out of country.  But still!  Just draw this into the context of your own local church and ask yourself how readily one could expect anything even close to this?

I recall reading some text years ago, I forget who it was by, but the book sought to establish something along the lines of Christian communism, and described a community established on that concept.  I mean, here it was, practically spelled out for us, right?  Here is the first principle for those who insist on pursuing a primitive church perspective.  But I would have to observe that this primitive church did not last particularly long in this condition.  Nor, so far as I know, did that later experiment survive for long.  I suppose one could look to monastic orders for another example of such an attempt.  But there, it seems to have turned inward, drawing away from the general public.  I suppose that wasn’t necessarily a set and fixed rule, except within certain orders.  But there was this attempt to be self-sufficient and supporting the needs of the order as well as providing charitable aid.  This, however, was not the model Jesus established.  As the monks drew apart, they could not but reduce their ability to proclaim the gospel.

Okay, come back to your own church yet again.  We hear it said today that the Church, if she remains in her four walls, cannot hope to reach the lost, and there’s likely some truth to that statement.  When Jesus spoke of building His Church, there is nothing to suggest He was looking for something like the Familia Sangria, or Notre Dame.  There’s nothing to suggest He had in mind any sort of edifice.  Yet, it clearly becomes needful, doesn’t it?  Come back to that question of how one accommodates such a growing number as we are seeing here.  There’s some answer in that they were ‘daily in the temple.’  But there’s also a hint of bounds on how we understand what’s happening, when this is followed by, “and breaking bread from house to house.”

Now, here I must be careful.  That translation, coming from the NASB, is followed by most of the translations I have read, in one form or another.  Yet, the Greek presents us with a singular house.  A quick glance at the footnotes in the NET indicates this shift to the plural is discerned in the use of kata in the accusative, which has this sense of through.  Though Thayer’s assigns it the simple meaning, “at home,” as concerns the passage before us.  But the NET suggests that the term takes on a more distributive meaning in this context, which meaning Thayer’s also offers for the word, though not in this passage.  Thus, that lexicon offers the translation of city by city, or from city to city, for kata polin.  I can readily see, then, how the NET and others would come to apply the same here.  After all, if a 15 story hotel could not accommodate such a crowd, a private home certainly could not.  I’m already impressed that they could find a home with space for 120 to meet and sleep.

Think about that just a moment.  120 people.  Let us suppose they were a bit shorter in stature, call it 5 feet tall.  That’s a 5 by 3 space per person to lie down in close quarters.  That’s 1800 square feet!  Call it 60’ x 30’.  That’s a pretty large space for a city dwelling.  Forgive me, I just can’t seem to let go of the seeming improbability of the whole thing.  Improbable, yes.  But God…  And in whatever quarters they were finding in which to meet, be it one house or many, crowded conditions were not yielding raw nerves, at least not that we’re hearing about.  I suppose with the focus on being at temple, listening attentively to what the Apostles were telling them about this Jesus whom they had come to believe, praying at length, observing Communion together – and that would entail the daily adventure of finding bread and wine sufficient for the purpose, cooking and eating and so on, there simply wasn’t time to get on each other’s nerves.  I don’t know.

But we must understand this about the scene set before us.  This was not compelled action on the part of those coming to faith.  It was a response to faith received.  It was a way to express the charitable fellowship that they now experienced with God; charitable, to be clear, on His part.  Such love He had poured out on them!  And recall the sharp point of Peter’s message here.  You killed Him.  You nailed Him to that cross.  And still, He calls you His own, invites you into His home, into His family.  Yes!  There ought to be such a response, surely!  God took me as I am, welcomed me when I had been right up to that very moment His enemy!  And how shall I now respond to these, my new brothers?  Surely, as we have received so we should freely give.  Is that not also His instruction to us?  Why, yes it is!  That may not always translate to material support.  Think Peter and John on the way to temple.  “Silver and gold have I none, but such as I have I give to you…” (Ac 3:6). But that’s for our next study.

So, let’s try and move past the logistics and get to the motive purpose and its implications for our own life and practice.  This, however it worked, was truly a rich fellowship.  I don’t speak of it being rich in fiduciary terms.  I mean it had depth and breadth.  Here was a group of wildly varied backgrounds.  Remember the surprise in that crowd as it gathered.  So many were from out of town, had lived in a variety of foreign lands, which would inevitably lead to a variety of customs and habits, even if they were all Jewish.  Some, perhaps even many, were relatively well to do.  Others, our Apostles not least among them, were of far more modest means, and might even have been considered poor.  I suppose if you own your own fishing outfit you’re not exactly destitute, but you’re not dwelling in mansions, either.  Nobody ever got rich in such a trade.  But all were together as one.  The wealthy did not look down on the common, nor did the commoners look upon the wealthy in envy.  That didn’t matter.  Male and female didn’t matter.  Now, I don’t know to what degree that was likely to be playing out this early in the development of things, but already, there had been precedent, hadn’t there?  Jesus had welcomed women amongst His followers, a thing I can’t really imagine any rabbi in that time doing.

But, however varied their backgrounds, observe what has transpired.  They have been made family.  Of an instant, each one here had this extended family.  For a people of so tribal a background, this would be the founding of a new tribe, and with it would come tribal loyalties.  These are now my brothers, my sisters, and with ties more binding than blood.  No, with ties bound by blood of an infinitely superior value.  It was there to be recognized each time they came together to break bread in Communion, which it would seem was likely a daily practice at this point.  And the whole was infused with this deep sense of having entered into real fellowship with God, as the Holy Spirit took up residence in each individual.  Oh!  How great a difference does that make!

You wonder at how so large a group could abide in such strange and strained circumstances without falling to bickering and divisiveness?  The Holy Spirit had come not just to those first 120, but to all, as promised.  Repent and receive.  Accept the Lordship of Christ and you get this free gift of the Spirit.  I don’t intend in any way to cheapen the exchange or make light of it.  I am simply observing that here is the answer to the whole riddle of how this could come to pass.  God was in it, and in each individual who had become part of it.  They were, whatever their background, being saved.  They were, whatever their background, obtaining a share in the same Holy Spirit.  They were, whatever their background, now of the family of God.

And with this as our setting, we hear Jesus say, “By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another” (Jn 13:35).  And that love is not the affectionate camaraderie of phileo, but the much higher standard of agape, benevolent, even sacrificial caring for one another, a love which, as I was reading last night, extends even to those we may not find altogether to our liking.  Indeed, our love is to extend even to our enemies, and those who spitefully use us, refusing to answer like with like.  But here, I am more concerned with the nature of fellowship in the family of Christ.  It is that fellowship, that depth of care and commitment one to another, which makes evident that God is truly present in this place.  If the Church has not this loving fellowship in rich reality it must raise the question of whether in fact this church is truly Church.

Let us understand clearly that the nature of loving fellowship is such as cannot be coerced or demanded.  It is not something that can come about under compulsion.  Certainly the depth of sharing that we see on display here, with believers going so far as to sell off their possessions and relinquish all control over such proceeds as that might produce would be to no good result were it compelled of them.  We shall see this point made clear in ensuing chapters.  But for those who seek to find some Christian basis for socialism or even social agendas, here is the major sticking point.  Any socialist system, bearing as it will the force of government, becomes a coercive demand upon the property of its individuals.  This holds even for such social programs as have become common in our own republic.  And at one time, it was understood just how poisonous such government largesse must be to a self-governed nation.  But no more.  Welfare as we have come to know it is coerced charity and as such, is no charity at all.  It is piracy backed with the force of the state.  And as we see perhaps more clearly than ever before, it is a natural attractant for all manner of corruption, because human nature is what it is. 

That, of course, is the picture outside the Church.  Inside the Church, though, how different is it?  The Church is also a composition made of fallen men, albeit fallen men now saved by grace.  Of course, that caveat applies solely for the true church, the church invisible, consisting solely of the truly redeemed.  There always has been and always will be those in the congregation who are not in fact numbered among the elect.  Jesus taught of this well before the Church was even declared a thing.  There will be tares growing amidst the wheat, and as we are growing the distinction between the two may be all but invisible, beyond us to determine.  Yet, even when the tares become evident, our call is not to rip them out forcefully, for such activity may well damage the true wheat.  If you’ve ever had to take part in applying Church discipline, you have likely seen the effect.  Those who know the one under discipline, or who think they know him or her, likely continue to account such a one as wheat in good standing, and being convinced of their own wisdom, will incline to critique the actions undertaken by the elders, sure that they have overreacted in some fashion.  But the truth of it is that the elders are, by their office, privy to things that exceed the knowledge of the congregation and such as they are not at liberty to share.  There may come a point where that knowledge must be shared for the safety of the body, but in general no; the elder is left to simply weather the accusations and misunderstandings defenseless, as it were, but fully confident of the Lord’s guidance in the decision reached and the actions taken.

All of this to say that the charity of the Church must be free of compulsion and guarded against abuse or misuse.  We don’t just hand out cash to whoever may come by asking for it.  We don’t quell our emotions, but we don’t act upon emotional response.  Rather, we allow for prayerful consideration and wise counsel before making use of the moneys entrusted to the administration of the Church.  But the love we have under consideration here, the fellowship of the body of Christ, goes beyond our giving to the Church, and the Church’s care in making use of what we give.  It’s more personal than that.  It demonstrates in true regard for the events happening in the lives of our brothers and sisters.  It consists in rejoicing with those who have cause to rejoice, and mourning with those who have reason to mourn.  It consists in coming alongside to aid by our companionship and by our contributed actions where such are called for.

This is fellowship of a sort which has no place for class distinctions.  Such fellowship does not alter its love based on the financial standing of love’s object, nor based on race, gender, age, personality types, linguistic capacity, education, or any other such thing.  There is one factor and one factor only:  Do you profess belief, trusting reliance upon Christ and Christ alone for life and salvation?  If so, you are my presumed brother, my presumed sister, and therefore one for whom I care deeply.

This correspondence to family ought seriously to inform how we consider our fellow believers, whether it be those in this specific local body, or the Church viewed more globally.  Born into a family, you don’t really get a say in who constitutes family.  Your brother is your brother whether you find him obnoxious or pleasant.  Your sister is your sister whether she is compassionately caring or somewhat domineering.  You cannot really divorce your parents or your children.  I suppose there are legal avenues by which one might get such a decision officiated, but it’s a legal fiction, isn’t it?  Blood is blood and there’s nothing can alter that.  So, take that to the church.  These have been made your brothers and sisters by simple fact of rebirth.  They did not choose you, nor you them.  God chose.  God made it so.  He is our Father, and as such we are all of us who have believed His children.  And as to those who have not as yet believed, who is to say but that they may in fact turn out to be family as well?  Best we consider them as potential family until and unless it is proven otherwise.

So the question arises, and must be considered.  How ready are we to give of ourselves to the full extent of our capacity?  On what basis shall we hold back what we have which would help a brother in need?  And if there is that in us which holds back, not even bringing the case of Ananias and Sapphira to bear, how is our love for our brothers not restricted by our self-interest?  And if our love for our brothers is thus restricted, how can it be otherwise than that our love for God is likewise constricted?

I’ll be honest.  I read of how this group reacted to the arrival of the Gospel in their lives, the wonder of God’s forgiveness for their most egregiously traitorous actions against Messiah, and even with that rawness, I find the response all but unfathomable.  It appears to me as something beyond reasonable, or even reasoned.  You would think that maybe in the course of arranging such a sell-off of properties, perhaps the first flush of conversion might subside and cooler heads prevail, as it were.  But there’s not evidence of that.  And it feels rather like helping to the point of putting oneself in need of help, which does not seem helpful at all.  I just don’t know how to respond.  I do know that I could stand to hold my possessions more loosely, and to resist the siren call of materialism more firmly.  There come those times when the desire to be purchasing this or that just builds as a pressure that becomes almost irresistible.  And there are times when I consider the approach of retirement and feel it as a pressure to guard finances and spending now.  Who knows how long we shall have to make these finite resources last?  And given current spending habits, how many years could it possibly supply?

But, while there is a call for wisdom and preparation, it must not lead me to a place of disregarding the care of my Father.  I must be a wise steward, not a stingy miser.  I must still love, and help where I am able.  Indeed, I think of this young Chinese gentleman I met across the street, whom we know only in that we walk past his house daily, and wave to his children.  We happened upon him and his oldest daughter out for a walk as we were walking and stopped to chat for a bit, and this young man, unprompted, offered his assistance in any sort of tasks which needed the help of someone a bit younger.  It may have been no more than a cultural respect for one’s elders, I don’t know.  But it was such a generous offer, given simply, and to a couple whom he barely knows at all.  And I find myself rather outgunned by that willingness.  Yet, it is an example of exactly the sort of mindset which ought to prevail among us.  It is the nature of community, as we can see, even among the worldly.  How much more with us who have known the enormity of God’s gracious generosity towards us!

Let us, as far as the Spirit enables us, be about the free and generous, caring love for one another that He has engendered in us.  Let us set aside all distinctions and self-interest.  Let us stop measuring the possible by our sense of our resources, and instead train our attention on God Who provides.  What would He have us to do?  This we ought to do with abandon.  Yes, we continue to act wisely, but not so wisely that we cease to act at all.  Let us not become so careful of our goods that we do no good at all.  Let us distinguish ourselves from the world around us in the fashion that Jesus set before us, by our open, limitless love for one another, by our selflessness, by our rejection of class distinctions and divisive categorizations.  Let the love of God show clearly in our love for one another, and let this clear and active loving fellowship serve as our chief advertisement for the goodness of God.

Jesus did not put charity before the proclaiming of God’s truth, but He certainly didn’t let the proclaiming of God’s truth eclipse charity.  That tendency was, in fact, His chief complaint against the Pharisees.  They were so concerned with propriety and perceived compliance to what they construed to be righteous that they failed utterly in the realm of charitable compassion.  We are not free of such tendencies ourselves, but must remain aware of them, and must strive by the Spirit’s aid and power to correct them.  Let it be said of us that nothing has restricted our love of God, our love for God’s people, nor our charitable, loving attitude towards the lost.  For by this, they shall know we are His.  By this, they shall know that He truly is God and He truly is Good.  They may yet resist and refuse, but they shall know.  And as it was with the early church, so it shall be with us, that God adds day by day those who are being saved.  Should this not be our most eminent desire?  Of course it should.  So, let us be about it.

A Living Gospel (06/18/26)

I have been inclined, over the years, to ask what the primary function of the church is intended to be.  Some describe it as a spiritual hospital, others as a military encampment, and others still as a training center.  However one views it, Scripture clearly informs us of this fundamental purpose in our gathered worship, which is that the saint may be fully equipped for every good work, toward the end of building up the body of Christ (Eph 4:12-14).  It is the means chosen by God by which to mature us such that each individual member of the body arrives at, “the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.”  This involves establishing believers in sound beliefs, rock-solid certainties formulated upon the revealed word of Christ, such that they will not be carried along by every wind of doctrine, which is to say, by the latest novel interpretation or vain imagination.

How then are we who form the body of Christ which is the Church to live this out?  Go back to that brief statement of their habit in this freshly minted church.  They were devoting themselves to learn from the Apostles, to fellowship with one another, sharing Communion and praying together.  But it didn’t stop there.  They were a presence in the community.  They were at the temple daily, as one.  They were gathering in one another’s houses, sharing meals, sharing fellowship.  And they did so not as if in a competition to see who could put on the best spread or whose house was grander.  It was with gladness and simple appreciation of what God had provided and what God was doing.

What we have on display here is a church which has become a living gospel.  It is composed of those whose lives have been changed by the touch of God, and who are themselves, each in their individual sphere of experience, serving as a living Gospel.  The unity shown in their daily gathering at the temple would be noteworthy.  Bear in mind just how central the temple was to Jewish life.  This was, by and large, a devout people, and the temple was the beating heart of their society.  Think how serious a threat it was to be put under the ban.  Whom the temple banned, the people shunned.  Social life for that one was at an end.  It was a harsh punishment, one which would, I suspect, leave the punished individual with little choice but to leave Jerusalem and seek a place of anonymity.

This was, then, an observable display of the Gospel in action.  To see such a large group, from so varied a range of backgrounds, gathered together as one, devoid of competition and striving, but simply come to hear the Apostles teach, and then, clearly putting that teaching into practice, that was going to be noticed.  And it was.  We are told that it was, and what the people noticed was noticeably good.  Thus, they were ‘having favor with all the people.’  The people liked what they saw in this group.  There was no dismissing of them as hypocrites.  Heck, they had seen plenty of hypocrisy.  Perhaps one of the immediate impacts was that this new group could be compared and contrasted to the Pharisees who had long been the paragons of piety.  This was different.  This wasn’t posturing and preening.  It was sincere.  It was real.

That, I think, should give us pause.  We know well enough what much of society thinks of Christianity any more, and it’s not particularly positive.  We can write that off to the darkness reacting to the light, but I think that’s perhaps too easy.  To be sure, there are plenty of what we would call social Christians.  They come to church and play the part, but no sooner are they back in the world at large than they are acting like the world at large.  One hears it said of the culture down south, that everybody declares themselves to be Christian (or at least a large percentage).  It’s the Bible belt, after all!  But get beyond the claims to the practice, and what does one find?  Aye, there’s the rub.  We who are up north in New England, lovingly referred to as the frozen chosen, are not in any position to boast, are we?  We know ourselves too well.  If nothing else, we really struggle with the fellowship, the house to house aspect of this.  Christianity is that thing we do on Sunday mornings, maybe Wednesday evenings if we’re really committed.  And we may participate on sundry committees and so on.  But we are too good at compartmentalizing our lives.  That’s my religious compartment.  Once I get home, it’s different.  Once I get to work, home and church are dismissed from my thoughts, because I’m in a different compartment now.  I’ve put on my engineer hat, if you will, or whatever hat it may be that you wear as you go about your professional life.

And isn’t that an interesting term?  Your professional life.  Yet it has nothing in it of what you profess.  And in this world, our employment is so large a part of our identity.  What’s the first thing you are asked by somebody newly met?  Oh, what do you do for a living?  What’s your profession?  Sure, we may be asked about spouse and children and so on, but that’s often behind this first question in order, isn’t it?  Maybe it’s more a male propensity, I don’t know.  But it seems to me that questions of what we do precede questions of who we live with.  But what’s your profession?  I’m sure it would come across as religious posturing on par with the Pharisees, but the proper answer would be, I profess to belong to Christ Jesus, my Lord and Savior, and seek as best I am able to live as He commands.  And then, perhaps we can speak of such employments as He has seen fit to direct us towards as a means for our provision and as a means for returning some good to the world in which we live.

What would it look like to be a living gospel in your setting?  One hopes we have been able to present a living gospel to our children as we raised them, but I fear that is often not the case.  What they see instead is this compartmentalized, socializing Christian practice.  It’s just a club, and for many, it clearly does not have the life-altering impact that one hears it should.  Even amongst the most devoted, we are forced to confess that our practice does not always live up to our profession.  The flesh, after all, is weak.

One challenge we face in the current climate, which may not have so much pertained here at the start, is that there is a generation that expects ideals to be realized.  They are unwilling to have imperfect heroes, disinterested in damaged role models.  I have commented on it before, I am sure, but there is something in the present climate that disallows any possibility of redemption.  You are either perfectly what you ought to be or you are to be written off.  It’s well and good that we should be answerable to our claimed beliefs, and it would be well if we held one another accountable in that regard.  But perfection is simply not within the realm of the possible.  It’s not a call to be graded on a curve, but it is necessary that we evaluate on the basis of trendlines, not on the basis of instantaneous status.  There will be ups and downs in this pursuit of being a living Gospel.  There will be triumphs and failures, errors made and corrections undertaken.  And praise God, there is grace in abundance. 

That grace is first and foremost to be found in God’s patience towards us.  We read of it in men’s group last week, as we completed 2Peter.  “God is patient towards you, not wishing for any of you to perish, but for all to come to repentance” (2Pe 3:9).  If He is thus patient with us, we also ought to be patient with our brothers and sisters.  Love demands it.  That great gift of patient love which has been poured out so richly in our lives, ought to pour through us to others.  The world needs this, and I think we could say it needs this as never before.  In so unforgiving an atmosphere, nothing, perhaps, proclaims the Gospel more clearly than to forgive.

And look what came of it, as this first church went about living their faith out loud in the midst of their society.  “The Lord was adding daily those who were being saved.”  Others were being admitted into the present experience of God’s deliverance, as that term saved conveys to us.  More, those who were experiencing God’s deliverance in the present could be assured of future deliverance at such time as Christ returns.  And that is still our story today.  That is still our offer today.  We have good news for those in darkness.  There is a Light!  You don’t have to keep going down that road to eternal perishing.  Now, it may be hard to get modern man to think in eternal contexts.  It’s too mythical, too unscientific.  But something in a man knows that in spite of that mystic quality, it is reality.  Nihilism cannot be the reality of the situation.  Even those who have worked hard to destroy religion from society still discover a need for something religious, something to supply meaning to existence.

The popular rejection of Christian faith has led to all manner of pseudo-religious pursuits, to zealotries of the worst sort.  What do you think fuels the movements we see around us?  Why did ecological fanaticism arise?  People needed meaning, and had rejected the true source of meaning.  Why do we find such devotion to socialism, to self-expressionism, to me me me me me thinking?  It’s all pursuit of finding something on which to place meaning.  And as Francis Schaeffer observed years ago, still it holds true.  All of these attempts to find meaning necessarily fail, for they refuse the One who gives meaning to being, the One who gives being to being.  All such efforts at replacing God with some idealistic pursuit are doomed to failure.  They are a false hope, and a false hope cannot sustain.  Now, more than ever, the world needs to be hearing the true declaration of the true God of true hope, and they need to hear it declared in truly loving compassionate words.  We will have need of accepting people as they are when they come before us, and we shall have need of being openly who we are as engage with them.  We must see them not as a project or a task, but as people, potential family.  And may it be that they see in us a true gladness and sincerity of heart, such as will give clear evidence that our professed faith is not just so many empty words, but a real and living faith in the real and living God.