The Church (or Churches) of Samaria

Turn a few pages further in the book of Acts…Acts, chapter 8. We read in Acts 8 of a persecution that arose in the time of Saul in the city of Jerusalem. The disciples were scattered, going here and there, all leaving the city save [except] the apostles.

One of these men that left was Philip, later called “Philip the evangelist” [“On the next day we who were Paul’s companions departed and came to Caesarea, and entered the house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven, and stayed with him”Acts 21:8.]. He went to Samaria. In Samaria, verse 5 says that he “preached Christ.” Verse 12 says of the people of Samaria, “…when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the Name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.”

Then, in Acts 9, and verse 31, we read of the church (or some translations say “churches”) of Samaria [“Then had the churches rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria, and were edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied.”]. They had churches in Samaria! AND these churches came out of this work done by Philip, AND the church, thereby, was established.

Was it divine in its origin? Or, was it of men?

The Church in the City of Corinth

One more instance, this time in Acts, chapter 18. In Acts 18, there is the account of Paul preaching in the city of Corinth—a very interesting account, the background of it. But, in verse 8, we read, “…many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.”

Paul said later in 1 Corinthians 4, and verse 15, “…in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the Gospel.” He had brought about the “new birth.” Then, in as what we know as 1 Corinthians 1, and verse 1, he wrote “Unto the church of God which is at Corinth.”

Now, that church at Corinth: Was it divine, or was it of men? Was it purely human? How did it originate? Was it divine in its origin, and in its nature? Again, I rather doubt that anyone would deny that the church in Corinth, with all of its problems, was not divine in origin and nature.

Now, these three churches before us can be looked at from two or three standpoints:

Number One: What was the ROLE OF MEN in the originating of these churches? Well, let’s ask the question, “Would it have been right to call the church in Jerusalem “the Peterite church”? Peter would have said, “NO! You’re not to call the church mine! I’m not the head of this church! Don’t call the church after me!”

Philip would have said, “No! Don’t do that! Don’t name the church for me! Don’t say that I’m the cause of it!”

Paul addressed this question, 1 Corinthians 1. He said, “I wasn’t crucified for you! You weren’t baptized into my name! Why do you try to wear my name as a leader of your life of religion? No!”

It did not, then, fit the apostles to have the church understood as being theirs. What was their role? Their role was ONLY to preach the Gospel. That’s all they did. Now, the Gospel, when it was believed and obeyed, brought into being in Samaria, and in Corinth, the very same church, as to origin and nature, that was established on the Day of Pentecost in Jerusalem.

HOW did that occur? How is it possible that this would be?

There’s a very interesting study of the parables of Jesus, and particularly the first one. In the first parable that we call “The Parable of the Sower,” there are two references, one in Matthew 13 and the other in Luke 8. In Luke 8:11, Jesus said, “The seed IS the Word of God.” The seed. The seed is what was planted by the sower. So, it refers to the planting of the Word of God.

In Matthew 13, and verse 19, Jesus refers to “the Word of the kingdom.” The Word of the kingdom—the Word which has to do with, and which relates to, the kingdom of God.