Stephen Vance

• About this site

Printable Activity: 8 page mini coloring book and full-sized pictures to tell the story of Peter preaching the gospel for the first time to Gentiles - Cornelius and his family.

• About this site

• About this site

Jesus Tomb

• About this site

Jim Batterton

• About this site

Joel Hovey

• About this site

ASSEMBLY FELLOWSHIP

Would it be correct to say that there is only one Fellowship in Scripture, into which alt believers are brought upon accepting Christ as their Saviour? If this be so, how are we to understand the Fellowship of 1 John 2" TARGET="_blank">1 John 2? Again, does not the New Testament teach Assembly Fellowship, into which a believer can be received, and from which he can be put away? and are letters of commendation necessary? Further, does the local church in any district include all the Christians in that district? and should a professed believer who belongs to a sect, but who comes to our Lord’s Day Morning Meeting and expects to get breaking bread, be received, though he has no intention of severing his ecclesiastical association?

The statement that “There is only one fellowship in Scripture, into which all believers are brought on accepting Christ as their Saviour,” is absolute nonsense. The particular kind of fellowship implied in any passage where the word “Fellowship” occurs has to be gathered from the context there; and an examination of this will reveal that there are various “fellowships” spoken of in the New Testament. Moreover, it is to be remembered that the Greek word “Koinonia,” which is usually translated “fellowship,” in the N.T. is also rendered, “communion,” “communication,” “contribution,” and “distribution.”

The first occurrence of the word is in Acts 2:42," TARGET="_blank">Acts 2:42, where it is said that the new converts “continued steadfastly in the . . . fellowship.” Here we have a “fellowship” in which one may “continue” or not continue; and to apply it to the fellowship of life in Christ, in which all true believers cannot avoid continuing, is to make the statement in the verse meaningless.

It is next found in Romans 1:26" TARGET="_blank">Romans 1:26 (where in our English Version it is rendered “contribution”). Could it be said that every saint of the present dispensation, or even every saint then living, had fellowship in the gift which the saints of Macedonia and Achaia sent to those of Jerusalem?

The epistle to the Philippians supplies perhaps the most interesting examples of the various uses of the word “fellowship.” In Philippians 1:5" TARGET="_blank">Philippians 1:5 we read of their Fellowship in the Gospel. Are all saints in this? In Philippians 2:1 we have mention of Fellowship of the Spirit. If all have this, why does Paul say, “If there be any”? In Philippians 3:10" TARGET="_blank">Philippians 3:10 he speaks of the Fellowship of His Sufferings, which he himself desired to know. But could saints who never had the least experience of persecution for Christ’s sake, claim to be in that fellowship? Lastly in Philippians 4:15 (see R.V.) we get the

Fellowship of Giving.

As to the passage in 1 John 1:3-7," TARGET="_blank">1 John 1:3-7, in which we have the last four occurrences of the word “fellowship” in the Scriptures, the expression in verse 3, “that ye also may have fellowship with us,” implies a fellowship which they might or might not have, according to the extent of their knowledge of Christ and His Word; or perhaps it would be more accurate to say, of which they might have more or less, according to whether they knew more or less of Christ and His Word. The further references in verses 6, 7, are clearly to a fellowship in which we can only claim to be, so long as we walk in the light. The man who says he is in it, while yet he is not walking in the light, is described as lying.

As to the next question—whether there is such a thing as “Assembly fellowship, into which a believer can be received, and from which he can be put away”—only a person of warped mind would deny this. When Paul said, in 1 Corinthians 5:13," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 5:13, “Put away from among yourselves that wicked person,” and the Corinthians obeyed him, was the one who was so “put away” to continue in the circle and insist on breaking bread, as being a member of the so-called “local church?” And if, while yet in the position of having been “put away,” he goes to reside in another town, must the Assembly in that town also set him down at the Table, because since he now has his home there, he is a member of their “local church?” If these things are so, we may leave the first epistle to the Corinthians out of future editions of our Bibles.

With regard to the meaning of the word “church,” when used locally, I have to say what already I have said about that other word “fellowship.” What it includes or does not include in any particular case must be judged from the context there. In 1 Corinthians 10:32" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 10:32—it evidently takes in every saved person in the district, just as the other two terms in the verse, “Jews” and “Gentiles,” take in all the others in the district. But in the same epistle at 1 Corinthians 11:18" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 11:18 and 1 Corinthians 11:18, 28, 35," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 11:18, 28, 35, it just as plainly means none but those who come to the Meeting; and this is made even clearer by 1 Corinthians 14:23," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 14:23, in which, after the whole church has come together, there may still come in one who is spoken of as “unlearned,” yet who is distinguished (by the little word “or” that follows) from an “unbeliever.” In other words, he is a saved man, but not yet in the “local church,” in the sense in which the term “church” is used in this verse.
Moreover, not only can a person be put out of a local church when he deserves it, but according to 3 John io, he may be “cast out of the church” even when he does not deserve it. One might well ask, Who were still “in” this local church after Diotrephes had cast these brethren “out” of it? Or were the cast out brethren “out” and “in” at the same time?

As to “letters of commendation,” is it not clearly enough stated in 2 Corinthians 3:1" TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 3:1 that some needed them, though Paul, being well-known to everyone, did not? How often would some require a thing to be stated in Scripture, in order to feel themselves bound to act accordingly?

With regard to the other matter—the case of a professed Christian who belongs to some sect, but comes to our meeting and expects to get breaking bread for one Lord’s Day only, and then returns to his own company—I would need a good deal of convincing that the one who wished so to act was an honest man. If he believes that we are right, why should he not come to stay with us? If he believes us to be wrong and his own sect right, why should he want to do wrong even for one Lord’s Day? And if he can do without “breaking bread” on fifty-one Sundays in the year, why should he be insistent on being allowed to do so on the remaining one?

W.R.

• About this site

• About this site

RULE
Do the Scriptures teach that an overseer is to rule the Church?

Does “obey them that have the rule over you,” imply that we have rulers in the Church to-day?

Three words are translated “RULE” in the New Testament in reference to oversight:

(1) P0IMAINO (from POIMN, a shepherd), used by our Lord to Peter—”Feed (better, ‘shepherd’) my sheep” (John 21:16)." TARGET="_blank">John 21:16). The word in vv. 1 and 17 for “feed,” is BOSKO; but feeding, though of the first importance, is only one item of shepherding.

(2) POIMAINO also occurs in Acts 20:28" TARGET="_blank">Acts 20:28 and 1 Peter 5:2," TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 5:2, “feed the flock”; also in Matt. 2:6," TARGET="_blank">Matt. 2:6, “RULE”—”that shall rule (marg. feed) my people Israel.” (z) PR0" TARGET="_blank">PR0I- STMI, as in 1 Timothy 3:5" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 3:5 “If a man know not how to RULE his own house, how shall he take care (EPIMELBOMAI) of the church of God?” This word for “take care” occurs only here and in Luke 10:34, 35," TARGET="_blank">Luke 10:34, 35, of and by “the good Samaritan.”

PROISTEMI is used too of the RULE OF THE CHURCH in 1 Timothy 5:17." TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 5:17.

(3) HGEOMAI (from AGO, to lead), to be a leader, to rule (in New Testament this latter only in present participle), is used of Barnabas and Silas—”CHIEF MEN among the brethren” (Acts 15:22);" TARGET="_blank">Acts 15:22); of Joseph—”GovEiuoR over Egypt” (Acts 8:10);" TARGET="_blank">Acts 8:10); and in Hebrews 13:7, 17," TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 13:7, 17, 24 in the expression, “them that HAVE THE RULE OVER” (marg., in two latter verses, “guides,” which seems to do well).

Overseers, then, are shepherds, feeding, guiding, tending the flock; also ruling, but not inthese]fassetiye, domineering way of a Gentile king, “not as lords over God’s heritage,” but with gentle control for the good of the sheep, whom they love, because they belong to the Chief Shepherd who has entrusted them to their care (1 Peter 5:2-4)," TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 5:2-4), and it is for the sheep to be subject to this godly rule.

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

THE HOUR — THE BREAD

Ought we not to observe the Lord’s Supper only at night, and only with unleavened cakes, seeing this was the case at the institution?

Of course all admit that the Lord’s supper was instituted “the same night that He was betrayed,” “while they were eating,” that is, as the passover meal was drawing to its close. This was in the evening by a definite direction of Jehovah, but no direction was given that the Lord’s supper should be observed at any special hour of the day. Acts 2:42" TARGET="_blank">Acts 2:42 and 46, where the “supper” is, I think, certainly in view, makes no mention of the evening, but simply states that “they broke bread at home” (R.V.), in contrast with the daily public meeting in the temple.

In Acts 20:7" TARGET="_blank">Acts 20:7 the first day of the week is specifically mentioned, but we are left to gather incidentally that the observance was in the evening. There is, moreover, a very simple reason, quite apart from any spiritual significance, which I have never heard attached to the hour, why the evening was probably the time usually chosen in those early days, because it was the most convenient or the only time free in the day.

The observance of a “Sunday” on which shops were shut, and work closed down as to-day among men of all creeds or no creeds, was then quite unknown. For those who stickle for an exact imitation of the institution, one wonders why they do not celebrate the feast on the Thursday, the original day of its institution. We certainly only have custom rather than direct command for the first day of the week, though I do not question that this is the right day. Christianity is not like Judaism, a religious system of “days and months and years,” worked on a time-table, but a life to be lived on spiritual principles in the power of the Spirit, and governed by the Word, but not by inferences or deductions merely. Of course believers are perfectly free to break bread in the evening, if convenient, but it is not the only time, for the Word is “as oft as ye do it,” which cannot be limited to any particular hour of the day.

As for the necessity of using only unleavened bread, there is not a hint in Scripture for making this a sine qua non. Christians, no doubt, may use it if they see fit, but they have no right to impose it on their brethren. It is mere ceremonialism. The word, “artos,” used for the bread or loaf, simply stands for any mixture of flour and water, baked. There is nothing wrong about leaven itself, though, in the Scriptures typical of evil, but its anti-type is not leaven (to interpret a type by itself is not very helpful exegesis), but “malice and wickedness” or some such defiling sins (1 Corinthians  5:8). What we are called to do, is, not, like a company of Jews before the Passover, to search for literal leaven, but to examine ourselves for unjudged sin. To be occupied with the hour of the day, or the exact components of the bread and wine is to substitute the accidents* for essentials, and human inferences for Divine commands. I would close with the following weighty words of the well-known  servant of Christ, John Wesley: “What the Bible commands is good, what the Bible forbids is evil: what the Bible neither commands nor forbids, either in plain words or in undeniable inference, is a thing in itself indifferent, and neither good nor evil. The Bible is our sole guide and our adequate guide in faith and conduct.”

Matters on which the Bible does not legislate are left to the judgment of believers. The course good for one, may not be so for another. We are “by reason of use to have our senses exercised to discern between good and evil.” If the above principle were understood, it would help us to distinguish between things commanded, things commended, and things left entirely open, like the hour of the breaking of bread, or the exact kind of bread to be used, and it would prevent the harmful habit of judging one another on matters where even an apostle would confess he had no commandment from the Lord.

W.H.

* A property or quality of a thing which i not essential to it, aa whiteness to paper, the texture of cloth, the exact composition of bread.  

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site