THE UNITY OF THE SPIRIT
[p. 354] THE UNITY OF THE SPIRIT
Ephesians 4: 1 - 3; Numbers 7: 10 - 17; Acts 4: 36,37; Acts 11: 19 - 30; Acts 13: 1 - 3; Acts 15: 1 - 4
I have been exercised in regard to this meeting to speak a little about the unity of the Spirit, and in thinking it over, it appears to me that in Scripture it is connected with the thought of princes. The unity of the Spirit is a universal thought. You may recall the word in Psalm 45: 16 in regard to the saints: “whom thou mayest make princes in all the earth”; without a goodly distribution of princes universally, we can scarcely look for the unity of the Spirit, in fact we shall be little better than nonconformist communities, which means that we are non-catholic and in a great measure local independencies. Hence the importance, as I have said, of a goodly distribution of princes according to God abroad among the saints. The means of establishing princes is here on earth; and the psalm I refer to indicates that it is a divine thought that they should be in all the earth, which means a general or universal distribution. The Levites of old as a Levitical family were to be distributed throughout the land for the same reason, that there should be an equalisation and a generalisation of heavenly influence, so that the same traits, the same feelings, and the same sympathies should mark all the people of God.
The idea of princes is very old, and you will remember that it is first set out in Jacob. As he was on his way back from Padan-aram God met him, and said that his name henceforth would be Israel, which means ‘prince of God’; and there can be no princely state or dignity apart from a transaction with God. The power of lifting up is with Him; it is He who makes princes, lifting up the beggar from the dunghill and setting him amongst princes; so that we have the idea set out in Jacob, and once an idea is presented in Scripture,
[p. 355] it is never lost sight of, it is carried through. We find in Numbers that it shows itself in the way of unity: the twelve princes in Israel were all governed by the same estimate, typically, of Christ.
I hope to work out these thoughts in the passages in the Acts; but at the outset, I want to make it clear how the princely feature shows itself in the wilderness. I refer now to Numbers 7. These twelve men, it says, came forward and offered on the day that the tabernacle was set up and anointed. They had the altar particularly in view; but first, they came forward with their offering for the Levites, for the first evidence of princely means will appear in the way in which the Levites are provided for. But I am not concerned, for the moment, with the provision for the Levites, but with the unity that marked those who made the provision. There were the covered waggons, as you will remember, six of them, each one offered by two princes, two are always better than one, and certainly this is so in the expression of love. Two would convey the idea of unity in principle, so that however reduced the people of God may be, we have the means, if there are but two of the assembly, of exhibiting the idea. We can never hope to present now the complete thought of anything, but what we may do is, we may present the thing in the principle of it, and we may do that even if there are only two of us according to Matthew 18. The covered waggons (notice that they were covered), were to provide for the comfort of the Levites, they were in view of that; the Levites had to be considered, and we must not assume that anything will do for them.
Certainly if we think of them in regard to God and what they presented to Him, anything would not do; they were particular as to what they presented; they were not to present the fag end, but their very best. So we must ever remember that anything will not do; the comfort of the Levites has to be taken into account,
[p. 356] and so the waggons were covered. I only just touch on that.
I want now to point out briefly how the princely feature shows itself in the dedication of the altar; it is one of the finest features in the book of Numbers, because the altar itself has to be taken account of as distinct from what is presented on it. The fire was to be kept burning continually there. It had been anointed seven times; it stood out therefore as the most distinct of the more public appurtenances of the tabernacle. It was a public thing, and referred to the fulness of suffering in Christ; and the princes came to light in this chapter as taking account of that; that is, that the position they occupied had involved suffering. The greatest ‘prince’ in our dispensation wished to fill up that which was behind of the tribulations of Christ in his flesh for His body’s sake, which is the assembly (Colossians 1: 24). He was not passing things on, although he called upon others to suffer as a matter of privilege, he himself led the way.
Now in Numbers 7 what we find is that these men offered three vessels, all of them filled; signifying that they themselves typically were filled with the things that the types represent. Two vessels were of silver, and the third was of gold; the weight of one silver vessel was one hundred and thirty shekels, and that of the other seventy shekels, but they were both full; and then the vessel of gold was filled with incense. The first two vessels full of fine flour point to a great apprehension by the believer of the humanity of Christ; the apprehension of what is set forth in the fine flour mingled with oil, would become material for unity; but the incense was for the delight of God. It was contained in the smaller vessel, the golden spoon; it is what is presented to God, and it is in a convenient vessel, for what is to be presented to God is not in great bulk; indeed, whilst Scripture makes much of bulk for the priests and the people, the general idea is quality [p. 357] and not quantity. So that we have the golden spoon, a small vessel filled with that which is most precious, for if you speak to God, the point is not amount but quality. You are to pray with the spirit, but you are to pray with the understanding also; your spirit may be full of things, but your understanding qualifies and limits what you say, so that you present something definite that God can accept and which is a delight to Him; the incense was in a golden vessel. We do not worship simply as redeemed; but as redeemed, we are to become worshippers, that is, vessels filled with Christ. We are not redeemed to live as men and women in the flesh; the vessels of silver are filled with fine flour mingled with oil. Therefore, if we are redeemed, we are to be full of Christ viewed in the perfection of His humanity here; it is “Jesus Christ”, as mentioned in the first part of Romans. It is Jesus Christ, meaning that kind of man, that is, the Man who did God’s will, the kind of man that was brought here in Him, The first two vessels are full of that, fine flour mingled with oil, the perfect, holy humanity of Christ, energised by the Spirit. The gold refers to the divine nature.
Besides these vessels the princes offered sacrifices. The offerings all taken together denote youthful maturity; some are spoken of as a year old, “one yearling lamb”; others denote maturity, “one ram”, but taken together they indicate that while these princes were in youthful energy, they were not babes. The Corinthians were babes; they could not conform to order like this. This belongs to the epistle to the Ephesians, and denotes appreciation in man according to Christ; it is humanity altogether above petty feelings, resentment, and rivalries; it is maturity, but maturity in energy, as I may call it, youthful maturity. You will find in Scripture that those whom the Spirit of God employs are generally taken up as young men; the great need is always for young men, but young men developed and marked by maturity, those who are full-grown.
[p. 358] Now having said so much about princes characteristically, I want to show how these thoughts worked out in the Acts, because the Acts may be regarded not as a code for us, but as a book of precedents. We see there how things were worked out in persons; and I wish to connect the thought of unity in Acts, first with the work of God; secondly with the universal need, or need anywhere amongst the people of God; then with the service of God; and finally with the maintenance of doctrine, or right principles universally.
Barnabas may be taken as a typical ‘prince’ of the New Testament. As I said, Scripture never loses sight of anything that has been introduced, and as the great princely idea is introduced in Jacob, so it is followed up in the Old Testament and in the New. Barnabas comes on the scene in a princely way; in no sense did he appear as a liability on the company; he was an immense asset to the company, as a prince would be, and always is. Hence, the apostles were quick to discern it, and gave him his title, for every prince should have a title.
They surnamed him “Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation)”, Acts 4: 36. They were glad to see him; he appeared at an opportune time; he had lands, it says, and sold them. He did not give them away, he did not leave them, but exercised right judgment in the matter, for the more spiritual a man is, the more practical he is, and the less likely he is to be extreme or abnormal.
So he did not leave his lands, and say they were of no value. They were of value, and he sold them, having in view that the price should be for the furtherance of the interests of God. He thus qualified as a prince; he brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet. In doing so he recognised authority, he recognised the representatives of Christ, he looked upon the apostles as trustworthy; and I can understand him saying to himself, ‘These are men that can be trusted; Christ [p. 359] has entrusted them with things infinitely greater than this bit of money that I have got for my land’.
Trustworthiness is one feature of the apostles, they are marked off in that way; and Barnabas recognised that they were so, and he could therefore entrust them with the money. There can be no assembly, no representation of the assembly, unless there is confidence, unless I have a sense that these are men that I can trust; and I cannot trust any one save those whom Christ trusts; for He is a better judge than I am. It is thus that the Lord entrusts His things to certain ones, and these things are infinitely greater than anything we have. Barnabas recognised that; he recognised divinely delegated authority, so he laid the money at the feet of the apostles. It is an expression of humility, but of marked wisdom and discernment, as to what would be fitting at that time; and so he gets his title. We can therefore regard Barnabas as a representative prince, and he was such. Scripture does not need to bring them all forward, here is one, and he has “his day”.
You will remember in Numbers 7, that when the princes proposed to dedicate the altar, Jehovah says to Moses, referring to the presentation of their offerings, “each prince on his day” (verse 11). Each of you may depend upon it, that God will give you your day; much may enter into that day, and much depends upon how you may behave yourself in it. That each prince should have his day was the divine proposition, not that of Moses; God would have all there is in each of us. Each prince’s dedication offering is spread out; and although each one offered the same as the others, they are all mentioned severally.
God delights to spread out what we have to offer, and to make the most of it; it is for His pleasure.
In the case of the covered wagons, Jehovah says, “Take it of them”, and He told Moses what to do with them; but when you come to the dedication of the [p. 360] altar, the position is, as I said, that each prince has his day. The offerer is in the presence of God, where everything is naked and exposed; the hidden motives behind your offerings are perfectly known. Barnabas led the way and had his day; Ananias and Sapphira — would-be princes — come next; they have their day, but how do they figure in it? A terrible picture they present! “Why has Satan filled thy heart that thou shouldest lie to the Holy Spirit?” Acts 5: 3. They had sold their lands, and pretended that they had brought the money, but they had kept back part; they had not brought it all. A terrible breakdown in would-be princes! Alas! the coasts are strewn with persons who would be princes of the congregation, but who keep back part of their wealth and lie to the Holy Spirit. Is God mocked? Not at all; they have had their day, but they were exposed; God had no delight in their offering. Nor has He any pleasure in half-hearted people, nor any pleasure in those who lie; they will be put to the test. Ananias and Sapphira lied to try and cover themselves, but to no avail; they were exposed, and came under the judgment of God. I need not go into the terrible results in Acts 5, what I am occupied with is the prince that God brings forward early in the Acts, Barnabas. We hear nothing of him again until the time arrives for him to shine; he is qualified as a prince, he has been given his title, but in chapter 11 the time has come for him to show his princely qualities; he becomes a representative of Jerusalem at Antioch.
I want you to note that I am speaking of the unity of the Spirit; the work of God had taken effect outside of Jerusalem, for God is sovereign; He works where He will, and by whom He will, and it is for us to recognise the unity as to His operations. The danger was that Jerusalem would take offence, for they had no part in this movement. The apostles were in Jerusalem, the Holy Spirit had come down there, and yet here is a work of God apart from Jerusalem in which the apostles [p. 361] had no part. A few scattered christians going down to Antioch had preached the gospel there and got converts. What is Jerusalem going to do? What should we do? A work of God may take place near by us and we have no part in it; God is working without us. What are we going to do about it? Jerusalem is equal to the test; they select Barnabas to go as far as Antioch — it is a fine expression of the endeavour to keep the unity of the Spirit. They had already given Barnabas his title, and now they send him forth as representing them. Does he go down to Antioch as an ecclesiastical representative, as Saul had done earlier to Damascus with letters from the high priest? Barnabas had no such letters; he goes down to Antioch and seeing the grace of God he rejoiced. Jerusalem, under God, had selected the right man, and they in this way maintained the unity of the Spirit in the uniting bond of peace. The work at Antioch was thus linked up livingly with Jerusalem, and there was no rivalry; Ephraim, on the one hand, does not envy Judah, nor does Judah vex Ephraim. Thus the work of God prospered, and there was a spiritual link between the two places; and then the Holy Spirit tells us what kind of man Barnabas was, confirming his title — “he was a good man and full of the Holy Spirit and of faith” Acts 11: 24, that is, he was a prince of God.
The next great feature that comes out in Barnabas is his personal freedom from rivalry; he sought to share the work with another. Had he been occupied with his own glory, he would have kept it himself, but he goes to Tarsus to seek out Saul. He had already become acquainted with him as he had previously introduced him at Jerusalem, and so he knew him (Acts 9: 27). You see how free from jealousy he was; he sought out Saul and brought him down to Antioch, and he and Saul work together in the assembly there. These two spiritual princes, as they indeed were, work together for the promotion of the interests of God at Antioch; they work there for a year, and so distinguished was the [p. 362] work, that the disciples were first called christians there; they were given a universal name. It was a dignified name, meaning that they belonged to the Anointed of God, the Nazarene: “Jesus who was of Nazareth: how God anointed him” Acts 10: 38. The Nazarene carries reproach, but we never give that up, we never deny our relation to the Nazarene, but alongside the reproach there is the dignity connected with the name christian, and that feature of the saints came to light where these two great men served for a whole year; God gave them their day and they shone in it.
I come now to the close of chapter 11: universal need existed, and Jerusalem is in view as in the mind of God. Certain prophets came down from Jerusalem, for it was no doubt the most spiritual assembly at the time. It had its Barnabas, its Peter, its James, and it also had its prophets, men who had the mind of God, and these came down to Antioch. The mind of God is thus brought to the assembly there, and one from among the prophets, named Agabus, announced that there should be universal famine. Now that announcement brought other princes to light, disciples who had ability to send relief.
This passage treats of men who have a liberal spirit, and who possessed material things. We must not be radical; a man may be great spiritually, and yet possess material things and use them for the benefit of the saints. We must not despise material things. Why should a universal famine come? Why should it be foretold? That the needs should be met, doubtless, but also to bring to light what there was at Antioch; God loving to bring out what was there. The assembly there had become enriched through the example of Barnabas and Saul. Others were there, men of means; we do not know how many. I could understand Barnabas saying, ‘I was a rich man, and I laid all the money at the apostles’ feet’, but he could not ask them to do it. It was not for him to ask them to do it, but the men of [p. 363] princely spirit came forward, those who had means, and they gave the money, indeed they “determined” to give it (verse 29). It is a great thing to resolve in your heart to act in love and for the relief or blessing of others. What you are doing is material, but your motives are spiritual, and God accepts your offering. A man is accepted in this connection according to what he has, and so it says they determined to do it and they did it, and sent their offering by the hand of these two great men — Barnabas and Saul — to the saints at Jerusalem. There again, we see the unity of the Spirit is promoted and maintained in connection with need amongst the people of God. I have no doubt that the late war afforded an occasion for the expression of love in the people of God, in the distribution of means to meet the need of their brethren in other lands; it provided opportunity to maintain and promote the unity of the Spirit in the uniting bond of peace.
Now the next great feature is in the selection of servants; I refer to chapter 13. Antioch had developed, it was ripe, as it were, for the Holy Spirit to operate sovereignly in connection with it. The city itself had an important place in relation to the grecian world. You see in the chapter the value of a company rightly composed; there were leading brothers and the Holy Spirit gives a list of them to us, for He now intends to use Antioch in connection with service in the gospel; He intends to make that assembly a sort of base for great operations, an immense thought to lay hold of. The Lord had a company so under His hand, that He could use them in the promotion of His work as a sort of base; and so it says, after giving their names, that they were ministering to the Lord and fasting. They were there, a credit to that assembly, and the Holy Spirit says, “Separate me now” Acts 13: 2. The Spirit is operating, and again He would maintain the unity in what He was doing, for in sending out Barnabas and Saul He would have the assembly with Him. It is a poor thing if [p. 364] there is not unity as to the servants of the Lord, but one set over against another, as at Corinth.
These men were going out as missionaries amongst the Gentiles, and they must have the fellowship of the saints, otherwise their rear would be unprotected. The lines of communication are to be maintained; hence the Spirit says, “Separate me now Barnabas and Saul” Acts 13: 2. The Holy Spirit asked the saints to do that, because He wanted to have them in the unity of the Spirit. The way of God is to keep us all moving on in what He is doing, and to be sympathetically in it. If the Holy Spirit has made a selection, they could not say that they had no hand in it, nor did the Holy Spirit intend them to say it. He intended them to do what they did, that is, they fasted, and what I understand by that is, that if I am going to be interested and have part in the work of God, I am not to have any natural feelings in regard to those who serve — natural likings are to be denied. I am to have no favourite servants; and if I fast, I shall have none. If a brother can entertain well, I may like him naturally, but that has to be denied; I have to come to what the Holy Spirit is doing.
Why did the Holy Spirit select these two men? He knew why; it was not because of any natural qualities, but they had proved themselves, they had had their day, and you see them in Antioch for a whole year, proving themselves trustworthy men. He selected them for His own sovereign reason. I have no doubt the presence of the Spirit here has reference to divine, intimate knowledge; God sees everything, and knows everything, but the presence of the Spirit implies His own intimate knowledge of everything, and He is operating according to that. Yet He says, “Separate me now” Acts 13: 2 — He would not act in this way apart from the saints; the dispensation of God is in faith. God is operating house-wise in connection with His people, and He would have His people with Him in all that He is doing; so they fast, they deny what is natural, then [p. 365] they pray, and then they lay their hands on these two men, and they release them — they “let them go” Acts 13: 3. They were no encumbrance to them, they valued them, and it was a sacrifice to let them go; they did not send them away, they released them, they “let them go”. Sending away is what the Holy Spirit does; He sends them forth. We love our brethren who serve, but we are ready to sacrifice them for God. Gift is never local, it is universal; the Lord had need of them. The Spirit says, “Separate me now Barnabas and Saul” Acts 13: 2, and “having laid their hands on them, they let them go” Acts 13: 3. The saints at Antioch are thus committed to Barnabas and Saul, in the service the Holy Spirit was entrusting to them.
Now a final word in regard of the unity of the Spirit in reference to doctrine or general principles — principles of a general bearing; for in connection with these, the unity of the Spirit is maintained in a remarkable way. One of the most fruitful causes of divisions, breaking up the unity of the Spirit, is persons saying perverted things, desiring a following, and wanting disciples. In this instance (Acts 15) it was the corrupting power of Satan at Antioch, bringing in circumcision and the law of Moses. There was much discussion with the persons from Judaea who taught this, on the part of Paul and Barnabas, which was right; but a commotion having taken place, it was arranged that they should go up to Jerusalem. This is an antidote to undue localism. If a matter of discipline arises that is purely local and which requires priestly discernment, it belongs to the brethren locally, and should be left to them; the unity of the Spirit requires that it should be left to them. Certainly we can trust them, for the Lord has trusted them, and we can do so. But if it be a question of principles, or doctrine, then it is no longer local, it is general, and no one should then be trammelled with localism: you want all the light there is available, in these matters. The advice of the most capable, of the [p. 366] most godly, and of the most gifted is needed; in a word, we want all the help available.
Gifts are set in the assembly, but they are not local, they belong to the whole assembly; so the Lord has the right to use them wherever He pleases, and no one can interfere with His sovereign rights. In this case those who were spiritual, who were free from localism, say, we shall go and make enquiries of our brethren elsewhere. There are brethren who have been long on the way, men who have experience with God; there are apostles and elders at Jerusalem. That there are none such now, I need not say, but there are men who have experience with God, who have ability, who have gift, who have knowledge, and they belong to us all. Remember all are ours, “Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas ... all are yours” 1 Corinthians 3: 22; use them; why should we not use them if they are ours? We need them; they are a divine provision.
Moreover, in using them we maintain the unity of the Spirit and we avoid the appearance of undue localism and independency. It is a question of what God has placed in the assembly, therefore why not use it? I am not dealing with other thoughts, I am just dealing with this one point, the unity of the Spirit in connection with doctrine and general principles; so that we should take advantage of all there is. Paul and Barnabas go up to Jerusalem, and they were set on their way by the assembly. Splendid augury for peace! They were set on their way by the assembly, and going up to Jerusalem they caused “great joy to all the brethren” Acts 15: 3 on the way, establishing the hearts of the saints, and thus the unity of the Spirit was maintained in the uniting bond of peace. When they arrived at Jerusalem, the assembly received them; under such conditions there could not but be good results. The assembly, with the apostles and elders, received them with confidence, and the result is most satisfactory; instead of division, which the enemy was aiming at in Jerusalem [p. 367] and Antioch, there was peace — the establishing and maintenance of peace, and thus the unity of the Spirit was kept in the uniting bond of peace.
May the Lord bless His word.