THE BASIC WORK OF GOD IN BELIEVERS
[p. 154] THE BASIC WORK OF GOD IN BELIEVERS
JT It came to my mind today that what the Lord left as He went up to heaven is basically presented in this chapter. I use the word ‘basically’ thinking that this chapter has to be compared with the endings of all the gospels, where the disciples are seen just as they were as the Lord was apprehended and put to death. We can easily trace the difference between Acts 1 and the endings of the gospels; and notice that much darkness and ignorance marked those whom He left on earth. This is seen in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, but this chapter records much improvement, although the Holy Spirit had not come. The Lord had gone into heaven, but the Holy Spirit had not yet come, and yet there is evidence of great improvement in the intelligence of the disciples; at the same time the thoughts presented in it are simply basic. The whole book is intended to open up the results of the Lord’s death and resurrection, and the incoming of the Spirit. Acts is a gradual, but steady unfolding of the truth.
HB Would you explain a little what you mean by the improvement as compared with the gospels?
JT Well, take Luke himself. Evidently the second treatise was an afterthought, I mean from his point of view. It was no doubt designed of God that there should be the book of Acts, and if we did not have it, we would have the facts in the endings of the gospels, but we should have to build up on less complete information than the book of Acts furnishes in chapter 1. There was much darkness, as has been remarked, and confusion and uncertainty, to all of which we have to confess in our own souls, and judge. We have all to begin with new birth, and new birth in itself does not mean the [p. 155] indwelling of the Spirit. Every believer has some experience such as is disclosed in the endings of the gospels; whereas the first chapter of Acts indicates a great improvement, and yet the Spirit has not yet come, showing that the work of God basically may progress of itself without the reception of the Holy Spirit.
HB It says, “being assembled with them”. Would that show that they had developed ability to eliminate what was unsuitable to His presence?
JT Yes, the whole chapter indicates certain elements that the endings of the gospels do not give to us. We all do well to judge ourselves in the light of the endings of the gospels, for they contemplate those who are believers to a point, but who are very ignorant and dark and confused. What is presented in the second chapter of Acts would be in agreement with the incoming of the Spirit in the believer. There must be some work prior to this according to the way things are presented in Scripture, as Paul says to the Ephesians, “Having believed, ye have been sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise”.
RB How do you understand the Lord charging the apostles “by the Holy Spirit”, in verse 2?
JT Luke says that he wrote before about “all things which Jesus began both to do and to teach, until that day in which, having by the Holy Spirit charged the apostles whom he had chosen, he was taken up”. It is to be understood that the Holy Spirit was there, but there in Christ and in Christ only.
FI In John 20, He breathed into them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit”; they received the Holy Spirit as from Himself.
JT Well, that is a pattern of what should happen after the Holy Spirit came from heaven because while the Lord was here He had not yet been sent down from heaven. It can only be a pattern in [p. 156] John 20. It says that He breathed into the disciples, but we can hardly say that subjectively the Spirit was there, giving any character to them, because it is said afterwards, that the leading ones turned away and went fishing. What is said in John 20 is just a pattern as to what would happen when the Holy Spirit was given from heaven.
FBW Are you calling attention to certain features in this chapter which are at the foundation of things in view of the Spirit’s coming?
JT That is exactly the point in mind, that we have fundamental facts, fundamental in view of the fulness or completeness. The succeeding chapters would refer to the work of the Spirit in the saints, as in them; the Spirit Himself in them. All the instruction that flowed out to them, and the spiritual ornamentation, involved the formation of the assembly as such, and the formation of each believer. All that is in mind in the succeeding chapters, beginning with chapter 2, but chapter 1 is just basic; that is to say, without speaking of the Spirit Himself as coming in from heaven, and the formation that He would bring about in them.
WH This would seem to be a certain service on the Lord’s part, do you mean, prior to the coming of the Spirit? It says “he presented himself living” and then “being seen by them during forty days”, and then He was “speaking of the things which concern the kingdom of God”, and then His ascension. Would all these elements enter into what is basic?
JT Quite so, to make them suitable for the great thought God had in mind. And so chapter 2 begins with the fact that the Spirit came as the saints were assembled in the house, “and there appeared to them parted tongues, as of fire, and it sat upon each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other [p. 157] tongues as the Spirit gave to them to speak forth”. And so the passage runs on to verse 14, which says, “But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice and spoke forth to them, Men of Judaea, and all ye inhabitants of Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give heed to my words; for these are not full of wine, as ye suppose, for it is the third hour of the day; but this is that which was spoken through the prophet Joel”. That is to say, the Spirit is definitely here and acting already now as the Preacher in a gifted man, and the gospel is unfolded. And then we are told from verse 37 of chapter 2 about those who were converted; “they were pricked in heart, and said to Peter and the other apostles, What shall we do, brethren? And Peter said to them, Repent, and be baptised, each one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for remission of sins, and ye will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For to you is the promise and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God may call. And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, Be saved from this perverse generation. Those then who had accepted his word were baptised; and there were added in that day about three thousand souls. And they persevered in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles, in breaking of bread and prayers”. From this verse to the end, we have the description of those who were there in Jerusalem, including the converts, and there were three thousand of them. So that we have in this chapter 2 what involves Christianity, whereas chapter 1 is bare material for building up the great structure of Christianity; the bare material, but largely built on what is in the endings of the gospels.
AR Would you say that chapter 1 might be an example of the way the Lord was teaching them Himself, and shows the improvement with them as the result of the Lord’s own teaching, before the Spirit came?
JT Just so; during the fifty days. These days would imply what has been already intimated, that the work of God in itself, that is, new birth in itself, effects something, though not full Christianity, but it effects something that is remarkable and is basic.
Ques Would this section of the book of Acts show that one feature that has basically been built into the souls of persons is obedience, and is that primarily one of the things that is necessary for the reception of the Holy Spirit? It says that God gives the Holy Spirit to those that obey Him. They were charged by the Holy Spirit to remain in the city until they were endued with power, and the chapter shows that they were obedient to that charge.
JT Well, that is true. There were many other things, of course, but we have to treat them all as a whole, so that we might see what the work of God really is by itself, before the Holy Spirit comes in to effect all, for it is the Spirit of God that guides us into all the truth.
AM Is this a kind of completion of the great vessel that is about to be filled, considering the vessel by itself; not just the persons that constitute it, but the vessel itself, as the Lord’s own handiwork?
JT Yes, if you mean by the vessel, that the assembly was there, what you say is quite correct and important. It was only there in prospect, because it could not be formed, except by the Spirit.
AM I was thinking of the words, for instance, “with one accord” and then the “crowd of names”. Does it not suggest the thought of the vessel prepared to receive the Spirit?
JT Well, the material is there, but the actual setting up of the vessel, the formation of the vessel [p. 159] was by the Holy Spirit. The saints are not to be viewed in the assembly, save as by the Holy Spirit. We are baptised into one body, “for also in the power of one Spirit we have all been baptised into one body”, 1 Corinthians 12: 13.
P Would Peter himself be an example of this, the product of the gospel and the work of God?
JT Quite so. Some of us were noticing this morning that Peter is called Simon in Luke, it is said that the Lord appeared to him. “The Lord is indeed risen and has appeared to Simon”, but when Paul mentions him, as appeared to by the Lord, he is called Cephas, which is his assembly name, the name by which he is to be known as assembly material, as of the assembly, and that is something that bears on all of us. As we sit down together, we come in responsively, in view of the assembly, in view of our partaking of the Lord’s supper and all that follows upon it. We are in the light of the assembly. We already have the Spirit, and we are able to act assembly-wise. We are, therefore, enabled to act as if we were Cephas, and that is how Paul relates the matter. The Lord appeared to Cephas, meaning that He appeared to him in his assembly relation. This chapter hardly opens that up for us, although of course, he is Cephas, and he is moving in the light of his name too.
AS Would this chapter have any correspondence with the “unformed substance” spoken of in Psalm 139?
JT Yes. That is a psalm that should be looked into in relation to the assembly as it prophetically alludes to it, though it would be purely abstract. If we regard ourselves in relation to the assembly in that sense, it would be purely abstract, and so this chapter is abstract. It deals with the basic substance [p. 160] or facts as to the material out of which the assembly was formed.
FBW Would you open up what you have in mind in calling attention to what is basic in this chapter?
JT Just that we might note the material from which we have sprung as in the assembly.
AR It says, the number of names together was about one hundred and twenty. Would each of the names suggest what is basic?
JT And more than that. There would be the administrative thought — ten times twelve. Undoubtedly the number helps us in this respect, and it enters into this chapter with the idea of responsibility attached to each of them. But the fact that they had names, and the word crowd is used, meaning that they were not specially ordered, indicates that there was something there by which they are to be designated. As the Spirit came, each one of them would have a name.
HB I was thinking of Cornelius, he had not the Spirit, and there was something particular with him.
JT Yes. He was able to build up a memorial in heaven, and that would establish what has been said that the work of God is something in itself, and effects something before the Holy Spirit comes.
GD Is it seen in the beginning of Acts 19, where Paul arrives at Ephesus and finds certain disciples, then he raises the question, “Did ye receive the Holy Spirit when ye had believed?”
JT Yes, that would be something like this; Apollos too, although Apollos evidently had improved on them. He had more than those twelve men. They did not even know that the Holy Spirit was come, they said, which shows a state very like the ignorance and the darkness that is seen in the endings of the gospels. Here in Acts 1 there is more [p. 161] life, but the endings of the gospels correspond very much to these twelve men that were found at Ephesus. But then Paul soon adjusted them; their ignorance was not allowed to continue. They were to be used, and he said, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when ye had believed? And they said to him, We did not even hear if the Holy Spirit was come”. Then the apostle instructs them, and when they heard what Paul had to say, they were baptised, showing they were obedient to the word; but it seems that their ignorance was culpable, for they did not even know about the Spirit, and yet John the baptist himself spoke about the Holy Spirit. This is often seen in our own time, people do not know things that they should know. Paul laid his hands on them. We have in this the idea of linking on with the brethren. The thought in the laying on of the hands is that in getting the Spirit we are linked up unitedly in one body.
WH Would the two references to the Spirit in chapter 1 of the Acts bear on what you are saying? In verse 5 the writer speaks about being “baptised with the Holy Spirit after now not many days”. Would that be preparation in view of the organism and unity; and then in verse 8, the Holy Spirit having come upon them, that the service would be taken up in the power of the Spirit?
JT Quite so. That is obviously anticipative, and the Lord was preparing them for it, but it had to await His ascension. He was forty days on earth before He ascended; that is another thing. Why did He not go to heaven at once? There must have been something more in His mind to effect preparatory to the reception of the Spirit. Then there were ten days more also.
P Would something of this preparatory work be seen in verse 14, “These gave themselves all with one accord to continual prayer, with several [p. 162] women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren”?
JT Yes; the work is progressing; the work of God has power to progress in itself. I mean the work of God, before the Spirit is given. Even in the Old Testament times, we have something like this, not just so full as this, but there is enough to show that the work of God is the work of God, and it must proceed until the coming in of the Spirit.
AR Have you something in your mind as to the additional ten days after the forty days?
JT Well; there must be some meaning in the mind of heaven why the Lord did not go up to heaven the day He arose. He could have gone. In fact, Luke 24 would indicate that that was the thought, as if He hasted to go up, in order to begin the great administration He had in mind, but He did not; and Luke the same writer tells us expressly in Acts that He remained forty days with them, and what He did while He was here. It is said, “concerning all things which Jesus began both to do and to teach, until that day in which, having by the Holy Spirit charged the apostles whom he had chosen, he was taken up; to whom also he presented himself living, after he had suffered, with many proofs; being seen by them during forty days, and speaking of the things which concern the kingdom of God; and being assembled with them”. All this must have been in the Lord’s mind as necessary preparatory work and the fact now is that such preparatory work is necessary in order to prepare us for the Spirit at the present time.
RMcK When the Lord says in John 14, “if ye love me keep my commandments. And I will beg the Father, and he will give you another Comforter”, is the Lord there taking account of something existing before the Spirit is [p. 163] come?
JT Quite so. These things are necessary, and the Lord was working in order to affect them individually, but they were very slow in learning and, of course, we all are.
HKR Would the last two verses in Luke’s gospel refer to the effects of the forty days that He remained with them? “And they, having done him homage, returned to Jerusalem with great joy, and were continually in the temple praising and blessing God”. Does this suggest that the ignorance and darkness had in some measure been removed?
JT The end of Luke happily corresponds with the beginning of Acts. The Lord Jesus went up from Bethany, we are told in the end of Luke, and as we have remarked, it appears as if the Lord intended to go up that very day, but He did not. Luke is led of the Spirit to write the Acts, so that the whole matter should be clarified, and that the assembly’s structural formation should be rightly understood; the gospels in themselves did not give the full thought. It reminds us of much that may be thought over and meditated upon as to what is written, and how men were to write, by the Spirit of God, what they were intended to write, and afterwards how they may have thought over it. The Lord helped Luke to write another treatise so that we have the full thought that enters into the formation of the structure of the assembly.
JB Does the necessity for another apostle, in view of completeness, indicate in a way that they had apprehended the reason for the extension of the ten days?
JT There must be the twelve, although the Lord did not tell them to provide another. That only indicates what we were saying, that they were steadily improving even before the Spirit came. The sense that the twelve should be complete arose from themselves, and so we find in verse 15, that “[p. 164] Peter, standing up in the midst of the brethren, said, (the crowd of names who were together was about a hundred and twenty,) Brethren, it was necessary that the scripture should have been fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke before, by the mouth of David, concerning Judas”. Clearly there was progress in the disciples and apostles, before the Spirit came, showing that in themselves, the work of God is capable of this even before the Spirit is received. I have thought of it several times, and I hope the brethren will not think that I am merely repeating, but I am speaking of it because I know that there is much abroad about new birth, and the idea that things take place at once, simultaneously or automatically, but they do not; the work of God must take place of itself. Of course, the Spirit’s work is the work of God too, but I am speaking now of God’s work sovereignly by the Spirit as over against the work of the Spirit as indwelling the believer. There is something there that progresses of itself, so that a certain state is brought about to prepare us for the Holy Spirit.
Rem You are stressing that the Lord did not stay with them the whole fifty days.
JT He stayed forty days, and we can see from the facts that we have here, that He did certain things during those days.
JL Is your thought that God sovereignly begins anew in a soul, and if there is to be any progress or development, the Holy Spirit is necessary?
JT Yes, there may be development before, because this chapter indicates improvements on what marked the disciples at the endings of the gospels, and it is to emphasise what the work of God is in itself. On the other hand, those who have not the Spirit should become exercised so as to be sure to have Him, because if they do not, they will never [p. 165] make any definite headway according to the mind of God.
Ques By what means is this work of God accomplished?
JT Well, the work that we are speaking of, of course, begins with new birth, but we are to distinguish that from the Spirit as come, and how He operates in the soul of a believer after He is received.
DF Does Nicodemus afford us an example of what is before you? The Lord speaking to him at first says, “Except any one be born anew he cannot see the kingdom of God”, and the footnote there (in the Darby Translation) says, ‘It is a new source and beginning of life’.
JT Well, that is important, and what the Lord adds to that is in agreement with what we have been saying, and it ought to be clear. In verse 5 we read, “Except any one be born of water and of Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God”. The idea of entering is an increase on seeing.
Ques Does entering involve enjoyment of the position, whereas seeing would be apprehension; new birth giving one the ability for this?
JT Quite so. What He is dealing with is new birth, not the gospel, in the third chapter of John’s gospel.
HMcL What is meant by being “sealed with the Holy Spirit”, in Ephesians 1: 13, and when does that take place?
JT That takes place when the Holy Spirit comes into the believer, when He is received. So that we read in 2 Corinthians 1, “Now he that establishes us with you in Christ, and has anointed us, is God, who also has sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts”. There are three things, the anointing, the sealing, and the earnest in [p. 166] the heart.
GD The movement is very quick with Cornelius and his company. Would you suggest that Cornelius sets forth one who was good material?
JT Yes, he was already born anew. He was already recognised in heaven as having built up a memorial before he had the Spirit, and so while Peter is speaking to the company in his house, the Holy Spirit fell upon them before Peter stopped speaking; this shows how ready the Spirit was to come into persons to seal them who were ready for Him.
FI You were speaking last evening as to being born of God. What relation has that to new birth and the reception of the Spirit?
JT I would think that the reception of the Spirit implies that the receivers were born of God, but the new birth does not go so far as being born of God. I am going by the words of the Lord. Jesus; He said that unless anyone be born again, or born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Ques How far does the Lord’s statement to Nicodemus go, “born of water and of Spirit”? Would you say that the one involves the kingdom and the other the assembly?
JT It is just enlargement of what He had said. I do not think either involves the assembly.
RB Does the reception of the Holy Spirit involve the assembly?
JT The reception of the Holy Spirit does involve the assembly, but then we have spoken of two things, “born anew” and “born of water and of Spirit”. This latter is an increase on “born anew”, and it shows that the work of God itself progresses.
Ques Is new birth entirely sovereign in the way of the work of God, or do you allow the idea of responsibility in it?
JT I would say it is entirely the sovereignty of God by the Spirit; if the word sovereign means anything,
[p. 167] it means that. You do not preach to people to be born anew. What you do say to them is, “Ye must be born again”. That is to say, the thing must happen, and it is a sovereign act of God when it does happen.
AR Would you present it to people’s responsibility that they must be born again?
JT I certainly should, especially if they are religious. If you were speaking to a number of religious persons, who depend on their own good works, would you not say to them, “Ye must be born again”? I would say that the Lord implies in the way He speaks to Nicodemus, that Nicodemus himself was born again. “But there was a man from among the Pharisees, his name Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews; he came to him by night, and said to him, Rabbi”.
Rem John says that the Lord did not commit Himself to men, for He knew what was in man. “But there was a man”; the ‘but’ implies that Nicodemus was the subject of new birth.
JT Quite so.
HKR Does the sovereign action come in in John 3: 8, “the wind bloweth where it listeth”?
JT I would say that shows the sovereign action. You cannot explain it; no natural man can explain it, “so is everyone that is born of the Spirit”.
Ques Of one of the scribes in Mark 12, who conversed with the Lord as to the commandments, we are told that “Jesus, seeing that he had answered intelligently, said to him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God”. Would that show the work of God?
JT That is a good illustration of the work of God, and there are such. Very little can be said about them, but there is something by which you can discern that the work of God is taking place in them, and I believe that is what the Lord meant.
[p. 168] The Lord saw that he answered intelligently. That is the word Paul applies to those of us who partake of the Lord’s supper; “I speak as to intelligent persons”.
GL They said, “Thou Lord, knower of the hearts of all”, Acts 1: 24. Would that have in mind what would develop as the work of God progressed?
JT Just so. God knows what is going on in our hearts.
I think we should now go on to verse 21; “It is necessary therefore, that of the men who have assembled with us all the time in which the Lord Jesus came in and went out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day in which he was taken up from us, one of these should be a witness with us of his resurrection”. Now this shows remarkable intelligence in Peter. He knows that an apostle is to be selected, and he is to be one who is conversant with the Lord’s life, His ways and ministry from the baptism of John until He was taken up. It is remarkable that Peter had that intelligence at this point, and so it is said, “And they appointed two, Joseph, who was called Barsabas, who had been surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed, and said, Thou Lord, knower of the hearts of all, shew which one of these two thou hast chosen, to receive the lot of this service and apostleship, from which Judas transgressing fell to go to his own place. And they Gave lots on them, and the lot fell on Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles”. That shows that heaven intervened and supported what they were doing, but they were doing it, showing that the work of God in them was progressing.
P Peter skilfully brings in the quotation from Psalm 69.
JT Quite so. The Lord Himself had instructed him. He opened their understandings in view of [p. 169] telling them how the gospel should be proclaimed, that repentance and remission of sins should be proclaimed to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
WS They chose two, who were suitable as far as they could discern, but the Lord’s choice is final.
JT They gave lots on them, and the lot fell on Matthias. It was the Old Testament way, but it was honoured for the Lord Himself indicated by it His choice of Matthias for the position; so it is said later that He appeared to the twelve, meaning that Matthias was among them.
HKR One is impressed in regard to the basic thought you have been bringing before us, and the importance of the names. Does the work of God in the soul call for a name being put upon it, especially in the light of things at the present day?
JT Well, what you say is right. What we have said already about Peter refers to that. John says, “thou shalt be called Cephas”. Matthew says, “thou art Peter”, meaning that he was the thing, not called Peter. That is important, that we are what we say we are.