Back to sermon search

Full transcript

This session I would like to talk of three things in the first letter to the Corinthians. The question of the Lord's table, question of the Lord's Supper, question of the spiritual gifts. And the first of these is found in one Corinthians chapter ten. Perhaps we could read the context from verse fourteen. Wherefore, my bre- my beloved, flee from idolatry. I speak as to wise men, judge ye what I say. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a communion of the body of Christ? Seeing that we, who are many, are one bread, one body. For we all partake of the one bread. The whole Israel after the flesh. Have not they which eat the sacrifices communion with the altar? What say I then? That a thing sacrificed to idols is anything? Or that an idol is anything? But I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils and not to God. And I would not that ye should have communion with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of devils. Ye cannot partake of the table of the Lord is one which goes back to the Old Testament. You will find it in the prophecy of Malachi, for instance, where the priests, by their lax conduct, were guilty of saying that the table of the Lord was contemptible. In that context, if you read it, you will find that the phrase table of the Lord is in fact referring to Israel's offerings upon the altar. But it is not called altar, it is rather called table, because we think of the table of the Lord, we are thinking, surely, of the provision that God has made for us and for our fellowship with him and he with us. That fellowship, of course, is based upon the sacrifice of Christ. When we think of the sacrifice of Christ in these terms, the table of the Lord, we are presumably thinking in terms of all those many spiritual benefits that are provided for us, fellowship with God, uh, through our Lord's sacrifice. The main lesson to be learned, it seems to me, from this particular paragraph, is that there is no partaking of the benefit without involvement. Now, what that obscure phrase means, I- I'll attempt to say in a moment. The context, as you see, is the question of the church's relation with the temple of idols. A very practical and immediate problem for these Corinthian Christians, eh, in the midst of their pagan city. What relation Christianity and Christians to the heathen religions around them? Obviously, some of these Corinthians were taking the view that there was possible some extent of mixture. It is a fact that elsewhere Paul will argue, of course, that the thing offered to an idol, well, it's neither here nor there in some sense. This problem of whether you should or should not eat things offered to idols that so vexed the early church is a problem, uh, in which there are many different levels, and different considerations will apply at different levels. But here Paul is, uh, concerned to point out what is a basic principle, that there is no partaking of benefit without involvement. He argues this first from the table of the Lord and uses the imagery and the symbolism of the Lord's Supper, so to do, the cup and the bread. And in particular, verse seventeen, the bread. Seeing that we who are many are one bread, one body, for, notice that for, we are one bread, for we all partake of the one bread. It seems to me that what he's saying is this, uh, uh, if I might suppose it. Suppose, uh, uh, uh, the Lord's Supper, uh, one day, and here is the loaf that is being used. Suppose that loaf were of the size that when every individual member had taken his part thereof, the loaf had been consumed. Now please tell me where is the loaf? Now, the people of the loaf, they are now at this moment, not to be crude, but before it digests completely, they are the one loaf. For they have partaken of that one loaf. And And though though, uh, for the moment, uh, you're talking about a physical bit of bread, and of course there's no magical power to it, it will serve you as a very good illustration, it seems to me, what Paul is trying to get across, that when it comes to the realities, the spiritual realities that are provided for us through the sacrifice of Christ, a lovely spiritual reality, uh, realities, forgiveness of sins and peace with God and fellowship with God's people. There is no partaking of the benefits without the becoming involved. By reason of the fact, you don't have to come to any church to do it, by reason of the fact you have received Christ as Savior, you've received from him eternal life, you have received from him forgiveness, redemption, sanctification, and you have ate at his spiritual table those spiritual benefits provided by his sacrifice. By that very partaking, you've been constituted one with all those that likewise have partaken of that table. And if perhaps I were an exhorter, I should be tempted to, to, to, to, uh, go down a bypass here and come out with many practical, uh, exhortations and harangues, that there is no partaking of the benefits of Christianity without becoming involved. The notion I can be a Christian, but I needn't bother to be in a church is clean contrary, of course, to this, uh, principle that we are here discussing. The partaking of the table of the benefits of Christ's sacrifice constitutes a oneness with all who so do. God intends, of course, that, uh, to be exploited in all its implications. But you will observe the point is being made apropos this practical problem of what relation has Christianity to these pagan religions? And the answer is patent. It can have none. The things that these Gentiles sacrifice to idols, they in fact sacrifice to demons. You cannot go and partake of the table of demons without being spiritually involved. And you cannot, notice the strength of the phrase, it doesn't mean physically you cannot, but it's a moral impossibility, and a, a, a moral impossibility that if we attempt, we shall find God's hand heavy on us. You cannot, I taketh the Lord's table and the table of deans. Well, says Paul, try it if you like. So doing, you will provoke the Lord to jealousy. Right down to nineteen sixty nine, the Bible stands, the Lord our God is a jealous God. I needn't say much about this. I said, uh, uh, uh, uh, enough, perhaps more than enough, uh, in Friday's discussions. But let me repeat what I there said. We must watch ourselves because Christianity has become infiltrated at various directions with precisely this kind of thing. We must watch it. Freemasonry is one sad example. Christendom is riddled from one end to the other with Freemasonry. Masonry. As you know, in their sessions, they worship Osiris and On and Bull, and they start themselves off with old Hiram of Tyre, do they not? Jakin and Boaz, the pillars of Solomon's temple that, uh, Hiram, uh, built for him. And they proceed to an unholy amalgam of all those old pagan oriental religions, plus a little Christianity and sun worship hooked on. It's a form of religion in which you can have Jew and Christian together, though the one denies the deity of Christ, apparently it makes no difference. And when that letter to the Thyatirans mentions Jezebel, perhaps it is quite apocide, because old Jezebel, you know, she came down from Tyre, didn't she, anyway, in that direction, Phoenicia. Bringing the worship of Baal. The Old Testament critics have been helpful here, if nowhere else, uh, in, in pointing out to us that very often when the, the Bible castigates people for the worship of Baal, what they were actually doing is worshiping Jehovah under the form of Baal, or Baal rather under the form of Jehovah. You remember the tremendous fuss on Mount Carmel? Because of the fact that God is a jealous God. You remember the stern warning that we read on Friday of our risen Lord, eh, putting on all his form of glory and majesty. These things saith the Son of God. So you may not allow conduct that detracts from his unique glory, his sonship, his divinity. Therefore, this principle is very apposite, for some people are inclined to argue, ah, well, you can, you can partake of the social benefits, say, of, um, this matter, this particular feature. You can take the social benefits of Freemasonry. You can't, my brother. You can partake of its economic and business advantage. Oh, you know, you can't, my brother, unless you are prepared for the fact that there is no partaking of the benefits without spiritual involvement. That's how God reads it. It comes both ways, both with Christianity and with pagan religion. To partake of the benefits is, in God's sight, to be spiritually involved. I need say no more, perhaps. Uh, I have made, uh, anyway, the general thesis as heretofore, that underlying the particular, uh, things, particular grievances that Paul is, is, is, um, uh, trying to correct, there lurks once more a basic spiritual principle. Let's move on now to consideration of the, uh, Lord's Supper in particular. More restricted matter, the Lord's table perhaps describing all those benefits that come to us through the sacrifice of Christ. At that table I may sit at any hour of the day if I wish, or night. But here now, the Lord's Supper. That particular celebration that we have, we're here directed to have when the church comes together rather than at home. Uh, we have to call to mind our Lord's death. Not please, uh, to make another sacrifice a token sacrifice all over again. I judge that to be bad Greek. Certainly mishandling of Septuagint anyway. Uh, but a a a remembrance of what Christ has done. Let us perhaps read the passage, uh, uh, it is so full of a basic Christian principle. Verse seventeen of chapter eleven: but in giving you this charge, I praise you not, that you come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when you come together in the church, I hear that divisions exist among you, and I partly believe it. For there must also be heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When therefore ye assemble yourselves together, it is not possible to eat the Lord's supper. I ask you to notice the insistence with which Paul, under inspiration, repeats this phrase, the Lord, the Lord's. It is relevant, exceedingly relevant to the topic in hand. The Lord's Supper. For in your eating, each one taketh before other his own supper, and one is hungry and another is drunken. What? Have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? Or despise ye the church of God and put them to shame that have not? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, how that the Lord Jesus, in the night in which he was betrayed, took bread. And when he had given thanks, he brake it and said, this is my body which is for you, this do in remembrance of me. Like manner also the cup after supper say, this cup is the new covenant in my blood, this do ye as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore, whosoever shall eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup, for he that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh judgment unto himself, if he discern not the body. For this cause, many among you are weak and sickly, and not a few sleep. But if we discerned ourselves, we should not be judged. When we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, wait one for another. If any man is hungry, let him eat at home, that your coming together be not unto judgment. And the rest will I set in order when I come. The mere reading of that paragraph, it seems to me, ought to be enough to show us that in this question of this particular ordinance in the church. We have a something that is once more linked inseparably with the question of our salvation. Our salvation in that ongoing sense that I mentioned this morning, not our initial or final, but on a sense of our ongoing day-to-day and practical salvation. It is linked inseparably with this matter of the Lord's Supper. It is impossible, surely, to say that it doesn't matter whether you observe the Lord's Supper or not. I want to say this in all kindliness of heart, because, uh, surely one can see the considerations that have led some sections of Christians to abandon the celebration of the Lord's Supper or push it into the background. They've observed how easily ordinances turn to formalism devoid of any, uh, spiritual profit. They have observed how ordinances have a way of becoming superstitions. And you might say, in some sense, that in some parts of the world where people have got the impression that the bread and the wine, uh, impart some magic or something or other, you'd almost wish you could break them of the whole thing in order to get it in the clear, that there is no magic or anything in it at all. I feel like this so often with my Roman Catholic friends. But then to go to the other extreme and say, no, the, well, the Lord's Supper you can go if you like, but it's a sort of optional extra. The main thing is to get on and work for the Lord. That is quite mistaken. The Lord's Supper and the celebration thereof, which is laid upon us as a command, does this if nothing else. It enforces on me the regular necessity of examining my heart before God. I am commanded to come. I am commanded that as I come, I am to discern myself and judge myself. We are called, you see, not merely to judge ourselves, that is to say, when we have done wrong and repent of it, we are required to do that, we are required to discern ourselves. That is to say, I mustn't just merely go along under the supposition that I'm all right. The fact is that in many things I offend. In many things I got wrong. I've got wrong attitudes that I don't, I am not aware of. My friends may be aware of and too kind or too gentlemanly or too unchristian to tell me. Ah, to see. And, uh, uh, I can't go along as though, uh, my heart were the, the most wonderful, pure heart that ever was. The fact is that my heart is deceitful above all things and desperately sick. And I'm called upon to a regular discernment of my heart. Not, of course, a morbid introspection. For if there's one thing the Lord's Supper will do, it will put right any tendency to morbid introspection, in God's wisdom. But first of all, I am called upon to discern myself constantly, to come to the Lord and say, now, Lord, show me if there be any wicked way in me. For if I come to the Lord's Supper carelessly, without so doing, what I am doing is, so to speak, compounding with the very sin that murdered Christ. And to take that symbol of his sacrifice and remember that it was my sin that murdered him, and at the same time to be allowing that sin to go on merrily unjudged, that is to be unrepentantly responsible for the murder of Christ, to be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. You say, could a Christian do that? Well, perhaps it is not by chance that Paul is moved to give the here the only reference to the betrayal in the whole of the epistles. When we come to celebrate the Lord's Supper, we are reminded that he instituted it on the night in which he was betrayed. You observe the emphasis? It is the Lord's death we celebrate. It is the Lord's body. Not just the body of Jesus. It wasn't just Jesus who died, it was the Lord who died. How on earth did the Lord come to die? He was betrayed by somebody who professed his lordship but didn't mean it. The night in which he was betrayed, that is with a kiss, which was a false profession. I'm not saying any true Christian is a Judas, but you know, we must be very careful lest we cry, Lord, Lord, Lord, and yet do not do the things that he says. There are some song words in the Sermon on the Mount. In that day, people shall come along and they shall say, Lord, Lord, Lord, Lord, Lord, open to us. And they shall say, no. Or they shall say, Lord, we cast out demons in thy name. What, really? So I never knew you. Being allowed to cast out a demon in the name of the Lord Jesus doesn't necessarily imply that you are a genuine believer. They shall get into his kingdom and do the will of his Father. So then we come, and we're told to come to a celebration that reminds us by its very institution of this very real danger, professing the lordship of Christ, yet in behavior denying it. Do you not see that how necessary this is to keep me on the rails? I could go off saying that I'm working for the Lord, but before I'm aware, it's my own self I'm pleasing, I'm going my own way, I'm doing it my own way. The supper asks me to come back and to examine my heart, whether in all of life I am genuinely seeking to submit to the lordship of Christ. Then, of course, um, there is another side to this matter. I said that the observation of the Lord's Supper is an integral part in our day-to-day salvation. In this sense, take the cup that is given into our hands on this occasion. It is said to be the new covenant in his blood. Not a new covenant, the new covenant. That is to say, it's the new covenant that Jeremiah spoke of. It is the new covenant as distinct from the old covenant, Moses' law. And the terms of these covenants, perhaps I may read them to you. They are cited for us, for instance, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, chapter ten, verse sixteen. This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord. I will put my laws in their heart, on their hearts, and upon their mind also will I write them, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. When, therefore, we take the cup of the Lord's covenant at the Lord's Supper, we are reminded of the Lord's covenanting himself to us. That is a delightful thing. A very supper that reminds us of the fickleness of the human heart, the night on which he was betrayed, reminds us of his absolute constancy. He's not only blessed us and promised to bless us, but he's covenanted to bless us. Oh, his glorious faithfulness. And in what particular bless us? Uh, please notice there are three clauses that are here cited, say, in Hebrews, not just one. It is not merely that we remember that his blood has brought for us forgiveness, but even before that is mentioned, the positive promise of the gracious work of his Holy Spirit in our hearts, writing the very laws of God upon our heart, so that we come naturally to love to do God's will, and writing them on our minds so that we come naturally to think God's will. In other words, here is God's gracious program of making me, in a practical sense, holy. As therefore I am called upon to examine myself, I might, if, uh, it weren't for this other side of the affair, I might become very gloomy. What, you've been a Christian, Gooding, for, let me see now, wow, uh, thirty three years. What? And you haven't overcome that particular weakness yet? Shall I ever? And then when I think I've conquered that one, long behind there's another one coming to the back door. Uh, oh dear. I could get terribly introspective and downcast, you know, and you see, if my faith in these matters gets so downcast and depressed, I'm, I've lost the power to rise up and overcome it anyway. So alongside of the duty to examine myself like this, that I should discover a lot of ugly things, comes the Lord's gracious and continual reminder of his faithfulness and covenant, in which he guarantees that he will. He will write his laws on my heart and mind, nor will he be content until the story is finished, and my heart and mind are conformed to the image of Christ. And in the ongoing struggle against sin, war against the flesh, there is nothing more practical than the celebration of the Lord's Supper. But I'm talking to the converted, am I not? Just in case I'm not. We are not told in scripture how many times a week we've got to do it. There is the curious phenomenon, uh, you may count ye it, uh, a coincidence, undesigned, that the word that is used, the adjective that is used, uh, for the Lord's Supper, as you may know, is a rareish word in the Greek New Testament. It occurs twice. It occurs here and in the Revelation chapter one, the Lord's Day, Ikiriaki Mera, uh, under which term modern Greeks to this very present style Sunday. Take it or leave it as you please. Um, what we are commanded to do is to do it. We cannot surely take the view that it doesn't matter. And now finally, for my part, uh, I- I'm going to be quite virtuous and brief, uh, uh, uh, which is unusual, but just a, a, a few words on the question of the, uh, spiritual gifts. This is a section of Corinthians, as you know, that goes from chapter twelve through thirteen and fourteen. Now, concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant. In as much as I've already made allusion to this, uh, on Friday night and today in the question time particularly, I beg leave at this juncture to say very little, only to get onto my old hobby horse once more. Uh, whereas it is the fact that these chapters are in the context of Paul's correcting certain abuses that had sprung up in Corinth, uh, shines through them, as through all these other matters in Corinthians, that certain basic principles are at stake that affect our salvation. Not just little ins- uh, minor matters of organization that are eh, uh, that are eh, what, indifferent, as the theologians say. Here there is plainly pictured a plurality of gift. And the analogy is used of the human body. The eye cannot say to the hand, I've no need of you. The foot cannot say, I, uh, just because I'm not an eye, I'm not necessary. All are necessary. And all must be given their appropriate occasion for use. Are all apostles? No, certainly not. Are all teachers? No, I shouldn't think so, I should note so anyway. Are all prophets? No. And so forth and so on. The insistence on the variety of gift that was in the church, and on the prophets it is said, now you may all prophesy one by one, of course. Uh, there's not to be an uproar of five, six prophets all carrying on at once. There is to be dignity and order. If something is revealed to a number two prophet as number one prophet is holding forth, number one prophet has got to sit down, uh, to let number two go on, says Paul. And when they finish, they've got to submit to the judgment of their brethren, and so forth and so on. There is to be order, of course. But obviously, here is a, a, a group of people with various gifts with the Holy Spirit, using this one or that one. I say, does it matter whether we do it that way now or not? Well, of course it matters, my brother. Because consider how this whole affair came to be, that there is a plurality of gifts here to be exercised. The operative verses are verses twelve, thirteen, and fourteen, are they not, in chapter twelve? For as the body is one and hath many members, and all the members of the body, being many, are one body, so also is the Christ. For in one spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free, and were all made to drink of one spirit. This question of the Christian church being like a body with a plurality of gifts all working harmoniously together, this isn't some whim of a left-wingish democratic side of the church. This is not something that you are at liberty to alter. It comes about by this fundamental operation of God's salvation. By one spirit you were baptized into one body. By that same, of that same spirit you were all made to drink. The baptism of the Holy Spirit, you may remember, is the thing par excellence that distinguishes Christ from all other preachers. John was the greatest of the prophets. In owning the vast difference between himself and the Lord Jesus, he fixed on this point, didn't he? I baptize you in water. So he would have done if he got his hands on you. That is, John would have taken you and he'd put you in the water. But Christ, there standeth one among you whom you know not. Christ baptizes. This is his glory. And his uniqueness, of course. He baptizes in the Holy Ghost. All right. Let us notice, however, that two images are used. Christ baptized you into one body by baptizing you in the Holy Ghost, and then you were made to drink, as has often been pointed out. If Christ puts you into the Holy Spirit, he baptizes you in the Holy Spirit, like John would have baptized you in water, then when Christ baptizes people into the Holy Ghost, he puts them into the Holy Ghost, doesn't he? The idea is not, pardon my saying, that the Holy Ghost coming down from heaven on top of you. It's Christ putting you into the Holy Ghost. Mm-hmm. Like John would have put you in water. Then you were made to drink. When somebody drinks some water, the water goes into him. I'm made to drink of the Holy Ghost, the Holy Ghost comes into me. Twofold image. That a believer is in the Holy Ghost, and the Holy Ghost is in him. All right. A wonderful thing, anyway. It's a glorious thing, what Stan Court thought would call a hallelujah thing. Uh. What has that got to do with being in the body? Well, everything, my brother. What do you think it is that makes a the Christian? If I might use the analogy of my human body, have a look at my human body for a moment. What do you think keeps this finger on my body here? Somebody will say all the bones, my dear sir, and the muscles. Not so. For if you were to kill me this afternoon, why you should, I can't think, but uh, if you were, and you were to lay me on the floor here, leave me for six months. When you came back, you would find my finger wouldn't be on the body. For all the bones and the muscles. The thing that keeps my finger on my body is that right down to the tip of my finger there flows that common love. And therefore that finger is in the body. And what Christ has done is to baptize his people in the Holy Ghost and put the Holy Ghost in them, and because they are permeated with that Holy Ghost, and he is the very atmosphere in which they live, they are constituted one body. That embarrassed Peter one day, didn't it? I don't know, I never made up my mind as sure whether he was embarrassed or whether he was just hiding behind it in cowardly fashion, like I do sometimes. He, um, was ordered to take the gospel to the Gentiles. He had his doubts about it, but they were finally overcome by the vision of the sheep let down from heaven. So he went. When he got back to Jerusalem, however, his brethren called him on the carpet. And Acts eleven has a delicious little story, Peter defending himself before his brethren. Now thou wentest in to eat with a man that is uncircumcised, said they. Wow. Now here Peter. Brethren, he said, well, actually I couldn't help it, Timothy Petrine. He said, that wasn't my fault, actually. All I did was to stand there and preach. And while I was preaching, the Holy Spirit fell on them. Well, he said, brethren, I couldn't help it. Do you see, the Holy Spirit fell on them as I was preaching. Didn't even lay my hands on them. He said, when the Holy Spirit fell on them, I remembered the word of the Lord Jesus. How he said to us at the beginning, and John baptized you with water, but you shall be baptized in the Holy Ghost. Couldn't help it, brethren. God went and did it. But because God did it, says Peter, you see, it happened then like it happened to us. And it was the same Holy Ghost. We were filled with him. We were in him, baptized into him. The very vital air we breathe, the source and secret of all our life and its maintenance. Then God went and gave him to the Gentiles in the same way. And here is the Gentiles breathing that same spiritual, vital breath. You can't very well come to the table and leave your foot outside the door, can you? So, brethren, I went to knit with them. It is a fact. Will you notice the emphasis? By one spirit were you all. This is not something that's true of some believers and not of others, you know. A believer hasn't been baptized in the Holy Ghost, well, there isn't such a thing, so there's no if about it. If a person's not baptized in the Holy Ghost, he's not in the body. How on earth would he get in? The body of Christ isn't an organization that you can decide to join. It is a living thing. And all, whether Jew or Gentile, bond or Greek, whatever you are, have been baptized into one body by being baptized in the Spirit, being made to drink of the Spirit. It is therefore, a- a- as the apostle points out, it is therefore a matter o- of the sovereignty of God the Holy Spirit. In the moment of our conversion, of being baptized into the body, to give us the gifts that he pleases to give us in their wonderful variety. Not only does he give them, but he reserves the right to work them and move them for the maximum profit of all the members of the church. I don't want to labour the point because it is so fearfully self-evident. You cannot introduce organization that runs counter to that without defying the Holy Spirit and denying his lordship and transgressing against a fundamental provision of salvation. That's putting it strongly, isn't it? Anyway, I'm going to sit down, uh, to give you the maximum time for questions before tea. Um, yes, this is a large question. There are, in fact, I think I'm right in saying, off cuff, there are five incidents in the Acts of the Apostles of the coming of the Holy Ghost upon people, uh, people receiving the Holy Ghost, that is to say, and they are different. So different as to appear contradictory. For instance, there is the occasion on the day of Pentecost, Acts chapter two, when the crowd is, Patrick might have looked at it, uh, the crowd is pricked in its heart and says to Peter, what should we do? Verse thirty seven. now when they heard this, they were pricked in their hearts and said unto Peter and the rest of the apostles, brethren, what shall we do? And Peter said unto them, repent ye and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Uh, there the order is repent. It doesn't even say believe, obviously implied. Repent, be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, that is water baptism, of course, and then you shall receive the Holy Ghost. Notice the order. Repent, baptize, Holy Ghost. If you look at, uh, the, uh, uh, story of Cornelius, this is Acts chapter ten, you'll see a very significant difference. Acts chapter ten. Ah. Verse one four, while Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they, the circumcision which believed, were amazed, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost, for they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then answered Peter, can any man forbid the water, that these should not be baptized which have received the Holy Ghost as we have? So there's the opposite way around. Holy Ghost first, water baptism afterwards. Now, just to take those two for the moment and come back to your third one, uh, in Acts nineteen. Why the difference? Some people would account for it on the grounds, uh, of what is they they call dispensations, that this was a changeover. Acts chapter two is gospel going to Jews as conditions are special. Uh, now in Acts chapter ten, you're moving off into the new Christian era, and now this is gospel going to Gentiles. Well, of course, that is the fact. Acts chapter two is gospel to Gentiles, uh, to Jews, Acts ten, to Gentiles. But isn't there something more in it than that? The people that Paul Preter was preaching to on the day of Pentecost were the very same crowd that had stood around the cross of Christ, literally, and had shouted, crucify him, crucify him. They had done it publicly. They said he wasn't the Son of God. He deserved to die. Right. Now they profess, uh, that they've repented. Oh, really? You have repented? Now the Bible everywhere, you'll see especially with John Baptist, isn't necessarily prepared to take your word that you've repented, but will demand you, and within its rights so to do, to show that you mean what you say. Bring forth fruits worthy of repentance, old boy. You repent of having murdered Jesus? All right. You will be baptized in his name, in the name of Jesus. Oh no, I don't want to do that. That would be awkward. Well, that will be very awkward. Uh, that says Peter, you'll have to do it. Save yourself from this evil generation, for these are the men whose hands are stained with the blood of Christ. You can't stand with them still and say you've repented, for God won't take any notice of you. You won't get his Holy Spirit until you show God your repentance is genuine and you're prepared to stand away from them, save yourself from them. You publicly cried away with him. You will now publicly confess him by getting baptized. And if you're not prepared to do that, sorry. To say you're repenting doesn't mean anything at all. When you come to Cornelius, there is not that issue, of course. Cornelius hadn't stood with that crowd who crucified Jesus. God-fearing man wanted to please God. The very moment he heard about Jesus and knew the gospel of Christ, that very moment he believed. The Holy Spirit came on him. And, uh, thereafter was he baptized. That is at least how I would account for that difference. And what about then your men? Well, I, my interpretation, uh, and uh, uh, of course, folks do disagree with this in all directions. Uh, this is Acts nineteen. My interpretation tries to proceed by, uh, pointing to what the text actually says. Uh, he came across these men, Acts chapter nineteen, He found certain... certain what? Christians? Doesn't say so. He found certain disciples. He said unto them, did you receive the Holy Ghost when you believed? Now, please notice what he said. He doesn't say, were you baptized with the Holy Ghost? Were you filled with the Holy Ghost? Did you receive the Holy Ghost? When you believed. And drew the puzzled reply that I fancy expected to draw. We did not so much as hear whether the Holy Ghost was given or something of the sort. And he said, therefore, into what then were you baptized? And they said, into John's baptism. Oh, well, then they let you into the secret. They were not Christians at all. They come as far as John's baptism. What was John's baptism about? Well, John's baptism was expressive of repentance unto forgiveness of sins, but John the Baptist had no authority to forgive anybody's sins. He could point you to the one that was to come after him, but you never get any scribes, Pharisees, or anybody else bothering John the Baptist and saying, look here, you're speaking blasphemous, old fellow, you ought to tell people their sins are forgiven, because he never did anyway. He got them confessing their sins, being baptized as an evidence of their repentance. But for the forgiveness of sins, he had to point them to another that was coming, that is to Christ. It is one thing to repent. It is another thing to believe. It is possible to repent and not believe. Not until a man believes on the Lord Jesus does he get the Holy Spirit. Check my exposition of this by seeing what Paul said to them. Well, he said, well, you all believe it's all right, of course, but there is something extra that believers can have. No, no, he didn't, no, no. He said, Jo- John, that's right, John baptized you the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people that they should believe, do you see, on him which should come after him, that is on Jesus. And Paul is saying, look here, what you'll have to do, ba- uh, baptism of repentance, all right, we'd all have to do what John told you to do. You'll have to learn to believe on the Lord. But you don't tell people to do that who are already Christians, do you? What does it mean to believe on the Lord Jesus? Well, anyway, at this, at this juncture, they did believe. They believed on the Lord Jesus then. Of course they did. And Paul didn't say, oh, well, you've been baptized once, so there's no need to go through that again. Oh, no, no, no, no. Wow. For they weren't believers when they got baptized the first time. You can't count baptism that happened before you were a believer, you know. Paul isn't being narrow-minded. The whole truth of the gospel's involved in this. What is Christianity? It is not just a system of repenting. There are many folks in Christendom, and honestly before God, they confess their sins at compline in private. Miserable sinners. If you were to ask them, are you sure of salvation? When you believe, did you get eternal life? Did you get the Holy Spirit? You'd get as I got, for I asked that very same question to certain of those young gentlemen, uh, in that White Father's College. I asked them precisely that question. They were saying they were children of God and became, uh, children of God at their baptism. So I said, oh, how interesting. Now tell me, did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed? They didn't know either what I was talking about. Of course they didn't. Never learned what it means to believe on the Lord Jesus. So they had to learn to believe, and when they believed, of course they were saved and they received the Holy Ghost. Now they became Christians for the first time, and because it was the first time Peter commu- uh, Paul commanded and they had to be baptized as Christians. So I would submit it to you, sir, that this is not a question of, uh, of getting, uh, people that were already believers in Christ, who are missing out on some extra spiritual good they could have, and persuading believers in Christ to go in for this extra thing. It's a question of people that were not yet believers in the Lord Jesus, teaching them to believe in the Lord Jesus, and then confess their faith in him, uh, and get themselves baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Special pleading, you say? Impossible? Well, um, they are Christians by the time they're baptized. Mm-hmm. And then it says, when they did this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, and when Paul laid his hands Mm-hmm. upon, upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them. Yes. And then the, the original question itself. How do you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed or since you believed? Mm-hmm. Um, it's a very strange question to ask. I mean, why didn't he just ask him, well, are you disciples of Jesus? He asked them, did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed? Well, yes. Uh, yes, too, they're important. And can I ask the second, uh, question first? Uh, you- you'll probably dismiss this as special pleading. Maybe it is. You see, I fancy that Paul asked that question, same kind of reason that I asked my white fathers the question. If I had said to them, when did you become a child of God? Oh, baptism. If I said, uh, uh, you see, uh, when did you become a Christian? Oh yes, they're Christians, been Christians a long while. I had got to find a something to ask that would expose to them that they were missing something without which they weren't Christians at all. To say. I rather think that that was, is Paul is saying. If any man you see had not the Spirit of Christ, Romans will tell you he is none of Christ. He isn't a sort of a second rate believer. He isn't a believer at all. Therefore, Paul saying, did you receive the Holy Spirit, is a- is equivalent to saying, uh, are you Christ? Are you a real Christian? But I will submit to you, putting in that way that will expose the fact to them that in spite of all their terminology, they are not believers. Why didn't they see- receive the Holy Ghost in that second that they believed? I think, uh, for a similar reason, uh, but not the same reason as the one I- I have quoted you in Acts chapter two. You will find in this fourth section of Acts that Paul is constantly all the way down the line stressing the difference between Christianity and, and, and, and, and this. Eh, this is the fifth section of Acts. It begins in, uh, uh, uh, chapter sixteen, and the first, uh, uh, enterprise there in Philippi is the difference between Christianity and spiritism. These men, said the girl with the demon, show us, uh, the way of salvation. These are the servants of the living God. We're all on the same side, batting for the same team. Oh, no, you're not, says Paul. No, you're not. So long as Paul was prepared to let them say that they were on the same team, all went well. You should have seen the uproar when he said, no, you're not. Paul would insist on the difference between Christianity and spiritism. All right? And here insist on the difference between Christianity and even that good and godly system of, uh, of thought and practice, which was John the Baptistism. And I think it is not ungracious and unchristian for us to do the same in Christendom. Many folks call themselves Christians who just repent. They've never learned to believe the kind of Christian Nicodemuses, if they are Christian. They've been born again, repented years, thousands of times, never believed. We ought to insist on that difference. I think, therefore, in this early Acts, the withholding of that Holy Spirit until they've been baptized, and they have been identified with a Christian missionary, as distinct from a John the Baptist thing. Uh, uh, this is all part of God's insisting on this difference. Let me quote you one other incident of the same thing. The incident in Samaria. This is, uh, Acts chapter eight, isn't it? Uh, we're going over this in Emma. Forgive me if there are any Emmaites here. Uh, uh, Acts chapter eight, Uh, we're down in Samaria. Uh, verse fourteen and fifteen. Samaria received the word of God. They sent unto them Peter and John, but when they were come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Ghost, for as yet he was fallen upon none of them. Only they had been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, and they hadn't got any Holy Spirit. He'd fallen on none of them. And they laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. Why this? Well, I attempted an explanation, as I say, yes, in Emma. I have no scriptural authority for it, so you, uh, you can throw it out. Uh, anyway, the text doesn't actually tell us explicitly why this happened, does it? As far as I can see. I suggest to you that it probably along this line, so this was no ordinary place, this was Samaria. Where for centuries the Samaritans had been living in defiance of God's word about Jerusalem. And there had been an unholy schism, full of rank bitterness, between Jews and Samaritans. As the Samaritan woman put it to Christ, you say that at Jerusalem is a place where men ought to worship, well, we don't. We worship here. Ours is as good as yours. But our Lord, even in his gospel sermon, you know, was quite faithful. He said, woman, I want you to know that salvation is of the Jews. You worship, you don't know what. And because this is the true mark of Christianity, if you've got hold of real Christianity, the thing you've got hold of began very early on down with Abraham, down the centuries through Moses, through David, through Isaiah, Ezekiel, on to our Lord Jesus Christ, born of a David and Abraham, a great historic process centered on Jerusalem. If what you've got hold of didn't come that way, then it isn't Christianity, I'm afraid. It's some existential philosophy or something. And before God will give Samaritans his Holy Spirit, he will insist that they repent of their deliberate defiance of his word over the centuries and acknowledge their dependence, acknowledge that the gospel comes through Jerusalem, through Jerusalem's Messiah, the two men down from Jerusalem. They must submit to the laying on of hands of men from Jerusalem who, if they'd attempted to do it before the Samaritans got converted, the Samaritans would have spit in their face. That's what a reason I would suggest. I say I've got no scripture to prove it, that, uh, there, there, there's a fact not until those elders from Jerusalem lay their hands, they get the Holy Ghost. And I submit there are possible reasons anyway why in the Acts of the Apostles you get these five occasions. The other one is Saul of Tarsus and the delayed action there, the Saul of Tarsus. Uh, uh, I suggest it does not, and here's two occasion points, it does not alter the fact that our receiving of the Holy Ghost is by grace through faith on the same terms of justice as justification itself. For Paul insists on that in Galatians, though in his own case, the coming of the Holy Spirit was delayed for another very good reason. Uh, uh, but uh, uh, my answer to so is that I believe that this receiving of the Holy Ghost in Jerusalem, in Samaria, with Saul of Tarsus, and with the Ephesians is the receiving of that Holy Ghost in the same sense that every believer everywhere receives the Holy Ghost as a, an initial experience when he trusts the Savior. Paul is able to argue, um, in his epistles Mm-hmm. very strongly, uh, on the basis of the, the experience of receiving the Holy Spirit. Um, you know, he said, receive you the Spirit by the works of the law, by the hearing of faith. And it seems to me he argues tremen- he doesn't have to sort of try and persuade them that they've all, uh, received the Holy Spirit or that they they're all done by the Holy Spirit, because they all had a real experience of him. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Um. Mm-hmm. Probably, you know, the experience l- like something like this, um, what happened in Samaria, where there was some outward manifestation, um, obviously supernatural. Um, why do you think it's today, um, there's so much argument and talk about the fact that we've received the Holy Spirit and we've got to convince ourselves of that fact, um, whereas Paul just, you know, up to get forgotten. Well, it is the fact, as you rightly observed, that, uh, on these occasions in particular, uh, that the coming of the Holy Spirit, it was accompanied with external signs that everybody could see. To say, speaking with tongues and whatnot. And of course, uh, Paul could appeal to that, uh, there was no doubt that these things happened. Uh, what I would suggest to you is that you, you should perhaps be just a little bit careful about the deduction you make from that. Uh, are we given to expect that this will be, uh, the invariable sign or the invariable accompaniment, uh, the only way we can know that we have the Holy Spirit. And the other thing I think you've got to be careful about, i- i- i- is interpreting the actual incidents, uh, in the light of the plain statements, uh, of the theological explanation. Obviously, the right interpretation of the incidents is the one that will square with the theological interpretation. Uh, to quote just that verse I quoted before, if anybody hasn't the Spirit, he isn't a Christian. If you therefore posit from these examples that there are some Christians that haven't got the Holy Spirit, you see, you'll come to a contradiction of a plain straightforward saying, a theological saying. In the second place, I wonder if it's quite true to say that, uh, uh, speaking in sacred tongues, as they did on these occasions, is the only way you will know that you've received the Holy Spirit. Let's take the, uh, other statements about his ministry so that you may know. Uh, Romans chapter eight, if anybody hasn't the Holy Spirit, he's none of Christ. Well, how do I know I've got him? The Spirit witnesseth with our spirits that we are children of God. I would want to say that this is very genuine and real. In fact, continuing. Whatever the accomplishments of my initial reception of the Holy Spirit, the reason I know I got the Holy Spirit is I stand before you now, honestly, before God, is that the Spirit witnesses with my spirit that I am a child of God. And if it isn't being reverent, I would put much more store by that than I would by miracle workings, because Matthew tells you that miracle workings are not an invariable sign that a man is a believer. A man could cast out demons, what a miracle, and not be a believer. So, so I would put much more store, uh, by this inner spiritual testimony of the Holy Spirit. And then, if you look at Galatians, um, the Holy Spirit, uh, strives against the flesh, and the flesh against the spirit. Well, certainly, if I know nothing about that, I ought to question whether I am a believer. Uh, this in everyday life, the reality, the Holy Spirit in my life striving against the flesh to perfect my Christian holiness. This I should count, and I'm not saying it irreverently, to be equally important, I nearly said more important, than expression of tongue, say. Valuable as that is, to say that can coincide with the good deal of carnality witnessed by Corinthians. The reality of the Holy Spirit witnessed to by his struggle against the flesh in my life, to say, uh, by which we cry Abba Father. These, I should have thought, are the things that in the epistle Paul quotes, to say, as evidences of the Holy Spirit in our life. Does anybody else have any questions on this or related matters? What do you feel about the town? What do you feel about spiritual gifts now? Uh, well, uh, that is somewhat a long story, and uh, I might, uh, be allowed to do that very briefly, because I did in some detail speak to you the other day. Uh, on spiritual gifts, I take, uh, Paul's arguments, uh, in one Corinthians twelve, thirteen, and fourteen to be a whole, if you like. And briefly summarize, they are this: one's spirituals and gifts given us by the Lord, the Holy Spirit, and so forth. Uh, chapter twelve, the first three verses warn us, however, that they must all be tested. They must all be tested. The test is whether they acknowledge the Lordship and the divinity of Christ. Now, there are diversities, says verse four to verse eleven, but it's the same spirit working and dividing to each one separately, even as he will. There, I think we should notice that while some gifts, uh, uh, show themselves, evidence themselves in, uh, what you might call miraculous performances, uh, healings and so on. Uh, they are no more spiritual than gifts which, uh, manifest themselves in what you might regard as pedestrian operations, such as slogging away at teaching. That's a spiritual. Then comes a paragraph, a typically Pauline, uh, verses twelve um onwards. I say typically Pauline because you may have noticed, as uh, Professor Chadwick points out, Paul's methods of arguments everywhere. He's got a, an abuse to correct. He will go as far in the line of the abuse as he can honestly go. And when he's uh, showed his sympathy with him, one step, two step, three step, four step, and by the time he's finished, he's right at the opposite extreme. Wise man was Paul. And he starts off by saying it doesn't matter what gift there is, they are all necessary. You cannot afford to say that you don't need the other kept gift. Now, some people hold the view that some gifts, notably the miraculous ones that were for signs, finished upon the completion of the canon. Now, for the argument's sake, let's leave that out for the moment. We're dealing with a time before the canon was complete anyway. That's when this argument was written. And, uh, he's saying here, while all these sundry gifts were around the place, uh, look, you can't afford to say that I don't need anyone. They are all necessary. Even the most insignificant ones, they're necessary. And in addition, of course, he comforts the hearts, uh, of the inferiority complex, and he puts the superiority complex people in their proper position, uh, by his, um, pointing out how divinely appointed is our position in the body. Then he says, of course, there are different gifts, uh, but, um, um, they are not all equally import- useful. And he's going to make that point at the end of chapter twelve when he sets aside to show what is to be the, uh, the major issue in all the operation of gift. If gift is going to be proper, edifying, helpful in the church, it must be motivated by love. Otherwise, it becomes just a performance. And love in this context, of course, to my fellow man, and in particular to my fellow Christian in the church. Therefore, when he comes to chapter fourteen, he urges upon us that we are to seek spiritual gifts, but particularly, and here becomes the change of the emphasis, particularly those gifts that, uh, provide edification for the church. The more love, the more desire to edify. Now, uh, uh, go for prophecy, he said, because prophecy is a communication that people can understand. Whereas if in the church you speak, say, in tongues, this is argument, uh, except there's an interpreter there, nobody understands what you're saying. And it isn't therefore an exhibition of love. You are not communicating, to use that blessed modern word, uh, and you'll see. You are not g- you are not helping. The the rest are not edified. And it is your responsibility, uh, bear it in mind when you get up to pray, despite all exhortations to the contrary, it is your responsibility so to pray that the time you're finished, you've edified your brethren. Some people say you shouldn't so pray, you should be talking just to God. Well, you should be talking to God, but your brethren are meant to be edified when you're finished. So number one, therefore, consideration of love that must control these, these gifts, and that will mean, down to practicalities, you must in the church speak in a known tongue so that the people can be edified, or if you speak in tongues, there must be an interpreter so they can be edified. Otherwise, it is useless to the church. Then he comes down to a paragraph on verse twenty onwards for another consideration. Not only must it be useful to the church and understood of the church, but consider the relation of spirit and intellect. You may say, oh well, if I pray in the tongue, uh, my spirit prayeth. So it does as for your spirit prayeth, but your intellect is unfruitful. Is that a higher situation, a more profitable situation than praying with your intellect? No. Oh no. What is it then, he says, and he phrases himself very forcibly in his Greek? I will pray in the understanding also. All right? Verse fifteen, that was. That is, he doesn't mean I will pray sometimes in the spirit and at other times I will pray in the understanding. He's saying I'll pray with the spirit, and I will pray de kai, for you who know Greek, de chi, and I will pray also with the under- understanding. The gentleman says, please, when it comes to gray natter and the use thereof, be grown up men. It is not a mark of spirituality to despise the intellect. If you can get the intellect working as well as your spirit, it is always preferable. And if that is so in private, how much more so in the church? Then there is the third question of the testimony and the possible dangers to the testimony of speaking in tongues in the church. Along this line, uh, verse, um, uh, uh, uh, 20 onwards, tongues are assigned to the unbeliever, prophecy assigned to the believer. And people have found this very difficult. They say Paul changes his ground halfway through. So he does not really, surely. Signs, a tongue are assigned to the unbeliever. Let's see that in evidence on the day of Pentecost. These Galilean fishermen got up and they started to talk, and people from I don't know how many nations gathered round. First they thought they were drunk, and then one man here who came from Patagonia heard one apostle speaking in Patagonian. And one man here who came from Cappadocia, he heard him speak in his native tongue. What a mystery. And after those fishermen, they were obviously fishermen, no Patagonian. A veritable United Nations affair it was. How did it happen? It was such a miracle as cause for some explanation. And of course, being so sign, it gave Peter the opportunity to explain, I presume in homespun Aramaic, the story of the gospel. And if you can do that, rather do it as much as you can. If you, being an Englishman, knowing no Russian, can speak to a Russian in Russian. So he sees it's a miracle and doesn't say, oh, well, he came to Cambridge. You speak for all your worth. So he inquires how you do it, and you're able to tell him about Christ. Uh, you be in Cambridge here in Roseford, for instance, in this hall, and you're all speaking in tongues, and somebody comes in from the estate and doesn't understand a word of what you're saying, you know what he'll say, says Paul, he'll say you're round a bend. He'll say you're mad. Oh, please don't do it because of the danger to the testimony. And yet, curiously enough, if he says, if an unbeliever comes into your place, or one that's unlearned, and you all prophesy, the secrets of his heart are made manifest, and he falls down and acknowledges God is here the truth. Well, how does that come about? Well, it seems to me, perhaps the answer is quite simple, I don't know. If prophecy is distinct from teaching, somebody said, was it you, you saying that? Uh, prophecy is distinct from teaching, is not merely a matter of God revealing New Testament truth. Uh, the church being built upon apostles and prophets. Oh no, that wasn't you, sorry, calling an amen, our good friend over here. Uh, with whom I agreed, uh, most certainly. There's not merely that function of prophets, uh, New Testament prophets upon whom as a foundation the church is built, but those prophetic ministries in which God is not so much explaining a particular passage pedestrian fashion, word by word, getting it clear intellectually what it means, but God so speaking a word for a moment that even the servant who speaks it doesn't see, doesn't know that it exactly fits a man's heart who happens to be there. Uh, so that it is evident to the man who's on the receiving end that this is of God. The chap who's speaking could not possibly know. I've known that happened many, many times in conventions that were set aside merely for teaching. I've known teaching to turn itself into a kind of a prophetic ministry. I have a dear friend, he was going to a Christian convention, he was met at the railway station and rushed, pushed, paced to a certain, uh, place where he was to preach. He got up and expounded the word of God in all innocence, and when he sat down, uh, the man who had taken him from the railway station got up and covered with shame and confusion and said, I want you all to know, you local brethren, I didn't say anything you are brother on the way from the station. You see? Yes, it's so fitted a certain particular circumstance that, um, well, the church would have thought there would have been some collusion, somebody had been spilling the beans, and the man was wanting to make sure that they knew he hadn't. And that kind of thing happens because it is the living Lord speaking a word right for the moment, his all-knowingness, of course, whether it be Christian or an unconverted man, he senses that this is of God. I was quoting to our friend here an illustration of that that I knew of, heard about in Italy, which at some stage there was a great gospel campaign and, uh, in a tent, and, uh, one night there came a man who sat on the front row who had been in the courts for murdering, and there was some deficiency in the evidence, and he couldn't be convicted, but it seemed pretty obvious that, in spite of that legal technicality, he had murdered. The preacher, of course, didn't know him from Adam, and in the middle of his address, his gospel address, uh, so he confessed to his brethren afterwards, who took him to task for doing such an outlandish thing. He said, if you're a murderer, God can save you. And he hadn't intended to say it. He said, what a foolish thing to say at a dark thing. These were more in Victorian days when people didn't speak rather loosely. And he got so confused, he went and said it again. And if you're a murderer, he said to the man, God can save you. Brethren thought the man would be so outraged he'd do a few more murders. Preacher was entirely innocent. So say, I do think that that is an extremely terrible thing. I think because the living Lord is still alive, the Lord still dies. It makes sense. And so that is my attitude to spiritual gifts. From the one extreme, all are necessary. You mustn't forbid to speak with tongues, save only there's an interpreter if it's going to be done in the church, says Paul. But, gentlemen, but, but, but.