
Joshua 5:12 “And the manna ceased the day after they ate of the produce of the land. And there was no longer manna for the people of Israel, but they ate of the fruit of the land of Canaan that year.”
The Israelite’s entrance into Canaan at Jericho marks an important season of transition. These transitions seem to me to be greatly overlooked. The very first of these mentioned is in our text. The day after the people of Israel first ate of the produce of Canaan, God’s provision of manna ceased. Dead. Full stop.
The people were no less God’s people. But this supernatural provision was not meant to be perpetual. They had come into a new era. In one sense, they had matured. They had grown past their Wilderness condition and entered into the first phase of obtaining their earthly inheritance.
There were other similar changes.
No longer would they be led by the cloud over the Ark of the Covenant by day. Nor would they have the manifestation of the pillar of fire by night. No longer would water be fetched out of the rock as it was several times before. Joshua would be their leader, but he was not the prophet Moses was. Deut. 8:4 and Neh. 9:21 says their clothes did not wear out during their wandering. That provision would cease too.
Then there was the bronze serpent which was to be looked upon for healing from God’s judgment in Numb. 21. It is never mentioned again except in 2 Kings when it had taken on superstitious and idolatrous dimensions. Add to that the issue of Gideon’s ephod, crafted as a monument to God’s supernatural deliverance. Then we read: “Gideon made an ephod…and put it in his city, in Ophrah. And all Israel whored after it there, and it became a snare to Gideon and to his family. (Judges 8:27, ESV)
And perhaps one more example to try and round out all that I am after here: The Mosaic Law. It was made for a time and a place and a purpose – and attended by the most supernatural of occurrences. But in each and every example noted – any attempt to codify such matters as to make them the permanent norm within the Church in the Church age, ends up bringing confusion. When they are intentionally repurposed so as to be perpetual in all ages and circumstances – they become stumbling blocks. God is the same. But we no longer have tablets of stone to put beside the Ark. Nor will we ever have them again. Permanent spiritual realities, but carefully separated from the external events.
What does this have to do with the early Church? This: When we do not recognize that the Church of the Apostolic age was nascent. And if you will look at the history of Christian cults – you will almost invariably see an element of claiming to restore the Church to its early roots at the base. Something I think to be a serious error.
Now let me be clear. Jude is emphatic that we need to defend “the faith” which was delivered unto us once and for all. The fundamentals of saving faith – of the persons and nature of the triune Godhead; the Creation-Fall-Redemption narrative; the inspiration, authority and sufficiency of Scripture; the person and work of Jesus the Christ as very God and very man; Jesus’ substitutionary atonement on the Cross; salvation by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone – these (and other) non-negotiables must be defended and maintained in every generation.
What is concerning in this regard, are attempts to re-create the practices and non-inspired traditions of the infant Church as though they are somehow sacred. House churches. Less defined leadership roles. Music. Communion practices. Congregant participation. And others.
Now there is nothing inherently wrong with adopting such practices. Times, places, cultures, varied giftedness among worshippers, etc., these all can and do impact what might go on in any local assembly – large or small.
And I might note here that the size of a Church is frequently an area where this issue arises. And we must be charitable, flexible and wise considering it. There is nothing inherently better or worse in being a small church, nor is there anything inherently better or worse in being a large one. Each one has it pluses and its negatives. But codifying one or the other as more sacred, based on the Church in its infancy is poor reasoning. Observing what a thing was in one time or place in the Bible is not necessarily an endorsement nor a model to be emulated. It may just be a report of what was – in that time and place.
The same could be said for the structure of Church services (more or less of a regulated liturgy or habit of practice). Or the frequency of the Lord’s Table. When to meet (Sundays or at other times). How the divisions of leadership among elders and deacons are structured. Some portions of Scripture may give us actual directives. Others may only give us examples of what was being done in a particular place under particular circumstances.
What can be missed in all of this is that the Church was meant to be widely adaptable once it was to expand outside of its Judaic womb. It was always meant to mature. It was meant to be able to thrive in various cultures, under a vast array of social, political and governmental environments and in every age.
So it was a chief concern of Paul’s – in regard to the practice of spiritual gifts in Corinth – was this very issue of maturity: 1 Corinthians 13:11 “When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways.”
Every child has the inborn capacity for speech. But as one matures, they become responsible for their speech. Babbling is fine for an infant, not for an adolescent, teenager or worse yet, an adult. As we mature, native capacities are harnessed so as to be brought to usefulness. As children our thoughts are unguarded and unregulated. As we grow we take more and more responsibility for governing our thought life. So it is self-control is not only a fruit of The Spirit (God’s thought life is NEVER uncontrolled), but among the 17 times it is addressed in the New Testament, is also cited as a requirement for leadership (1 Tim. 3:2, Titus 1:8). Hence even the exercise of Spiritual gifts which might have taken on some unique forms in the earliest days of the Church, will need to be considered in more refined ways as the Church and those in it, mature.
Now, back to where we started. Might not our observations of Israel’s transition from its wilderness wanderings to their physical inheritance be worthy of consideration? I think so. Consider the following.
It might have been very easy for those now camped outside of Jericho, to wonder if God was still among them once the supernatural manifestations they had experienced for the past 40 years ceased. Isn’t it better to always have the supernatural manifestly evident every day? Apparently not.
Having come to a next stage of growth, Israel was to take on responsibility for feeding themselves in a way they did not previously. They were going to have to be guided by what God had already communicated and inscripturated more than by the direct prophetic leadership of Moses. Yes, Joshua was there, but that wasn’t quite the same was it? And when he passed, there was no one appointed to take his place. The bronze serpent wasn’t a means of healing anymore. In fact, it does not appear to have been excepting its singular usage. Did their clothing wearing out and their need to make new ones mean God wasn’t among them as He once was? Was this a lesser spiritual state? Should they be crying out for water from the Rock to slake their thirst once more?
You get the picture.
But I wonder if we have some in the Church today who might not have a similar problem in our hearts past the early Church age.
Are we still clamoring after cloven tongues of fire? Is the Church less Spirit-filled without them? So house churches were the norm. But weren’t the Jewish Believers already used to organized Synagogue meetings? Might they not legitimately look to organize similarly? Was Paul in error and refusing the Spirit when he met in the Hall of Tyrannus (Acts 19) instead of a home? Are there no more Ananias and Sapphiras to be slain for lying to the Holy Spirit? Has the Spirit left us because no Elymases are being struck blind by apostolic fiat? Are we less spiritual because there were no official apostles raised up and universally recognized after John’s passing? Baptism isn’t any more efficacious performed in the Jordan than whatever body of water it was Philip used when meeting the Ethiopian eunuch on the road to Gaza. Accidents of time and place are no more directives perpetually binding on the Church than making axe heads float.
My point is simply this – romanticizing the early Church in its infancy as though it is the paradigm for the Church as it matures throughout the ages is a fallacy.
Certainly there are aspects of its original zeal and dependence upon the Spirit that we do well to preserve. We see principles like devotion to the Apostle’s teaching, breaking of bread, fellowship and prayer which endure. And then forget that they also met daily, BOTH in the Temple courts as well as in homes. Why is no one codifying the Temple part? To sacredize and codify every practice of the Church’s beginnings, is to fail to recognize how it is God is bringing us along in continued growth until Jesus’ return.
Spiritual gifts for instance will come and go as The Spirit sees fit. That is His domain, not ours. He knows what is best in every place and time. We have no more right to expect or require Him to manifest what He did at Pentecost today, than to require Christ be crucified over and over again. There are once and for all matters, and there are continuing realities. But to make experiences and events perpetually repeatable in order to be the Church at its best is very simply misguided.
If the early Church was the Church at its best and most mature, then Paul’s letters to Corinth, the Galatians or Jude’s make no sense. We need to have our share in Pentecost without trying to recreate it. We need to grow up. We need to see our roots, learn from what was good and what was not, and make maturity in Christ preeminent above by-gone practices peculiar to their unique time and place.
The early Church was just that – the Church in its infancy. And the Church today, is the Church 2000 years later. We are not 1st Century Believers, but 21st Century Believers. Some things have changed. By necessity. Practices can shift and adjust. Foundational truths remain the same. May we find wisdom in differentiating them one from the other. And may Christ be glorified above all in it all.








