ADMINISTRATION (3)
[p. 334] ADMINISTRATION (3)
Acts 4:36, 37; Acts 5:1 - 10; Acts 6:1 - 15
JT In our last consideration of this subject, it was pointed out that however distinguished any of the Lord’s people may be in this administrative service, he merges in the company. Chapters 3 and 4 emphasise the ministry of Peter and John, and the result of it. “And being let go, they went to their own company”. Acts 4:23. They become merged in the company, contributing, indeed, to it, so that all joined in prayer to God, with the result that the place where they were assembled was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and spake the word of God with boldness. The position thus far was consolidated by heaven’s recognition, and the fresh impulse of the Spirit, in which all participated. It occurred to me that from this great vantage point we have a new start. Instead of Peter and John being specially prominent, we have, first of all, the apostles as a whole, for, in every fresh impulse of the Spirit and consequent administrative service, it appears that God ever asserts His authority. However successful a movement may be — or appear to be — unless there be the full recognition of divine authority behind it, it cannot command the respect and confidence of the people of God. Those who love God will always look for the evidence of the recognition of the will of God — of the authority of God — and if any movement fails of that, it cannot command the respect and confidence of God’s people. For, “to obey is better than sacrifice”, 1 Samuel 15:22 and God insists on His rights, so that, as the Lord says, “He that hath my commandments and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me”. John 14:21. It is more important that a movement be stamped by divine authority and approval, than that it should be apparently successful. So that, as [p. 335] the two great ministers return, they merge in the company, and then the apostles come into evidence again. Another thought that appears here is that whilst there are those that do exploits (as there were in the Old Testament times, in the days of the Judges, in the days of David, each exploit resulting in gain for the testimony), it is not the divine thought that any such person should be in control of His people. God ever reverts to His own interests, and if He had twelve apostles, these must be recognised. So that you find in chapter Acts 4:33 that “with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all”. And, again, it says, “As many as were owners of lands or houses, selling them, brought the price of what was sold and laid it at the feet of the apostles”. Acts 4:34,35. And then, again, Joses, that is, Barnabas, being named by the apostles “son of consolation”, sold his possession and brought the money, and laid it at the feet of the apostles. One would call attention to this, because it is not the divine thought that anyone specially prominent should necessarily rule, or influence, the saints beyond his spiritual stature. We have no appointees now, no apostles or elders by appointment, but there must be rule and administration, and this must be based on moral stature — on spiritual stature — and, however gifted the brother may be, or noted for spiritual exploits, he cannot undertake to rule beyond his spiritual stature. God reverts to His own thought, and so every element of power to rule must be noted and recognised in the company. I specially emphasise this because it maintains a right balance among the people of God, and saves them from clericalism.
GAvS Then would you suggest to us that spiritual weight and spiritual values are alone the standard which God is taking account of in the midst of the assembly?
JT That is what I thought.
GAvS That, in the absence of spiritual values of such a character being given evidence to, there is nothing that God can take account of; but when you speak of gift in that connection, could we take account of gift apart from the Spirit?
JT Not apart from the Spirit, but it may be taken account of apart from the spiritual state. 1 Corinthians 13 says that a gift may be exercised without the corresponding spiritual state, but even if it be exercised in correspondence with a suitable spiritual state, it is not, in itself, a warrant for the exercise of domination among the saints. Every bit of the work of God in the company has to be recognised, and I think that is what comes out here. The greatest servants — Peter and John — merge in the company, and the Spirit then calls attention to all the elements of authority there. Not only theirs, but all the elements of authority.
GAvS Then would you say that the action of Barnabas in this case was a divine recognition of that spiritual state that was to be taken account of among God’s people?
JT I think that not only he, but all those, as it says in verse 34, “as many as were owners of lands or houses, selling them, brought the price of what was sold, and laid it at the feet of the apostles”. Acts 4:34,35. They recognised all the apostles. Peter and John did not require any distinction in this respect; they recognised that the twelve were the representatives of Christ in the way of authority and rule, and they brought the money and laid it at their feet. Unless there be this state in the company, there will always be a tendency to recognise unduly a distinguished brother or brothers. It is always a spirit of mischief, and leads to an unbalanced condition among the saints, if those who do exploits are unduly recognised. There must be a balance. As the whole physical [p. 337] universe is preserved by balance, so must the moral system be preserved by balance, and hence everyone who has moral weight must be recognised.
GAvS I suppose when we take account of spiritual values in that way, each has that which is peculiar to the work of God in his soul, so that we cannot set one against another, can we?
JT No, we cannot. And hence you have in the assembly an organism where every part has its functions — every divinely-ordered band has its function to perform, and it must be given scope to perform it. I dwell upon this because of the word ‘company’ here — a word that must be well noted in chapter 4. The assembly (having the Spirit as it is presented in this book) was intended to be self-contained and self-supporting, above seeking accommodation from the world and the powers that be. It has everything within itself to maintain it for God, and the wisdom that goes with that provides for the working of each one part, as it says elsewhere, “its self-building up in love”. Ephesians 4:16. The gifts are all intended to produce that state.
EEL I was wondering if the reabsorption of these valued servants in the company was essentially to maintain the divine thought of unity.
JT You can understand what a great effect their return to the company would have, because it says, “Being let go, they went to their own company, and reported all that the chief priests and elders had said unto them”. Acts 4:23. This report would be a testimony to the victory that God had given them, a great support, and would immensely consolidate the company and establish it in confidence in God, as the following verses show, so that a great spirit of unity, as you said, prevailed. It says in verse 32 the heart and soul of the multitude of those that had believed were one. The apostles, in going to their own company, would enter it in the sense that it was a community,
[p. 338] and they were not to rule it; they were just integral parts of it, and all the victory they gained from the grace and power of God belonged to the company, and added to it, so that it had a great unifying and establishing effect.
EE So you would say that even with the apostles as they returned to the company, they were in it just according to their measure — that is, the work of God in them? You are drawing a distinction between gifts and what was in them.
JT Yes. I would like to make it clear. No doubt the saints would respect them for what they had gone through, but, after all, they were only a part of the company, and that, I think, is what is emphasised in the chapter.
GAvS I was wondering whether the fact of their selling everything that distinguished them showed how thoroughly the whole company had entered into the thought of being merged into one.
JT That is the thing to get hold of. You subserve the company, you do not dominate it, you never regard it as something to be lorded over.
GHC So that what one has in a material or spiritual way should be made available to the company.
JT That is what comes out after. We see the place that the authority of God requires in the (as you might say) readjustment. Thus, we shall see how even material things were introduced, and how, being introduced, they fully recognised the authority of the apostles. Today it would mean the moral weight of all. What is given, what is devoted, is to be administered according to the wisdom and moral weight of the whole.
JS Corinthians speaks of members in particular. Would they suggest distinctions?
JT I think Romans is the most elementary presentation of the truth of the body. “We are one body in Christ”, Romans 12:5.
[p. 339] it says in Romans, not the body of Christ. So that the point would be to recognise one another in Romans. The saints are coming into view as one body in Christ, not a human secret society or organisation, but one body in Christ — that shuts out the flesh in man. In Corinthians it is the Spirit that is emphasised, so that we are Christ’s body, and members in particular. Whilst we are one body by the Spirit, yet every member has his own individuality, his own mind, and his own affections, and he is to be governed accordingly. I think that 1 Corinthians in that way is an advance on Romans. Romans is, I think, the boards of the tabernacle. It is said of the boards that they were made “standing up”, meaning that the Christian is taken account of “standing up”, like this man here, see chapter 4:14. Romans takes account of the boards as they are, but Corinthians takes account of them as in their place. In other words, the golden bar binding the boards is contemplated in Corinthians.
JBS The lifting up of one voice — does that indicate they are together in an administration under the God of heaven and earth?
JT I think that very good. What is to be noted is that it is a collective thing now, and the apostles are there to serve that. You see every element of the divine authority is there to subserve the company. Directly you have the company found, everything must minister to it. And one wants to bring, by the Lord’s help, those material things, as it says here, “Owners of lands or houses”. These may be employed to further the interests of God, They are not to be despised, they have a great place in the divine economy, because of the need that necessarily exists among the saints, and the need, too, of supporting those who minister. I desire, by the Lord’s help, to bring that out, and to show that even the administration of that affords opportunity [p. 340] for the development of gift, and faithfulness in it leads to the very greatest service — that one may, in such service, purchase to himself a good degree. It is one thing to see the Lord in His sovereignty, appointing the twelve, or imparting gifts, but it is another thing to see a faithful man occupied in a small matter — what may appear to be small — purchasing to himself a good degree and great boldness in the faith.
Rem Does that refer to the present time — purchasing to himself a good degree?
JT Certainly. It is set down to encourage us — even what may appear to be a most menial service amongst the saints — so that we may purchase to ourselves a good degree. That is to say, it is within my reach, not now as a matter of gift, but of purchase.
GCMcK Does that mean it is going to cost something?
JT That is exactly what it does mean. You cannot purchase anything without the means to do it.
Ques Is that the distinction Joses purchased here, being called “son of consolation”?
JT Yes, I think that Joses stands out here as a model. We are beginning another chapter in the history of the testimony. After you have the company, you have a basis for a new chapter of operations, and Joses comes in here as a model. He is named at the beginning the son of consolation by the apostles. That means, he is an acquisition to them. Later history shows what a man he was. I think he represents the golden links of the tabernacle, because, as the sequel shows, he became the sympathetic link between this great work, which we have here, and the work that God undertook in Paul. He brought Paul to the apostles, and he brought Paul to Antioch, but he begins by just selling his lands, and taking the money and laying it down at the feet of the apostles. It was as if he said, “This is what I have.
[p. 341] and it is all there for you”. He was prepared to subserve the company by what he had.
EEL What would answer to that in the present day?
JT I think the same thing. Sacrificing material things, having the good of all before you, having the furtherance of the company — you are sure to be recognised by heaven, you are sure to get a place, because it is a question of sympathy now. A son of consolation is a man who is sympathetic with what is on hand. For nothing is more consoling in an arduous service or undertaking than practical sympathy. Doing what you can to further the thing is within the range of every Christian. Every Christian may come forward as Barnabas did.
Rem To do good and communicate?
JT Exactly. “Forget not, for with such sacrifices God is well pleased”. Hebrews 13:16. A recompense is sure to follow, for God recompenses in spiritual things.
THG Is there any thought in his being a Levite?
JT There is no doubt, he should not have had land, but the Spirit of God gives him credit for selling it. What we have here is a community in which everything requisite for the maintenance of it is present. But in that you have the authority of the apostles. God always calls attention to that — and then to the sympathetic link in the son of consolation. I do not know anything more encouraging for young believers, who desire to be of service, than this lead that Barnabas gives. What may accrue to one who begins thus — as a son of consolation!
GAvS You mean, then, that that spiritual sympathy is available to the youngest of us, so that none should feel that they have nothing that they can offer, because that has always been open to the very least?
JT [p. 342] Even if one has not got material things, if he has not got lands or houses to sell, he has his body. There is nothing in the material line more valuable than one’s body. Romans leads up to that — we can present our bodies, a living sacrifice laid down on the altar, and it is available to the company. One is never independent, one is merged in the company, and all that he has is laid on the altar, so to speak. It is remarkable how Luke, from the time the prodigal is brought in and set up in the house in chapter 15, touches on the value of material things. In chapter 16 he shows what man may buy with the mammon of unrighteousness. God is not going to let us off — it is only an exchange for the moment. He can buy accommodation in the future with it; when this fails, he says, ‘I may be received into everlasting habitation’. You get in the case of Zacchaeus, how he gave half of his goods to the poor, and the Lord regards him as the son of Abraham; and then, again, the woman who cast in her two mites, the Lord says she cast in all her living. It calls attention, I think, to how we all may come in to what is spiritual. We begin with what we have. You say, I have not gifts or land, but you have your body, which is of more value than anything, because the Spirit can use your body.
Rem Present your bodies a living sacrifice, is that it?
JT That is right. Holy and acceptable which is your reasonable service; it is put in that way. In order to make the position clear, it is well to call attention to this case of Ananias and Sapphira, because they warn us that in our giving we may have success in view, because a man who has means is not always spiritual. In fact, means in themselves hardly tend to spirituality, but the opposite. It is a solemn thing. It is not that a man of means may not be spiritual, but the great tendency in a man of [p. 343] means is to be unspiritual, and think himself important because of his means, or even acquire a place among the people of God through his means, which will never do. You see, Ananias thought he could give all — or what would appear to be all — to the assembly, whereas he did not; he wanted to keep enough to maintain his status.
GCMcK “How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God”, Luke 18:25 but I suppose the Lord looks at what we hold back rather than what we give?
JT And the motive one has in giving. The apostle Peter shows in what he says that there is no moral obligation in it at all. This is a matter of sacrifice, and whilst it remained, he says, it was in your own power. So that he had a sinister object in view, he wanted to be something.
GAvS I suppose apart from the spirit of sacrifice as right in the divine power, there really is nothing in the use of one’s riches?
JT Nothing at all, because, unquestionably, God can get along without them. He says, “The cattle on a thousand hills are Mine”. Psalm 50:10. The point is that He wants to see the outcome of love, and if it is not that, it is of no value at all.
JS He wants us to feel it is more blessed to give than to receive.
GCMcK Following your thought, the apostle says, “Though I give my body to be burned and have not love, it profiteth me nothing”. 1 Corinthians 13:3.
JT That is very good.
GAvS I suppose that when the children of Israel in the wilderness showed what wise and willing hearts they had, it was because they brought all they had to the service of the tabernacle. Would that be the same thing in principle?
JT I think it is — just [p. 344] the same.
AH Barnabas, being the son of consolation — would he represent the normal product of the assembly?
JT I think that is the thing to get hold of. He is the model for us in giving. It refers to the state of his soul; he was the son of consolation, meaning that he was developed in that feature.
GAvS In bringing in Ananias and Sapphira in this way had you the thought of how administration, when exercised in power, discerns always such methods as are in operation in these two?
JT I think so. You see, it is Peter again, because although Peter had merged more in the company, he was, nevertheless, the leading apostle spiritually. See the immense gain to the company that there was such a one as Peter at this time. So that, while the most spiritual merges, yet when the need exists he comes forward. Really, love serves. Whilst he is willing to be one of them, to take his place with the brethren as one of them, yet when the need exists, he comes forward, because love serves. Love will serve, and we can easily see what an immense service this was — that he was able at this juncture to discern that there was a lie in this man’s breast — that Satan indeed was behind the thing; it was a lie against the Spirit. What a terrible result! Had Ananias and Sapphira succeeded in foisting this on the company, it would have been leavened and the Holy Spirit would have been dishonoured. That would be the public effect, so that Peter now comes forward, according to the discernment he had, and exposes the movement.
JSD Why does it specially mention the Spirit of the Lord?
JT I think that was the point. The point in these two chapters is the presence of the Spirit. The Holy Spirit had come in, and Satan would endeavour to upset that, and make it appear that [p. 345] the Holy Spirit was not there, or if He were there He could not discern the lie. The Spirit of the Lord is a question of authority — we are dealing with an authoritative position. The Spirit would be there to maintain the Lord’s authority. I suppose the death of these two sinners would be the Lord’s act — the Lord did it.
Rem I suppose the Spirit would discern they were actuated by self instead of love.
JT But how solemn a thing it is to have to do with the Spirit of God and with the Lord in the Christian company! This is set down to remind us that there is the power of discernment in the midst of it, the Spirit of God being there, and that the man that can discern serves in love in doing it.
GAvS Then would you encourage us in a day such as this to count upon the spirit of love coming in in that way, and asserting the rights of the Lord in connection with the company here?
JT Quite so. I can understand that this would bring Peter into reproach in the minds of unspiritual people. As to that, it is said that Moses and Aaron had killed the people of the Lord. So where the Spirit is active today, it is sure to bring reproach in the minds of unspiritual people, because the imputation would be that a terrible thing had happened. A man and his wife stricken dead! One can understand how much could be said on these lines, and how much is said today, because it is incumbent on those in the house of God to maintain it, and to have to refuse to go on with wicked people, with liars, with sinners in other connections.
GAvS The really “terrible thing” was what Ananias and Sapphira did, not what Peter did.
EE What happened to Ananias and Sapphira here is an example of what lies in front of those who ignore the presence of the Spirit among the saints.
JT That is exactly what it is put down here for.
[p. 346] There is no repetition of this, but it is as if the Lord put it down at the very outset to show the power there is for the discernment of sinners in the sphere of the Spirit.
JJJ Why are “young men” mentioned here in both instances, as carrying the bodies out? What answers to it today?
JT I think “young men” are mentioned here quite in a comely way. It seems to me to be a comely thing that they should do this, because Ananias was one of the company, publicly, and his wife, and that they should be carried out and swathed and buried was right. That is, if judgment is to be executed, there is what is comely and right in the treatment of those who are under discipline. We do not treat them as enemies. They were not buried like Stephen, however; “devout men carried Stephen to his burial, and made great lamentation over him”. Acts 8:2. There is nothing of that here.
GAvS I suppose the act of the young men here involved sympathy with the activities of the Spirit?
JT Quite; though the thing was settled and done with, the bodies were buried suitably. But how much complaint there is because of disciplinary action in the house of God! “Ye have killed the people of the Lord”. It is incumbent upon us to do it if the house of God is to be preserved in holiness. It is incumbent upon us to deal with sinners. We cannot go on with such. I wanted to go on to chapter 6 for a moment to show what we have already remarked on — how administrative service in the smallest matters may develop into the very greatest service, and even martyrdom, as in Stephen. Now we have the word ‘twelve’ in chapter 6, which, I think, usually refers to the administration of what is God’s bounty. The word ‘apostles’, I think, usually refers to authority. As we have remarked already — the Lord appeared to the twelve, it says,
[p. 347] and then later, it says, He appeared to all the apostles. Now you have the twelve in chapter 6, and they formally separate the administration of material things from the administration of spiritual things. However, they prescribed that men who were selected for the former should be full of the Holy Spirit, and they are provided and appointed by the twelve, and they take up their service, and immediately the Spirit of God goes on to Stephen; not to enlarge on his effectiveness in the administration of material bounty, but to say that, being full of the Spirit, he performed works of power, etc. It seems to me that Stephen is set out here as a model for the young men — for all of us to take up any service that comes to hand, however small, and then we will be led on to something greater.
GHC There was no reserve with Stephen. He was “full of faith and the Holy Spirit” — “full of grace and power”.
JT It says that in the midst of the council his face shone as the face of an angel. He is a reflector of what is in heaven. He is a direct representative. What a vessel God had in this man!
GAvS Is your point, then, that, however small the service in which anyone of us may be engaged, the Spirit would take it up in all earnestness as what has been rendered to the Lord, and bring advancement of a spiritual character which will lead to moral development?
JT That is the thing. So that you may see how God is preparing us for what He is about to introduce, namely, a heavenly system, first in Barnabas, who was a son of consolation, and then in Stephen, a heavenly witness. It is here more what the man was — he purchased to himself a good degree and great boldness in the faith.