Acts 14:23 says that elders are ordained in every church, but Titus 1:5 says that elders are ordained in every city. This means that “in every city” is “in every church,” and “in every church” is equivalent to “in every city.” To ordain elders in every church is not to ordain elders in every home or in any other kind of place, but in every city.
Then Revelation 1:11 says: “What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches: unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea” (A.S.V.). Have you noticed all the unto’s in this verse? The Lord tells John to write a book and send it unto the seven churches. Following this he says, “unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.” “Unto” is repeated seven times. Therefore, unto the seven churches is unto the seven cities, and unto the seven cities is unto the seven churches.
To my realization, the use of so many unto’s in this verse makes the composition rather awkward. There must be a reason for this repetition. “Write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches.” Then it says “unto” the first place, and “unto” the second place, and “unto” the third place, and “unto” the fourth place, and “unto” the fifth place, and “unto” the sixth place, and “unto” the seventh place. Why did the Lord speak in this way? If it were written by me, I would simply say. Send it unto the seven churches which are in Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea. I would not use so many unto’s.
I don’t believe that anyone would write this verse as it is. Every one of us would probably put all seven names after one “unto.” But the Lord did not do it in this way. He told John to send this book unto the seven churches. Then He said to send it unto this city and unto that city, etc. This clearly shows us that one church equals one city and represents that city.
When something was written and sent to the church in Ephesus, it means that it was sent to the city of Ephesus, because the church in Ephesus represented that city in the eyes of the Lord. If we read Revelation 1:11 again, we will realize that this is what it means. This verse tells us clearly and definitely that a church in a place must be equal to the city in which the church is located. And it corresponds with Acts 14:23 and Titus 1:5. In these two verses we see that to ordain elders in every church is to ordain elders in every city, and to ordain elders in every city means to ordain elders in every church. This makes it abundantly clear that the sphere and limit of the church must be exactly the same as that of the city. In other words, the boundary, the jurisdiction of the church is identical to that of the city.
We must believe that the wording used by the Lord in writing the Scriptures is exceedingly meaningful. Why would Acts 14:23 say to ordain elders in every church and then Titus 1:5 say to ordain elders in every city? Has the church something to do with the city? In a sense, the church has nothing to do with the city; but in the Lord’s way, the boundary, the jurisdiction of a local church must be the same as the city. Then in Revelation 1:11 the Lord Jesus makes it extremely clear that a local church is equal to the city in which it is located.
Before 1828, the year in which the Brethren were raised up, the concept of the church being local had not been seen clearly by Christianity. But after 1828, the Brethren, under the leadership of John Nelson Darby, began to see that the church must be local. Thus, the Brethren began to have their local assemblies, and the term “local assembly,” or “local church” began to be used. But they were not clear regarding the limit or the boundary of the local church. Eventually the Brethren, especially the so-called Open Brethren, had many local assemblies in one city. Six years ago in a certain city, I met one of their responsible brothers who told me that there were four Brethren assemblies in that one city. And these four assemblies had nothing to do with each other. Everyone was a separate, independent assembly with a different administration. In other cities, they have even more assemblies. They have been too free. When some brothers in their assemblies have felt unhappy with others, they have left and started another meeting. Yet they would say that they were not divided from the others, but were still one in the Lord. Some met on one street and others met on another street, but both claimed to meet in the name of the Lord. Thus they were not assemblies of the cities, but assemblies of the streets. They had responsible brothers, not in every city, but on certain streets. This was and still is due to the fact that the Brethren have never seen the limit or the boundary of the local church.
Home | First | Prev | Next