‘Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will shew thee’. ‘By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went. … For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God’. ‘Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness’ (Gen 12:1, Heb 11:8,10, Rom 4:3)
Ruth left her comfort zone:
‘Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God: Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: the LORD do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me. When she saw that she was stedfastly minded to go with her, then she left speaking unto her. Naomi and Ruth Return to Bethlehem So they two went until they came to Bethlehem’. (Ruth 1:16-19)
Peter left his comfort zone:
‘But the ship was now in the midst of the sea, tossed with waves: for the wind wascontrary. And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea. And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear. But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid.
And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water. And he said, Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus. But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me. And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt? And when they were come into the ship, the wind ceased. Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God’. (Matt 14:24-33)
Our Comfort Zone
We visited some brethren in Yorkshire in July. They gave us a photocopy of an article entitled ‘The Modern Smooth Cross’ It spoke about a new comfortable type of Christianity, pleasant, at peace with the world with an entertaining form of evangelism to go with it. It contrasted this with the True Cross, the one about which the Lord said, ‘Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel’s, the same shall save it. For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?’ (Mark 8:34-36).
Everything around has been designed to make us comfortable. No doubt Ur was a comfortable city. I was told that in many ways it was more advanced than Babylon 1400 years later. We have become accustomed to a comfortable kind of Christianity – good meetings, good social relationships, and an ecclesiastical structure we can relate to, the church or meeting where we gather, rather than Christ, being the centre of our lives. The church, to use the modern expression, has become ‘our comfort zone’.
The True Cross separates us from the principles of the world – including the religious world It is the end of man according to the flesh, worldly, intellectual, religious, political, sectarian – whatever. But we have to leave our comfort zone to take up the cross.
Darby and others did just that when they separated from the organised church in the early part of the nineteenth century. They eschewed what was sectarian, seeing fellowship based on the one body – not a voluntary association. When two or three gathered to the Lord’s name, His presence was real and experienced, and they were greatly blessed and added to. They gathered in simplicity around the scriptures and found a Teacher in the Lord Himself and a Guide in the Holy Spirit.
Many are experiencing the same things now. They have left thier ‘comfort zone’. They meet in smallness and dependence, and pray that others they love might share thier joy.
Like Abraham, Ruth and Peter, we need to leave our ‘comfort zones’. If we do, it is a step in faith – ‘But without faith it is impossible to please him [God]’ (Heb 11:6). Of the future, if the Lord does not come, none of us knows. We follow Jesus – ‘the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God’ (Heb 12:2) – yes, the true cross.
‘But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him’. (1 Cor 2:9)
With greetings in Christ’s blessed Name
Sosthenes
September 2017
he old cross would have no truck with the world. For Adam’s proud flesh it meant the end of the journey. It carried into effect the sentence imposed by the law of Sinai. The new cross is not opposed to the human race; rather it is friendly pal, and if understood aright, it is the source of oceans of good clean fun and innocent enjoyment. It lets Adam live without interference.
Christians have differed as to the subject of everlasting punishment.
Simple Bible-believing Christians accept that the consequence of rejecting the gospel is eternal punishment in hell. Unfortunately, many modern teachers proclaim lies:
Eternal does not mean ‘without end’
Everybody, including unbelievers, will be saved – Universalism
The wicked will be consumed and annihilated – Annihilationism.
Souls will return in another body – Re-incarnation
Christians have differed as to the subject of everlasting punishment.
Simple Bible-believing Christians accept that the consequence of rejecting the gospel is eternal punishment in hell.Unfortunately, many modern teachers proclaim lies:
Eternal does not mean ‘without end’
Everybody, including unbelievers, will be saved – Universalism
The wicked will be consumed and annihilated – Annihilationism.
Souls will return in another body – Re-incarnation
The simple believer has no doubt that persons who reject the glad tidings will suffer in hell eternally. The English Bible leave him/her in no doubt that the punishment of the wicked is eternal. ‘And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever … And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. …And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire’ (Rev 21:10,12,15).
However, the theological intelligentsia has created alternative arguments:
The Greek word αἰώνιος/aiónios/Strong 166 does not really mean ‘eternal’. For example, some confine both life and punishment to the next age, i.e. the millennium. But that cannot be eternal.
All will be saved: God is too loving to allow such a thing as eternal misery in the lake of fire. (Universalism)
The wicked will not be saved. Their souls will no longer be immortal, for that the fire of hell will in time consume (or annihilate) them. (Annihiliationism).
I add re-incarnation – that the soul is reborn into another being
These arguments are mutually exclusive.
The Greek Word αἰώνιος
Darby was a Greek scholar and he was perfectly satisfied that the word meant ‘without end’ God warns the reader that eternal misery is the portion of the wicked. If that were not the case, would God frighten people with something that was not true? Strong defines αἰώνιος as ‘age-long, and therefore: practically eternal, unending; partaking of the character of that which lasts for an age, as contrasted with that which is brief and fleeting’.
Rev 5:14 says, ‘And the four and twenty elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for ever and ever.’ The worshippers worship for ever and ever. On the other hand, ‘The smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name’ (Rev 14:11). For ever and ever is just that – eternal.
All will be Saved – Universalism
These persons call themselves Christian universalists. The idea that all will be saved is monstrous and unscriptural lie. Scripture makes it clear that some are saved and others are damned. If this were not the case what would be the point of Christ’s atonement, because those who rejected Christ’s work would be saved anyway? It would follow that even the devil would have to be saved – without Christ. When scripture says ‘should not perish’ – they argue that none would perish; when scripture says ‘whose end is destruction’ – they have no answer since they believe that all will come into happiness, but the wicked would have to wait a little longer. They argue that the condemned are such for a time only – like the Catholics believe in purgatory.
Hell will in time consume (or annihilate) the Souls of the Wicked – Annihilationism
This view, Darby said, was much in vogue in Britain during his lifetime. I believe it still is. Annihilationists say that death means simply ceasing to exist, as it does for the animals. If life is to be found only in Christ – ‘He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life’ (1 John 5:12), then those who do not believe have no life. They claim that after a certain quantity of punishment, the wicked will be turned out of existence, annihilated or consumed by the fire of hell, and exist no more. However, if when they died they ceased to exist, how were they to be made alive (without the work of Christ) in order to exist? Are they to be revived just to be punished?
Both of the above subvert God’s claims and the work of Christ.
Reincarnation
As far as I can see, there is no reference to reincarnation in Darby’s writings. I am adding it though since, sadly many Christians have, in more recent times, borrowed this notion from Buddhism and Hinduism. It becomes a way of avoiding having a direct experience with God and accepting the work of Christ. ‘Now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation’ (Heb 9:26-28).
The Truth
Christ endured the wrath of a majestic and holy God, who is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity. Eternal punishment is the terrible consequence of the enmity of man’s heart against God; eternal blessedness is the result of God’s free and blessed grace. Simple-minded Christians believe this, as they believe scripture.
He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son’ (1 John 5:10-11)
An Appeal by J N Darby
Poor sinner, you are to meet God. Are you competent to judge how much punishment He should assign to you for your quantity of sin. He is to judge you in love. Love is what He is. But He is God, and does what pleases Him. His love for His Son; His love for those who have accepted the work of His Son, obliges Him to punish you eternally if you refuse His love. Mark this: if the Spirit of God has touched your conscience, you know that you deserve to be shut out of the presence of God for ever. You are conscious that you have deserved eternal wrath and punishment. You are a sinner: — What, in your own conscience, does sin deserve? And further, if it is a question what sin deserves, it is a question of what Christ bore, what His atonement was; for He bore our sins and was made sin for us. (Lightly edited by Sosthenes).
This is a summary of a paper by John Nelson Darby ‘A Brief Scriptural Evidence on the Doctrine of Eternal Punishment, for Plain People’. It is published in Collected Writings Volume 7 (Doctrinal 2) page 1.
The essence of my current view of fellowship is that it is experience and not a membership system. I seem to discern believers amongst ban elaboration of Paul’s statement that the Corinthians had been called into the fellowship of God’s Son with which I am uncomfortable. It suggests that this is a calling, which is additional to the call in the gospel, and that there are those who have responded to the call in the gospel but have failed to respond to the call into the fellowship of God’s Son, Jesus Christ our Lord. I don’t accept this. It implies a division in the body of Christ between those who have entered into this fellowship and those who have failed to do so.
The essence of my current view of Christian fellowship is that it is experience and not a membership system.
Paul went to Corinth in Acts 18 and, as was his custom, made his way to the synagogue. When it was finally clear that his message was firmly rejected by the Jews, he said that he would go to the nations. However, he was received by Justus; Crispus believed with all his house and many of the Corinthians, who had heard and believed, were baptised.
These people, from diverse backgrounds, now had the things relating to the faith of Jesus Christ in common in every circumstance of life. Whether they met together by arrangement or bumped into one another in the street, they had a link, related to their common faith, which they had with no others. This was Christian fellowship. It was known to them before Paul wrote his first letter to them. In chapter 1 of his first letter, he refers to this known link and enlightens them as to its exalted level – it is the fellowship of God’s Son. FER refers to having the things before we have the words and I think that this applies here.
I seem to discern believers amongst ban elaboration of Paul’s statement that the Corinthians had been called into the fellowship of God’s Son with which I am uncomfortable. It suggests that this is a calling, which is additional to the call in the gospel, and that there are those who have responded to the call in the gospel but have failed to respond to the call into the fellowship of God’s Son, Jesus Christ our Lord. I don’t accept this. It implies a division in the body of Christ between those who have entered into this fellowship and those who have failed to do so.
There is the intimation, in this point of view, that fellowship is a membership system which is narrower than membership of the body of Christ. It has been ministered that ‘we form an association and all the members of the association are governed by the same thoughts and feelings and ‘All those breaking bread form part of the association, as we all partake of one loaf.’ An inescapable conclusion from these statements is that those members of the body of Christ not breaking bread have no part in this membership system. Fellowship is thus defined as a membership system which is narrower than membership of the body of Christ. This is the definition of a sect.
There is no higher expression of that which Christians have in common, i.e. Christian fellowship, than participation in the breaking of bread but I think that it must be borne in mind that that we do this for a calling of Him to mind, according to His request. To make the breaking of bread the confirmation ritual of membership of a fellowship, which is narrower than membership of the body of Christ, is to degrade it from what was instituted by the Lord.
If, as I believe, fellowship is experience, expressions such as ‘a fellowship’, ‘the fellowship’, ‘in fellowship’ and ‘out of fellowship’ lose their force; they all seem to me to imply membership. We, very simply, walk with others and find fellowship with them as we do so. The scriptural warrant for this, which includes moral and spiritual requirements, is in 2 Tim 2 and 1 John 1.
You refer to FE Raven Vol. 17 p40-41. Also are relevant is Vol. 18, p.63: ‘I have nothing to do with anybody else save to walk with them’ and so on. I have the impression from his ministry in the USA in 1902 that FER had become increasingly concerned with the way in which brethren were institutionalising. My view is that this concern about “brethrenism” was disregarded and accounts for the development of corporatist views of fellowship.
What do we mean by ‘fellowship’?
How many fellowships are there?
What are the moral aspects to fellowship?
Where does the breaking of bread fit in?
How does fellowship relate to ‘withdrawing from iniquity’
What does it mean to be ‘in fellowship’ or ‘out of fellowship’?
What do we mean by ‘fellowship’?
How many fellowships are there?
What are the moral aspects to fellowship?
Where does the breaking of bread fit in?
How does fellowship relate to ‘withdrawing from iniquity’
What does it mean to be ‘in fellowship’ or ‘out of fellowship’?
These are questions which concern many Christians and have been the cause of much controversy. This short note makes some fundamental observations backed by scripture. It leaves other questions unanswered and I invite the reader to give me any thoughts he or she has on this important subject.
What do we mean by ‘fellowship’
The dictionary gives the word as meaning
friendly association, especially with people who share one’s interests:
a group of people meeting to pursue a shared interest or aim.
a guild or corporation
the status of a fellow of a college or society
None of these definitions relate to what we mean by ‘fellowship’ in a Christian sense.
The Greek Words
Two words are used – one normally a noun and the other a verb. See below[i] for the references to ‘fellowship’ in scripture.
So the only reference to fellowship with persons is in 1 John 1. Two references to God are as having fellowship with the Holy Spirit and one to the fellowship of God’s Son. These have been highlighted in yellow. All of the other references to κοινωνίᾳ (koinōnia)/Strong (2842), highlighted in green, have a moral base – we have fellowship with a thing rather than a person
The Fellowship of God’s Son
It is very clear from scripture that the only true fellowship to which the Christian belongs is the fellowship of God’s Son ‘God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord (1 Cor 1:9)’. Being a member of this fellowship should preclude the believer being in any other formal fellowship. As we saw above ‘Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?’ (2 Cor 6:14).
I am linked in a wonderful fellowship with every believer in the Lord Jesus who is indwelt by the Holy Spirit. It is a partnership: we share things in common. ‘Our commonwealth has its existence in [the] heavens, from which also we await the Lord Jesus Christ [as] Saviour’ (Phil 3:20 Darby). This affects all our relationships here.
As we are in that fellowship we have fellowship with one another – but that must be as walking in the light. The light must be the light of the revelation of God in Christ[ii]: it is certainly not a humanly written creed.
Of course, there are limitations to enjoying fellowship. None of us has contact with more than a tiny percentage of the Lord’s people on earth. We are scattered geographically, and alas, we are scattered ecclesiastically.
Other Christian Fellowships
Individual churches and whole denominations often describe themselves as fellowships, e.g. Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches. On the internet, somebody had listed 150 churches in his (US) city. Most of them had them had the word ‘church’ in their name, eight had the word ‘fellowship’ in it e.g. Christ Centered Fellowship or Covenant Fellowship.
Whilst people forming these assemblies or groups of assemblies are very sincere, I would suggest that they have something less than that which our Lord has in mind for us. It is sectarian. Frederick Raven used to speak of a ‘little pattern church’ – persons there would talk about ‘our fellowship’ as if that was a better fellowship than another Christian fellowship. He had a real problem with that[iii]!
What are the moral aspects to fellowship?
We have fellowship with His sufferings, with light, or exercising it in giving or in ministry. We do not have fellowship with evil deeds or darkness. We may break bread together, but if you see that I am going on with evil, you cannot have fellowship with me. Of course, if I continue with that, there will come a time when those Christians I meet with will deem that I cannot have fellowship with them, and that would mean that they judge me to be unfit for Christian fellowship anywhere, not just that there is a difference of opinion or discouragement. Paul writes ‘But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.’ (1 Cor 5:11).
Where does the breaking of bread fit in?
The highest point in a Christian church’s calendar is the breaking of bread. In some churches this might be called ‘holy communion’; in the Catholic and Anglo-Catholic churches, it is called the ‘mass’. Others might refer to it as the ‘worship service’. There is a lot of unscriptural dogma attached to this (e.g. transubstantiation), but the basic point is that participation is limited to members of the church. Sometimes visitors will be invited to share in it.
The Lord asked us to do something simple. ‘This do in rememberance of me’ (Luke 22:19). Paul gave it a public view: ‘For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come’ (1 Cor 11:26). Whatever it is, it is responding to the Lord’s request to remember Him in the world in which He was rejected.
What is important is that nowhere in scripture is the breaking of bread used to define the membership of a Christian group. We break bread in the light of the one body. A brother wrote to me recently saying ‘the breaking of bread becomes the badge of fellowship, and everything flows from that, whereas, in truth, it is the other way round – I break bread with brethren with whom I am happy to be in fellowship as the highest expression of fellowship, and as an exclusive commitment to those with whom I am in fellowship.’ I couldn’t have put it better.
How does Fellowship relate to ‘Withdrawing from Iniquity’ (2 Tim 2:19)
In days of brokenness in Christendom, any individual seeking to be faithful to the Lord is called upon to depart from iniquity. The word ἀδικία (adikia) Strong 93 is generally translated ‘unrighteousness’. But the positive side of this is seen in the way in which the believer is able to find those he or she can walk with. Charles Coates said that if Christian fellowship is to be taken up in a divine way in the present condition of things it can only be as we ‘pursue righteousness, faith, love, peace, with those that call upon the Lord out of a pure heart’ (2 Tim 2:22)[iv].
How we define iniquity is the subject for another paper.
When it comes to ‘withdrawing from’ persons, it relates to behaviour. ‘Now we enjoin you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw from every brother walking disorderly and not according to the instruction which he received from us’ (2 Thess 3:6 Darby). That goes on to ‘do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed of himself; and do not esteem him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother (v.14-15). This is how we treat a person with whom we are walking. A distance comes in so that the person can reflect on his behaviour and repent.
What does it mean to be ‘in fellowship’ or ‘out of fellowship’?
These expressions are used freely and this is where I think we need to look into what is meant. I have been looking at the websites of several evangelical Christian churches and the word is used freely. What strikes me is that my perceptions have been tainted with exposure to the line of thinking on these sites. Having been delivered nearly 50 years ago from the sect which has now become known as the PBCC, looking at their site I can see this very clearly. But they are by no means unique – in fact the norm. Sectarian thought pervades. Shortly before my 101-year-old mother was taken, she was put beside another Christian lady in the home. When I spoke to the latter I said ‘I hear you are a lover of the Lord Jesus’. Her reply ‘I’m a Methodist’ – end of conversation. Sad.
But then we have to be selective. Somebody comes to our gathering (I wish it was more frequent!). As a fellow believer, immediately there is fellowship. Indeed one could say they were ‘in fellowship’. Now that person says, ‘I would like to break bread with you’. We then have to ask questions as to his or her beliefs, conduct and associations – have they ‘washed their robes’. Are they linking us in partnership with something which is incompatible with Christian fellowship?
Similarly, if a person espouses heretical doctrine (See Titus 3:10) or becomes morally unfit (see 1 Cor 5:11), then the company has to exercise discipline. That person, if unrepentant, must be excluded from fellowship. He is then unfit for Christian fellowship anywhere – ‘out of fellowship’. If that person then went to the Baptists for example, and they were to ask our company as to why we parted company with him, then they ought not to receive him based on what we said. Fellowship, therefore, transcends sectarian boundaries.
A serious question is the extent to which, being ‘in’ or ‘out of’ fellowship becomes sectarian. For example, if a young person becomes discouraged, and links on with a charismatic gathering where things are more exciting, we may no longer be able to break bread with that person. However, he is not a heretic or a morally corrupt person. He remains a believer, but we are unable to support his associations. If we were to deem him ‘out of Christian fellowship’, would we be going beyond what the Lord would support? Would we be on sectarian ground? Would we be losing sight of the ‘one body’?
Conclusion
These thoughts have been presented after both prayer and study of the scriptures and helpful ministry. I am not presenting them as statements of dogma – more to stimulate exercise in others and to have a dialogue on this important subject.
A brother wrote to me recently in which he lamented the way we go to extremes one way or the other. One was to ritualism; the other to rationalism. Formality and legalism are Pharisaical, and we knew what the Lord said about that. On the other hand, rationalism is allowing my own carnal thoughts to come to conclusions about spiritual things. This could be worse.
The Holy Spirit is the One who guides us into all the truth.
Here is a summary in tabular form:
Outlook towards: Legality * Ritualism * Sectarianism
In Fellowship
Those who are ‘in fellowship’ are limited to those who are voluntary members of the Christian group
The tendency is towards ‘exclusivism’ – having a group ‘in fellowship’ however small (two or three – (Matt 18:20)
Those persons may be morally unfit, but if they have not been excommunicated they are fully ‘in fellowship’
They break bread and mix only with those who are in that group
They do not attend any service or meeting with other Christian groups
Breaking bread and being in fellowship are the same
They have little or nothing to do with those who have left it, voluntarily or involuntarily, justly or unjustly, even if naturally related.
Whilst they acknowledge that all believers are in the fellowship of God’s Son, the only practical Christian fellowship is with those of the particular company
Fellowship is positional – not moral
Out of Fellowship
Any person, who is not a member of the Christian group is ‘out of fellowship’
Any person who has been excommunicated (or ‘withdrawn from’) is ‘out of fellowship’ and ‘under assembly discipline’, irrespective of the circumstances
Withdrawing from iniquity is collective, and as persons are ‘withdrawn from’ they are deemed to be ‘out of fellowship;
Such persons are treated as ‘as one of the nations and a tax-gatherer’ (Matt 18:17 Darby).Social relationships are frowned on or even forbidden.
One individual may regard another as ‘out of fellowship’, based on associations, even if not formally excommunicated.
Outlook towards: Liberalism * Rationalism * Independence
In Fellowship
All members of the body of Christ, except for those morally unfit (1 Cor 5:11) and heretics (Titus 3:10) are ‘in fellowship’
The tendency is towards ‘inclusivism’ – that as many can enjoy Christian fellowship and be together as possible
The enjoyment of fellowship may be constrained by moral considerations
Breaking bread and fellowship are not the same.Normally they go together, breaking bread being an expression of fellowship.
Fellowship can be enjoyed in measure with all believers, particularly those who love the truth and are doctrinally sound.One cannot break bread with all though.
Some might break bread with a stranger who confessed the Lord without further enquiry (The ‘open table’).
Many will attend meetings of other Christian groups
There is no real collective position due to the public breakdown and ruin of the church.
Withdrawal from iniquity is individual; in departing from it, persons are able to enjoy fellowship with others who have done the same and call on the Lord out of a pure heart (2 Tim 2:22)
Fellowship is moral, not positional
Out of Fellowship
The only Christians who are truly ‘out of fellowship are those morally unfit (1 Cor 5:11) and heretics (Titus 3:10)
A company may have to acknowledge that a person is not walking with them, having linked on with a sect, or caught in a fault (see Gal 6:1), but these are not to be regarded as ‘out of fellowship’ or ‘under assembly discipline’
My position is with neither of the extremes above. For example, I feel I need to be selective as to breaking bread. If the Lord has given me two or three to break bread with, then I can be thankful. In the early church they broke bread in houses (see Acts 2:46). Big communion services were not envisaged.
Below are a few helpful quotations from ministry relating to the above. Our brother ‘Agabus’ put together a far better series of quotations in a booklet entitled ‘Universal Fellowship and the Local Assembly’. Please e-mail me sosthenes@adoss.co.uk for a copy.
We recognise the authority of our Lord — and, further, any meeting is justified in protecting itself by declining to receive into its fellowship a person coming from a meeting lying under strong suspicion of sheltering evil — but one meeting has no sort of authority to pronounce an authoritative judgment on another meeting — and call on others to obey — for the Lord is equally in both meetings, and it is an invasion of His rights (F E Raven letters vol 20 p 293)
The fellowship of the Lord’s table, that side of it, is the fellowship of His death. What binds Christians together in fellowship is the common confession as Lord of “his Son Jesus Christ”. It is not fellowship with Him, but of Him. That bond subsists down here, and we are all equally responsible to maintain it according to God. In John’s epistle we have, in chapter 1: 3, “Truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ”; but the “our” there no doubt refers to the apostles. Further on, when it says, “If we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another”, we have Christian fellowship in the sphere where all Christians walk.
Ques. Were not the saints at Corinth all wrong as to fellowship?
F.E.R. No doubt things were in many ways in a bad state. But there could be no other bond of fellowship down here. It has a voice to all the world; because there is not a single person on all the earth but ought to confess Christ as Lord — for “he is Lord of all”.
Ques. Are all Christians in this fellowship?
F.E.R. They are all called to it. There is not and could not be any other bond of fellowship but that of Christ as Lord, and His death.
In stating it here the apostle appeals to “all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord”. It is the broad ground of Christian fellowship. (F E Raven Vol 7 p 402 – Christian Fellowship)
The Spirit of God would teach us in 1 Corinthians 10 that the communion or fellowship which is involved in breaking bread is universal in character. To break bread locally without regard to the universal fellowship would be like eating the hallowed things in our own gates instead of in the place where Jehovah’s Name is set. We must come spiritually to a “place” which speaks of the unity of all Israel in fellowship and in approach to God. As to the actual coming together to eat the Lord’s supper it is in “every place” where His Name is called upon, but fellowship and approach to God are universal in character. While our assembly relations are taken up locally, it is important to see that they are taken up in the light of what is universal, so that in taking them up we embrace, in mind and affection, all saints. Viewing the saints according to what is of God would lead to our being exclusive of every principle or practice that is contrary to the universal truth of God’s assembly. We should neither tolerate sectarianism nor independency. We are reconciled to God “in one body”; therefore assembly approach to God must be in the recognition of this. There could be no stronger expression of unity than “one body” formed by “one Spirit”, and that the Holy Spirit of God. (C A Coates vol 5 p 147 – An Outline of Deuteronomy)
The seriousness of one local company interfering with another local company came up at this point, and we were impressed with the Lord’s jealousy of His rights in each locality, noting the Lord’s separate word to each of the seven assemblies in Revelation 2 and 3, and also, “For where two or three are gathered together unto my name, there am I in the midst of them”, (Matthew 18:20). Flowing out of this we were helped to see that in 1 Corinthians 5 it is not a question of repentance, but of the offender “being such” and “him that has so wrought this”. It was a matter of public wickedness. Here a helpful suggestion was made that, while many matters such as “some fault” (Galatians 6:1) can be ‘mended’ privately, others involve the one, two, three of Matthew 18, while certain cases in which the Lord’s name has been dishonoured must come under assembly discipline . In 1 Corinthians 5, nothing is said about repentance but “Remove the wicked person from amongst yourselves” 1 Corinthians 5:13. – (J Taylor Vol 76 p 469 – Meetigs on Letters to Timothy This reading 1 Tim 2 & 3)
[i] Most often it is the noun – κοινωνίᾳ (koinōnia) – Strong (2842) defines it as
(a) contributory help, participation,
(b) sharing in, communion,
(c) spiritual fellowship, a fellowship in the spirit.
koinōnía (a feminine noun) – properly, what is shared in common as the basis of fellowship (partnership, community).
Darby notes to Heb 2:14 – Applying to the children – The common equal sharing of the nature. It is a joint participation in that which belongs to me, or to a known fellowship.
1 John 1:3 truly our fellowship [is] with the Father and the Son Accusative (object) κοινωνίαν (koinōnian)
Romans 15:26 a certain contribution for the poor saints which are at Jerusalem. 1 Corinthians 1:9 unto the fellowship of his Son 2 Corinthians 8:4 and [take upon us] the fellowship of the ministering to the saints. Philippians 3:10 and the fellowship of his sufferings 1 John 1:3 also may have fellowship with us: 1 John 1:6 that we have fellowship with him, 1 John 1:7 we have fellowship one with another, Genitive (possessive) κοινωνίας (koinōnias)
2 Corinthians 9:13 for [your] liberal distribution unto Galatians 2:9 the right hands of fellowship; that Hebrews 13:16 and to communicate forget
As a verb we have συγκοινωνέω sugkoinóneó Strong 4790
Note that this is the same above with συγ/sug – ie ‘with’ 4790 sygkoinōnéō (from 4862/sýn, “identified with” and 2841/koinōnéō, “share in”) – properly, sharewith by jointly partaking; to participate with because closely identified with someone (i.e. “deeply sharing with,” note the syn).
Philippians 4:14 done, that ye did communicate with my afflication
[1] Most often it is the noun – κοινωνίᾳ (koinōnia) – Strong (2842) defines it as
(a) contributory help, participation,
(b) sharing in, communion,
(c) spiritual fellowship, a fellowship in the spirit.
koinōnía (a feminine noun) – properly, what is shared in common as the basis of fellowship (partnership, community).
Darby notes to Heb 2:14 – Applying to the children – The common equal sharing of the nature. It is a joint participation in that which belongs to me, or to a known fellowship.
1 John 1:3 truly our fellowship [is] with the Father and the Son Accusative (object) κοινωνίαν (koinōnian)
Romans 15:26 a certain contribution for the poor saints which are at Jerusalem. 1 Corinthians 1:9 unto the fellowship of his Son 2 Corinthians 8:4 and [take upon us] the fellowship of the ministering to the saints. Philippians 3:10 and the fellowship of his sufferings 1 John 1:3 also may have fellowship with us: 1 John 1:6 that we have fellowship with him, 1 John 1:7 we have fellowship one with another, Genitive (possessive) κοινωνίας (koinōnias)
2 Corinthians 9:13 for [your] liberal distribution unto Galatians 2:9 the right hands of fellowship; that Hebrews 13:16 and to communicate forget
As a verb we have συγκοινωνέω sugkoinóneó Strong 4790
Note that this is the same above with συγ/sug – ie ‘with’ 4790 sygkoinōnéō (from 4862/sýn, “identified with” and 2841/koinōnéō, “share in”) – properly, sharewith by jointly partaking; to participate with because closely identified with someone (i.e. “deeply sharing with,” note the syn).
Philippians 4:14 done, that ye did communicate with my afflication
Peter is often portrayed as having the keys to heaven. He had the keys to the kingdom
Peter is often portrayed as having the keys to heaven.
He had the keys to the kingdom. He used
The first in Acts 2 when 3000 Jews believed on the day of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit came.
The second was in Acts 10 when the Gentile Cornelius, his household and friends believed.
The door is now open.
When looking at the building of church, J N Darby noted, ‘There are no keys for the Church. One does not build with keys. The keys are for the kingdom’ Collected Writings Vol 14 (Ecclesiatical 3), p80
In a brief article entitled ‘What is a Sect’ – Collected Writings Volume 14 (Ecclesiastical 3) p. 362, John Nelson Darby distinguishes those who gather to the Lord’s Name in the light of the One Body, and those who are members of a sect, or church, or ecclesiastical corporation. The latter is based on held opinions.
J N Darby – Sect or One Body
In a brief article entitled ‘What is a Sect’ – Collected Writings Volume 14 (Ecclesiastical 3) p. 362, John Nelson Darby distinguishes those who gather to the Lord’s Name in the light of the One Body, from those who are members of a sect, or church, or ecclesiastical corporation. The latter is based on held opinions.
J N Darby – Sect or One Body
The Greek word for ‘sect’ is αἵρεσις/hairesis/Strong 139. Strong says that the word signifies a strong, distinctive opinion and was used in the New Testament to differentiate parties (sects) in Judaism. The term stresses the personal aspect of choice – Sadducees and Pharisees were such by choice (See Acts 23:8). In Acts 24:14, Christianity was described by some as a Jewish sect. Of course, Paul did not own this.
Darby defines the word as signifying adherence to a doctrine or system of philosophy or religion. It is used as describe Christians departing from the truth – ‘There shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies’ (2 Peter 2:1). ‘There must also be sects among you, that the approved may become manifest among you’ (1 Cor 11:19 DBY). The Catholics assumed what they held to be ‘universal’, and censured all other believers by branding them as ‘sects’.
The Unity of the Body
The unity of the Church of Christ is seen in the Lord’s prayer in John 17 – ‘that they all may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me’ (v 21). When the Holy Spirit came (see Acts 2; 1 Cor. 12:13), Christians became onein thought, word, and deed. And in this there was testimony to the unity. Satan spoilt that. In the scriptures the Holy Spirit compares the church on the earth to the human body, Christ being the Head (see Col 1:18). So if ‘one member suffer, all the members suffer with it’. (1 Cor 12:13). We members of Christ’s body.
Divisive Sects
When Christians unite outside this of unity, around a particular opinion, their unity is not founded on the principle of the unity of the body. They form an ecclesiastical corporation, and recognise each other as members of that corporation. This constitutes a sect. The communion service becomes an expression of the union of a church’s members. When a corporation of Christians assumes a right to admit members to it, it forms a unity opposed to the unity of the body of Christ. Being a member of a such a church is not according to scripture.
Of course, many pious Christians find themselves ignorantly in sectarian positions: they have never truly apprehended the unity of the body. They believe they are in that position through the will of God. But, in fact they are in a sect, a denial of the unity of the body of Christ (see 1 Cor 10:17).
Calling on the Lord’s Name
Darby said that his desire was to recognise all Christians as members of the body of Christ, and from an enlarged heart, ‘receive them, from an enlarged heart, even to the Supper, supposing that they are walking in holiness and truth, calling upon the name of the Lord out of a pure heart’ (see 2 Tim 2:19-22). He would join with other brethren to take the Lord’s supper as members of nothing else but of the body of Christ, not as members of a church or sect. Unfortunately though, he could not gather with all the children of God, because not all were walking according to the principle of this unity of the body of Christ. They were sectarian.
Although the practical difficulties may appear great by reason of the state of the Church of God, the principle is very simple. However, Christ is sufficient for all. If we are content to be little in the eyes of men, things will not be so difficult. We can cite Matt 18:20 – ‘For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them’. This is a precious encouragement in these sad times of dispersion. We are told ‘Youthful lusts flee, and pursue righteousness, faith, love, peace, with those that call upon the Lord out of a pure heart’ ( 2 Tim 2:22 DBY). This directs us in the path of the Lord’s will, despite the confusion around us.
This is true greatness – to serve unnoticed,
And work unseen.
Learn to grapple with souls
Aim at the conscience, Exalt Christ.
Use a sharp knife with yourself,
Say little, Serve all, Pass on.
This is true greatness – to serve unnoticed,
And work unseen.
Oh, the joy of having nothing, and being nothing,
Seeing nothing but a living Christ in glory,
And being careful for nothing
But His interests down here!
And each of us, therefore, is to learn to regard his or her body as something of priceless value, which can be, and is to be, used for the pleasure of God. It greatly dignifies our bodies to regard them in that light, and our lives become sanctified and valuable to God as they are filled out in the light of the possibilities there are of ministering to the pleasure of God in our bodies. If we think of that it makes things practical. We are exorted in the sixth chapter of this epistle to the Romans to yield ourselves to God as those who are alive from among the dead, and our members as instruments of righteousness to God. So that it is not to be a theory with us. It is not to be an abstract idea which does not work out in what is practical, our members are to be held as instruments of righteousness to God, that is to say; our hands, what we do; our feet, where we go; our minds, what we think of; our eyes, what we look at. All these things are practical and our members are all intended to be held at the disposal of our God.
A.J. Gardiner
Winnipeg 1959
Thanks to Golden Nuggets, published by Saville Street Distribution
‘Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will shew thee’. ‘By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went. … For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God’. ‘Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness’ (Gen 12:1, Heb 11:8,10, Rom 4:3)
‘Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God: Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: the LORD do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me. When she saw that she was stedfastly minded to go with her, then she left speaking unto her. Naomi and Ruth Return to Bethlehem So they two went until they came to Bethlehem’. (Ruth 1:16-19)
And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water. And he said, Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus. But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me. And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt? And when they were come into the ship, the wind ceased. Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God’. (Matt 14:24-33)
The first in Acts 2 when 3000 Jews believed on the day of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit came.
