THE HOLY SPIRIT IN ACTS (NO. 2)
[p. 60] THE HOLY SPIRIT IN ACTS (NO. 2)
Acts 2:1-14; Acts 2:33; Acts 4: 31 - 33
JT What is before us is the subject of the Spirit and what flows from His presence here — among other things intelligent spirituality, as that which is invulnerable and indestructible. It might help to call to mind the first book of Samuel, in which, after Samuel’s official ministry, he is rejected by those whom he had served so faithfully, and in his rejection Jehovah likewise was rejected. But it is said of him, that he judged Israel all the days of his life, and as Saul was in power and actuated by murderous opposition to David, the Lord’s anointed, a spiritual system came into evidence. It says that Samuel was presiding over the prophets at Naioth; although he was not now over the nation, he was presiding over the prophets, and there was a prophetic ministry proceeding which effectively neutralised the opposition, so that even Saul himself is overpowered by it (1 Samuel 19: 19 - 24). That may be taken, I think, to indicate what exists; whatever may be current publicly, and whatever the opposition, the spiritual system holds, and must hold, not only negatively but positively, so that the opposition is neutralised. I thought if we had that before us it might help; it is not simply a question of the doctrine of the Spirit coming down, but the effect of His presence. We have certain great initial features of His presence, and these must ever be looked for.
CAC That is, you would look for the feast of Pentecost as a continuing thing today. Was that in your mind?
JT Yes; it says it “was now accomplishing”, not that it “was accomplished”. According to Deuteronomy 16: 9 - 11 there is no limitation to the feast of Pentecost.
[p. 61] Other feasts in that chapter are limited by days, but not Pentecost.
Ques Were you using the rejection of Samuel, and of Jehovah through Samuel, as typical of Israel’s rejection of the Lord — and the power of the Spirit in prophecy, as suggestive of the power of the Spirit in the early chapters of Acts?
JT That is evident; although rejected and unseen, He is still ruling. Samuel was out of view, but he was presiding over the prophets, which we may regard as a spiritual system.
MWB So here it says, “he has poured out this which ye behold and hear” (Acts 2: 33). The Lord was in command.
JT That is what I thought, and that will hold right through. There will always be the principle of rejection against what David and Samuel represented. Against Paul there was that principle, but still he was dominant spiritually, and the most spiritual and profound parts of his ministry came out under those circumstances.
WJH Would you say that this is confirmed in the Lord’s acceptance of the name “Jesus of Nazareth”? When approaching Saul of Tarsus He says, “I am Jesus of Nazareth” Acts 22: 8. He is still rejected, but He sends Ananias; He has the whole divine system under His control. He does not say “I was Jesus of Nazareth”, but “I am”. It is the public position which the Lord accepts, though in heaven.
JT The character of the religious Jewish opposition runs through. The Lord refers to it in the address to Philadelphia; He speaks of “them of the synagogue of Satan who say that they are Jews, and are not” Revelation 3: 9. That is the sort of thing that would appear, but the spiritual system runs on and dominates. Christ has supreme control. He has the key of David, and the keys of hell and of death.
PL “I have set before thee an opened door” Revelation 3: 8. Is that the Lord in control of all?
JT It is. “Because thou hast a little power” Revelation 3: 8 — the spiritual power is contemplated as here. That is, He does not set an opened door before people who have no power to go in. It is a question of power. If the spiritual element is present, the door will be opened.
CAC Then “thou hast a little power” is not exactly reproach, but the recognition of the quality that was there.
JT I thought that. It says, “behold, I have set before thee an opened door ... because thou hast a little power, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name” (Revelation 3: 8). That is to say, the Lord acted in relation to what existed. Thus in looking to the Lord in our prayer meetings, what is to be remembered is that what He does, is according to the power which works in us. It is not that something else is brought in.
CAC That would directly raise the question of spirituality; the power would hardly work in unspiritual persons.
LM “God has not given us a spirit of cowardice, but of power, and of love, and of wise discretion” (2 Timothy 1: 7). Would that correspond with what you are saying?
JT It would. The Holy Spirit being here, the great spiritual system exists. The president, so to speak, is out of sight. Samuel was rejected but he was in power; he did not take a superannuated position or a position of inactivity because he was rejected. He carried on this great spiritual service, and it was greater than Saul. I do not know of anything in a way more comforting. Christ being at the right hand of God makes it evident that He has all power, but the “all power” is here, and in relation to a system that is incessant in its activities, and tends to neutralise evil, so that a way is made for the people of God. In that connection you find that Jonathan helps David and so does Michal. There are, so to speak, these external [p. 63] governmental things, but the definite help and overthrow of the opposition, was in this spiritual system. Saul came down full of murderous opposition to David, but coming within the range of this spiritual feature, he came under its power and could do nothing; in fact, he prophesied himself.
CAC We are apt to think, that the spiritual system is somewhat deteriorated on account of public conditions.
JT I think it is a great thing to realise that the spiritual system exists; it is a solid rock for us. Power is at the right hand of God in Christ, but it is here, and here in an organised way. It says that Samuel was presiding over the prophets. It was not simply a college or a school of prophets, they were actually prophesying. There was power there, so that even Saul was overcome by it.
LM Are you looking at Samuel as a type of the Lord, or as a spiritual man in power?
JT Well, it is the general thought of an organised order of things; he was presiding. Undoubtedly it would be the Lord in a spiritual way, rejected and hidden, though well known to the spiritual. David fled to Samuel as if he knew instinctively that protection was to be found with him.
Ques Do you get the same thought in “having come, he will bring demonstration to the world, of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment” (John 16: 8).
JT That is what you get in this chapter. When the Spirit came, He brought in evidence of these things, so that everything is put in its place. Not only is a clear perspective given as in the Lord’s sermon on the mount (Matthew 5), but there is power. It cannot be gainsaid. That is what is called attention to; first of all (Acts 2: 1) you have the feast accomplishing, which we ought to notice. There is no time limit, whether it be the whole dispensation or access into eternity, it is not limited. Then you have the house filled with the sound, and the other features of the Spirit’s coming. Then there is the general result, that they “began to speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave them to speak forth” Acts 2: 4. There is not yet any mention of gift. I think the passage would remind us of the importance of all being present in the meetings. “When the day of Pentecost was now accomplishing, they were all together”. Acts 2: 1. We do not know what we may miss if we are not there. It is the time of the feast. If one is absent from any of the meetings he may miss something that may never happen again. There is not only the general thought, but “it sat upon each of them” Acts 2: 3. There would be loss if any were absent. But then it says that they were all filled; that is to say, we have the inauguration of the great spiritual system. Then they “began to speak with other tongues” Acts 2: 4; it is in keeping with the general position. First, the feast was “now accomplishing”, and now, “they ... began”. It was to go on. Then you have the effect of this, the kind of thing that results from the general condition in a gathering, is a “rumour” (Acts 2: 6). It is not yet the preaching, but a rumour, showing how things move. The rumour brings the congregation together, so to speak. Then we have the great Levitical principle whereby the light of all this is to be radiated; it is in vessels divinely qualified, numbering twelve. But they are not all speaking; only one speaks, indicating the additional principle of leadership. The conditions for it are there, and leadership is introduced in a man who is not hesitant; he speaks forth. He does not begin with those that are favourable, but with the opposers, as it says in Acts 2: 13, “others mocking said”. Peter refers to them; he “lifted up his voice and spoke forth to them, Men of Judaea ... give heed to my words” Acts 2: 14. That is to say, you have a state of things marked by a general spiritual condition, in which each one has part; then they begin to speak and a rumour goes out, so that interest is aroused; and then there is the exercise of gift. It says that Peter stood up, “with the eleven” Acts 2: 14,
[p. 65] and he speaks with authority. He lifted up his voice and said, “give heed to my words” Acts 2: 14.
AMH How would you apply the thought of general speaking now?
JT It would refer to what brothers and sisters do in meeting one another, and in meeting people casually, in going about their ordinary affairs, so that a rumour becomes current.
AMH So that in our ordinary contact with men we should call attention to Christ, and then bring interested persons within the range of testimony through gifted persons.
JT Yes. People speaking in spiritual power, and every one hears them in his own language. The speaking is concerning “the wonderful works of God” Acts 2: 11.
Ques Would that have the character of prophesying?
JT Well, a person speaking by the Spirit, whether it be a brother or a sister, would be a spiritual person. It says here that they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, so that it is a question of being spiritual, and then one’s conversation occasions interest, and a congregation is formed, not by printed notices — I am not speaking against these — but by persons speaking in a spiritual way of the things of God; and thus the rumour goes out.
CAC It is something like the distribution of the Spirit in 1 Corinthians 12, which seems to be general. The distribution is to “every man” and then afterwards you get some set in the assembly, apostles, prophets, and so forth. While you get distinctive and prominent gifts, there is the distribution generally in the company.
JT What is to be observed, is that we must not be content to leave the testimony with those who can speak with ability. The principle of anointing is in gift, having in view the representation of God. But here there is conversation, and it occasions a rumour, and the rumour occasions the bringing together of a congregation to hear. So that Peter has an advantage; the truth had already been heard by those to whom he [p. 66] preached. There was divine power in testimony, and he explains it in his preaching. But as far as we can see there is no one convicted, but there is this rumour and the people come together. The conviction was effected through Peter’s preaching (Acts 2: 37).
Ques Does not the general speaking seem to be used by the Lord to remove the governmental restrictions of Babel, so that the spiritual system is available to all men?
JT That is how it appears. “We hear them speaking in our own tongues the great things of God”. Acts 2: 11. It was a very great matter.
CAC The speaking to every man in his own tongue would be God coming nigh.
JT That is very touching.
WJH Is that not implied by the fact that the Spirit sat as cloven tongues as of fire on each of them? showing that every one was embraced in the ability to speak in a spiritual way.
JT In our day we have the privilege of travelling about, and this principle holds; you are able to speak and get to people where they are. They have not to come to you. No doubt these people could all understand the current dialect in Jerusalem, but the point was that God was speaking to them in their own language. They heard them speaking in their own tongues “the great things of God” Acts 2: 11.
MWB So that in the general speaking there was pre-eminently the idea of sympathy and nearness but in the public speaking more the power that accompanies the exercise of gift.
JT You can picture to yourself the scene at Jerusalem. Think of an ordinary Galilean coming into touch with an Arabian, and being able to tell him about the great things of God in his own language! How touching it would be to him! And that would be going on all around.
MWB It is a great exercise to keep the balance of true sympathy with men, and yet [p. 67] maintain holiness.
WJH How perfectly that is seen in Stephen! He was separate from all that marked the nation and condemned it; yet the spirit of profound sympathy filled his heart, so that it says he was full of the Holy Spirit (Acts 7: 55).
MWB Would you say that in Matthew’s gospel, in the line developed there, we have the spiritual system as overthrowing the world system, and in Luke sympathy with men as found in it?
JT That is right. Matthew contemplates a public organisation; he emphasises twos, but the Acts supplies that which would maintain this, that is the spiritual organisation. The public thing, of course, did break up, but what we are dealing with cannot break up, and that is an immense thing to get into our souls. But what I was thinking of particularly, were the inward features; which must appear more or less at all times where the Spirit is recognised, that is to say, the general sympathy with men and readiness to speak. A brother without gift would be conscious that he could not present the thing as one with gift might do it, for gift is in order that things should be presented in power; but these persons said enough to cause a rumour and general feeling of interest, and then there is opposition — mockers. Peter begins with them (Acts 2: 15). In Peter’s ministry there is authority. There is sure to be authority if the Holy Spirit is recognised. Rome of course arrogates it, and the whole clerical system assumes it, but here you see it in Peter. He “lifted up his voice and spoke forth to them, Men of Judaea ... give heed to my words” Acts 2: 14. The recognition of gift and authority brings in a ministry of universal bearing; gift has reference to the whole church, to the whole area of testimony.
LM What about the sons and daughters that prophesy (Acts 2: 17)?
JT That is the kind of thing that will come in in the millennium, but it is already seen here in character. The Holy Spirit comes on brothers and sisters alike;
[p. 68] that is what Peter explained to them; it was what Joel had prophesied.
Ques Would authority accompany all gift?
JT I think so. There is a great disregard of authority now in the world, even as to the governments. So the Lord would lay it upon us that it should be seen in the church, that the thing is there; if it is you cannot gainsay it. Think of a Galilean fisherman saying, “Men of Judaea, and all ye inhabitants of Jerusalem ... give heed to my words” Acts 2: 14. You might say, It is the word of God, but that is not what is said, it is “my words”. There is a man who has something to say; he has authority and there is no hope of the truth being maintained with us, unless this exists in some sense. Where the Holy Spirit is recognised, there will be authority.
Rem Where the Holy Spirit is free there is always something of a prophetic character going on.
JT Yes; and there will be gift. Of course spiritual gift is of universal bearing, so that Peter here speaks out to a large company. A man who has gift may not travel much, but his attitude should be universal.
AMH It says that “God has set certain in the assembly” (1 Corinthians 12: 28). That is the whole assembly I suppose. Do you connect the idea of authority with being “set”?
JT God’s authority is seen in the position each one has; you cannot disregard him. With Paul, for instance, no doubt many thought he was a poor speaker and they turned away, not from his doctrine, but from him. But as he says, “the Lord stood with me, and gave me power, that through me the proclamation might be fully made, and all those of the nations should hear” (2 Timothy 4: 17). Paul was “set” in the assembly, and whatever others thought of him, the Lord stood by him.
CAC Going on to Acts 4, I suppose you get the priestly side where the disciples resort to prayer (verse [p. 69] 24).
JT I thought we might see that after the great exhibition of gift and leadership and authority, supported by the presence of the Spirit come down from heaven, there is in chapter 3 the exhibition of quality in two persons, Peter and John. And then true leadership is seen in that it is not only that one can lift up his voice and speak with authority, but he goes before, involving suffering for the testimony. Leadership is not in the reading meeting only, or the preaching, or the writing of tracts, but in suffering, so that Peter and John suffer. The true principle of leadership is thus marked off, and then being let go, “they came to their own company” Acts 4: 23, which I think confirms what you say. There is that in connection with this great spiritual system which you can call your own. The idea that “they came to their own” is very precious. Then the prayer is mentioned, and the divine recognition of what was there — the place where they were assembled being shaken; then that they were all filled with the Holy Spirit. It is confirmation and renewal, because the first impulse of a movement is sure to wane, but sufferings bring in a state that God can recognise. It says, “They were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and spoke the word of God with boldness. And the heart and soul of the multitude of those that had believed were one ... all things were common to them; and with great power did the apostles give witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all” (Acts 4: 31 - 33). I thought we might note how in this confirmation or reassuring movement, the apostles that were in the lead, merge with the others, which is a wholesome thing. Merging with their own, the other ten come into recognition. The passage says, “With great power did the apostles give witness” Acts 4: 33. It is not simply Peter and John now.
LM What is there in the thought of the place being shaken?
JT Well, it is the place where they were assembled;
[p. 70] that is, it is not the idea of a building by itself. It is as if the place is distinguished by their being there.
CAC Is it not encouraging to see that it is the whole company who lift up their voice in prayer, that when it comes to the question of prayer the whole company is identified with it, as in full sympathy with the leaders. Chapter 1 mentions the whole company, and even particularly mentions the women. So here, when it is a matter of prayer, the whole company come in, for it is surely not a question of leaders or gift; we can all be fully identified sympathetically with the testimony.
JT That is, gift does not necessarily take precedence in the prayer meeting. It is a question of spiritual capacity and stature. That is very important; we are before God as priests in the meeting for prayer.
CCE Have you any thought as to the expression, “filled with the Holy Spirit”? It occurs four times in Luke, and the rest of the times in Luke’s second writing, except for once in Ephesians.
JT You feel that Ephesians brings the saints to the level of the gospels, and of course the early chapters of Acts too. Ephesians contemplates the full result of Paul’s service and ministry, and you get completeness, which would be in correspondence with what you have in the Acts and the gospels.
CAC Is not the thought rather suggestive of a vessel in which there is no element hindering the action of the Spirit?
JT That is very important. John says of the Lord Jesus that He was “full of grace and truth” John 1: 14, and I suppose the waterpots of stone would symbolise believers as filled up to the brim in view of what you say. God’s thought is that they should be filled. I think the idea of fulness here and in Ephesians, is to maintain the truth subjectively on the level of the gospels. It says, “They were all filled” Acts 2: 4. I think we may look for these features, God stirring us up and bringing about [p. 71] conditions through suffering, persecution, or whatever it may be, so that we seek “our own”. Service is sweet, because one serving by the Spirit will have joy, but there is a peculiar sweetness in one’s own. It says, “they came to their own” Acts 4: 23. We can understand how Peter and John and the man who had been healed, would nestle in the affections of “their own”.
MWB There is great restfulness in returning to and sitting down with the brethren.
JT And it is not simply that Peter or John would pray; it says “when they had prayed” Acts 4: 31. Priesthood belongs to all.
CCE It is in contrast to the hierarchical system, where the one who is to pray is designated.
WJH The family side is unknown in those conditions. “Their own” would suggest family affections and what is common to all; it is our own in the sense of those we love. It is very beautiful.
PL Would this answer to what Bethany was to Christ? “The hour being already late, he went out to Bethany with the twelve” (Mark 11:11).
JT It would; I am sure the Lord found great sweetness in Bethany.
MWB In connection with your remark as to God hating an empty vessel, have we not to be on our guard as to elements that would obstruct the filling with the Spirit? Along with remarkable light and increased privileges and fellowship, there is a constant danger of worldliness sapping the very life from us.
JT I am sure that is true. There is nothing more practical than being filled. Brothers and sisters come to the meetings without any sense of responsibility; they put it all on somebody else, and add nothing themselves. A person filled with the Spirit will add something.
GWW The measure in which you are not filled with the atmosphere of the spiritual, is the measure in which you will be filled with the atmosphere of the scene around. There cannot be emptiness.
Rem It says, “they shall not appear before Jehovah empty” (Deuteronomy 16: 16).
JT That is the idea. There will be no unfilled vessels in heaven.
MWB You were suggesting that the feast of Pentecost continues, that there is no time limit in relation to it. Do these spiritual conditions continue whatever the outward break-up of the church may be?
JT They do. Do you not think we realise it as coming together in various places? What a thing it is to be set for — the feast of Pentecost!
WJH Despite the conditions it says that Samuel was presiding over the prophets. So the Lord has not resigned His presidentship; He never will.
JT “Be filled with the Spirit”, is that your relations with God are on the principle of intelligence. Overflowing would involve loss. But this is a question of intelligence, of what I do with what I have. It is true that the water springs up, but the thought of overflow does not perhaps fully recognise the idea of intelligent control.
Overflow would mean that one has enough, that there is abundance. You have in Luke, “Good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over” (Luke 6: 38), which would mean the abundance that God gives, but when we come to God, I think the idea is intelligent control in what we are doing.
MWB So that in the assembly your remarks are not in ecstasy but in sobriety.
JT In the case of the woman in 2 Kings 4 the vessels were filled. The oil only stopped as the supply of the vessels stopped. There was no loss.
Rem Then at the wedding feast the Lord caused that the vessels should be filled (John 2).
JT Yes; they filled them to the brim, and then the Lord says, “Draw out”.