He Served God In His Own Generation

Acts 13:35-37

Jay Horsley

35 Therefore He also says in another Psalm, 'THOU WILT NOT ALLOW THY HOLY ONE TO UNDERGO DECAY.'

36 For David, after he had served the purpose of God in his own generation, fell asleep, and was laid among his fathers, and underwent decay;

37 but He whom God raised did not undergo decay.

In Acts 13 Paul preached to the Jews of Pisidian Antioch. That Sabbath, beginning with the Exodus, (vs. 17) Paul led the assembly of Jews, proselytes and God fearing Gentiles on a journey through Jewish history. He quickly brought the hearers through the wilderness wanderings, the conquest of the promised land and the time of the judges. He then contrasted the first two kings, Saul and David. Saul was king for forty years, but that was nothing compared to his successor, for David was “A MAN AFTER MY HEART, who will do all My will.” (vs. 22, quoting 1 Sam. 13:14) Because of David’s good heart and faithfulness, God promised to bring Messiah through his lineage. (vs. 23)

Paul then spent the bulk of his sermon speaking of Christ. He told of prophecies about Jesus from John the Baptist and from the scriptures that were read every Sabbath, just as they were doing that day in Pisidian Antioch. These prophecies spoke of the incarnation, work, kingship, rejection and resurrection of Christ. That the Psalms spoke about this is seen in the quotation from Ps. 16:10 given in vs. 35, “THOU WILT NOT ALLOW THY HOLY ONE TO UNDERGO DECAY.” Some Jews might have thought that this was a prophecy about David, but Paul says in the next verse that this cannot be him, for David “fell asleep, and was laid among his fathers, and underwent decay.” David is as dead as any who have ever died and his body met the same fate as all mankind. But there is one who was raised, whose body did not decay. There is but one who fulfills the prophecy, “He whom God raised” (vs. 37), He who is “to Israel a Savior, Jesus.” (vs. 23)

This sermon left David in the grave as it exalts Christ who overcame it. But before informing the audience that David was the giver of that prophecy, not the object of it, Paul paid David the highest compliment that can be bestowed upon any man on earth, “he had served the purpose of God in his own generation.” (vs. 35) No, David did not rise to everlasting life like Christ. Like us, he lived but one lifetime and died and was buried, but he served God faithfully in the life that he had. He did what was needed to please God in the days that he lived.

What a marvelous epitaph that would be for any of us, that we “served God in our own generation.” While we know that Christian duty and faithfulness is an unchanging standard, we also recognize that each generation faces unique challenges and problems which test our faithfulness and devotion to God.

Consider the New Testament times as an example of this principle. Early on, the greatest doctrinal threat to the church was Judaizing teachers. These insisted that “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” (Acts 15:1) This doctrine was a particular threat to Jewish Christians. Many Gentile Christians were not troubled by it at all. But several decades later an attacked on the faith came that appealed to the philosophic underpinnings of the pre-Christian pagan Gentile world. Gnosticism redefined Christianity in a way that fit with existing Platonic philosophic thoughts. As a result, the doctrines of the incarnation and resurrection were changed to harmonize with pagan thought. This resulted in the denial of the faith as revealed by the apostles. John wrote several epistles dealing with this heresy, concluding “Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.” (2 Jn. 9-11)

What would be the circumstance of a Christian who remained faithful in doctrine, practice and fellowship during the circumcision controversies but then fell to the Gnostic heresy? Should the brethren in A.D. 85 count him faithful because of his firm stand on the problems of A.D. 55? Maybe he had been a heroic warrior for the cause 30 years previous, but if he went with the later departure from the faith he would have be reproved, and even marked and avoided if he persisted. If this would happen to a man so faithful formerly, all would all mourn that Satan took such a valued and beloved brother, but exposing his destructive teaching to brethren he might deceive would by no means be an unheroic assault on him personally.

There are some whose life span encompasses only one major departure from the faith, but unfortunately many of us will see more than that. Consider the life of Alexander Campbell. As a young man he led many people from creedalism and denominationalism to the purity of the N.T. church. But later, when our own brethren began to build denominational structures, particularly the American Christian Missionary Society, Campbell led many brethren away from the faith he had formerly proclaimed and was even the first president of the society. Although we owe him an immeasurable debt for his early labors, we must also recognize that he was a man who failed in his last years.

Two men who served God faithfully through changing times were W.W. Otey and J.D. Tant. They both stood against the Christian Church departure in their younger years, then rebuilt the church in lonely, out of the way places in the lean years that followed and finally spent their last years warning of the new and encroaching dangers of institutionalism to a brotherhood that was not much inclined to listen. Bro. Tant spent his last years warning, “Brethren, we are drifting.”

In the same way, today we have some among us who stood against institutionalism in the 50’s & 60’s and grace-unity in the 70’s. But after those battles came new departures from the doctrine of Christ. In the 80’s strange doctrines marriage, divorce and remarriage were promulgated. Some who had been faithful in previous times stumbled at this point, while others still remained faithful. But the stature of some of those who fell was such that many wanted to maintain fellowship with them in spite of the fact that gone too far and no longer abide in the teaching of Christ. So the departures of the 90’s dealt largely with fellowship.

To date, many more stumbled over the issue of fellowship with false teachers than stumbled over the doctrines that those false teachers taught. But now the defenses for fellowship of teachers who teach various strange doctrines are established and are automatically invoked by brethren who are ever more reluctant to mark brethren who have departed from the faith. These defenses are offered by brethren who in previous times had rightfully gained a great reputation among brethren for their previous stand for the truth, sometimes even at great cost and personal sacrifice. This makes their recent departures all the more tragic and heart rending. But like a brother in the latter part of the first century who had stood firm against Judaizers yet later went with, or fellowshipped the Gnostics, or like a brother of years gone by who had stood against the Christian church in his youth but in his latter years went into institutionalism, so brethren today who rightly deserved the good name that they had in the past must be refuted, rebuke and even shunned today if they fall to the soul destroying errors of the present time or fellowship those who do.

In giving this warning, we must recognize 2 things:
1.) To note, expose, rebuke and call for separation from such beloved brethren who espouse or fellowship new departing doctrines is a horrible thing to have to do, but it necessary to keep us in harmony with the Lord and with the truth. Even as the apostle Paul had to warn the Philippians of some brethren, “Brethren, join in following my example, and observe those who walk according to the pattern you have in us. For many walk, of whom I often told you, and now tell you even weeping, that they are enemies of the cross of Christ, whose end is destruction...who set their minds on earthly things.” (Phil. 3:17-19) Paul was not happy to note that such men were among the brethren, but the Philippians had to know in order to preserve their purity.

2.) While we have stood against departures that tempted and troubled brethren in the past, and we do are doing our best to resist in this latest round, this is no guarantee that we will be faithful in the future. The only thing that will guarantee our faithfulness in the future is faithfulness day by day until we get to and through it. Standing firm on the troubles of today does not necessarily mean that we will stand firm on the troubles of tomorrow. Again, even the apostle Paul said about himself, “but I buffet my body and make it my slave, lest possibly, after I have preached to others, I myself should be disqualified.” (1 Cor. 9:27) Our doctrine, practice and fellowship must be constantly under strict self and biblical examination.

If we are to attain to the stature of David, that we “serve the purpose of God in [our] own generation,” we must be faithful to the end. The old king faced much different temptations after 40 years in the royal palace than he did when hiding in desert caves from Saul as the anointed, though as yet uncrowned king. But David stayed faithful through each transition, or repented and was restored when he did not. Let us continually recognize the changing times, the new issues, the shifting troubles and varying temptations that we face as the years roll by. And let us always have the humble mind to repent when, through the tides of time, we inadvertently drift off course.