In the book of Ephesians the Apostle Paul warned his readers against "the wiles of the devil," and the "fiery darts of the wicked" (Eph. 6:11,16). Satan has always, of course, bitterly opposed both the work and workers of God. His battle with Jesus began in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 3:15) and continued without pause throughout the Old Testament, but with the advent of the incarnation, life, crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, the intensity of the struggle increased a thousandfold. During the first few centuries of church history, the devil attacked the doctrine of the deity of Christ. Then (after a terrible defeat in a.d. 325) he moved against the doctrine of justification by faith. But he had not counted on the actions of one Martin Luther. Again, turning in another direction, he lashed out against the inspiration of the Scriptures. This reached its high point during the final years of the nineteenth century and early years of the twentieth century, about the time God was raising up great schools of the Scripture, such as the Moody Bible Institute in Chicago, and other Bible centers to counteract this satanic attack.
Finally, in a desperate effort to corrupt and confuse the work of God (before the coming of the Son of God), Satan has boldly and brazenly declared all-out war upon the very bride of Christ, the church itself. Today one need only scan the horizon of Christendom to discover just how successful Satan has been along these lines. There is a desperate need for the study of and subsequent return to the scriptural teachings of the church. This must be, "Lest Satan should get an advantage of us; for we are not ignorant of his devices" (2 Cor. 2:11).
I. The Meaning of the Word "Church." The Greek word in the New Testament for our English word "church" is ekklesia. It is derived from the verb ekkaleo. The compound ek means "out," and kaleo means "to call or summon." Thus, the literal meaning is "to call out."
A. Its connection with the Hebrew world of the Old Testament. The New Testament Greek word ekklesia has a loose connection with the Hebrew word qahal, which is found some 100 times in the Old Testament. It is translated by the English words "congregation, assembly, company." Qahal may refer to those assemblies gathered together for purposes of:
1. Evil counsel (Gen. 49:6; Ps. 26:5). In the Genesis passage Jacob is lamenting a past evil deed of Simeon and Levi, two of his sons, who plotted and carried out the coldblooded murder of several pagans. (See also Gen. 34.)
2. Civil affairs (1 Ki. 12:3; Prov. 5:14). In
1 Kings 12:3, Israel's elders had gathered I
together at Shechem to discuss a very important civil affair, the coronation of Reho- boam, Solomon's son, as their next king.
3. War (Num. 22:4; Jdg. 20:2). The first passage here records the war council of Moab against Israel, while the second relates the sad meeting of Israel's eleven tribes who had gathered to go to war against the twelfth tribe, Benjamin.
4. Religious worship of God (2 Chron. 20:5). The word can also describe the assembly of angels (Ps. 89:5).
B. Its connection with the secular Greek world. In secular Greek, ekklesia referred only to an assembly or meeting and never to the people which composed that assembly. Even a wild and ignorant lynch mob could be referred to as an ekklesia (Acts 19:32). When the people left the meeting they were not considered as composing an ekklesia. Thus, the Greek mind would never see in this word a religious connection.
C. Its connection to the theological world of the New Testament. The New Testament reveals a development of the word ekklesia from the simple nontechnical meaning of "assembly" to the full-blown technical and theological designation for "the people of God." Of its 114 occurrences in the New Testament, with but five exceptions (Acts 7:38; 19:32, 39, 41; Heb. 2:12), the ekklesia church is presented in this light. One of these five passages (Acts 7:38) deals with Stephen's address before the Sanhedrin during which he described the nation Israel at Mt. Sinai as "the church in the wilderness." The next three times occur in reference to the wild Greek mob at Ephesus (Acts 19:32,39, 41), while the final passage (Heb. 2:12) apparently describes Christ's song of praise to the Father concerning all the elect, both Old Testament and New Testament saints.
II. The Origin of the Church. When and where did the church actually begin? Here we are confronted with several different views.
A. It began with Adam in Genesis 3. In a discussion of this question, Dr. Earl Radmacher quotes R. B. Kuiper who says:
"And if we assume, as undoubtedly we may, that Adam and Eve believed the promise of God that the seed of the serpent would indeed bruise the heel of the woman, but that the woman's seed would bruise the serpent's head . . . then it may be asserted that they
constituted the first Christian church." ( The Nature of the Church, pp. 193, 194)
B. It began with Abraham in Genesis 12. This is the position of most covenant theologians. The logic behind this view is the belief that as Israel once functioned as God's church in the Old Testament, so the church now functions as God's Israel in the New Testament.
C. It began with John the Baptist in Matthew 3.
Here the argument is that John was Scripture's first baptizer, and inasmuch as Christ later commanded his church to practice this worldwide (Mt. 28:19), the conclusion is that the church began with John.
D. It began with Christ. Here four different time periods are advocated by those who believe it began with the Savior.
1. At the call of the twelve apostles in Matthew 10. Thomas P. Simmons holds this view. He writes:
"In locating the founding of the church we must find a time when something that answers to the description of the church came into existence. This rule points us to the time when, after a night of prayer, Christ selected the twelve disciples. With this selection, these twelve men, for the first time, became a body. They had a head—Christ. They had a treasurer—Judas. They were supposed to be baptized believers. They were banded together to carry out Christ's will. What more than this did they become . . . ?" (A Systematic Study of Bible Doctrine, p. 354)
2. With Peter's confession in Matthew 16. Advocates of this position place the church at this point for the simple reason that it is first mentioned by Christ here. (See Mt. 16:18.)
3. With the Last Supper in Matthew 26; Mark 14; Luke 22; John 13. Those who defend this view point out that it was at this time that Christ instituted the ordinance of the Lord's Supper, indicating the church now existed.
4. On the first Easter Sunday night after Jesus' resurrection in John 20.
"Then said Jesus to them again. Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost" ( 20 : 21 , 22 ).
Here it is argued that the final element necessary for the completion of the promised church is now given, namely, the Person and power of the Holy Spirit.
E. With Paul. Here, as in the case of Christ, several time periods are offered.
1. At the time of his conversion in Acts 9. Proponents of this position remind us that the church could hardly have begun until the conversion of its most famous theologian and epistle writer, the Apostle Paul.
2. At the time of his first missionary trip in Acts 13. Some are convinced that the assembly at Jerusalem, even though referred to as a church, was in reality not one, but rather a group of mainly Jewish believers operating under a modified Old Testament economy. However, in Acts 13 Paul begins his lifelong ministry of establishing 100 percent Christian local churches.
3. At the time of his Roman imprisonment in Acts 28. During this (his first) Roman imprisonment, Paul wrote Philippians, Philemon, Colossians, and Ephesians. Disciples of this last view feel these four New Testament church epistles alone (later to include Paul's three letters to Timothy and Titus) compose God's message to local churches, thus their Acts 28 church origin position.
F. Here, then, are the theories. Which are we to believe? Godly and able men may be cited to support each view, but the bulk of Bible students hold the position that the church began at Pentecost. This view has been amply defended by both Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer and Dr. Charles C. Ryrie. These men write:
"Apparently for want of due consideration of all that enters into the case, some theologians have sustained the idea that those things which characterize the Old Testament revelation are carried forward without change into the New Testament. The necessity of observing dispensational distinctions arises in connection with the abrupt abandonment of existing features and the introduction of new features which mark the transition from one dispensation to the next. This line of demarcation is especially clear between the present age and that which preceded it, and between the present age and that which is to follow. Certain events which serve to produce these changes are properly styled age-transforming. Things cannot be the same in this age as they were in the past age, after the death of Christ has taken place. His resurrection. His ascension, and the advent of the Spirit on Pentecost. In like manner, things cannot be the same in the coming age as they are in this age, after there is brought about the second advent of Christ to reign on the earth, the binding of Satan, the removal of the Church, and the restoration of Israel. Those who see no force in this declaration have hardly considered the measureless meaning of these age-trans- forming occurrences. In the light of these determining issues, it may be seen (a) that there could be no Church in the world— constituted as she is and distinctive in all her features—until Christ's death; for her relation to that death is not a mere anticipation, but is based wholly on His finished work and she must be purified by His precious blood, (b) There could be no Church until Christ arose from the dead to provide her with resurrection life, (c) There could be no Church until He had ascended up on high to
~ the doctrine of the church -
become her Head; for she is a New Creation with a new federal headship in the resurrected Christ. He is, likewise, to her as the head is to the body. Nor could the Church survive for a moment were it not for His intercession and advocacy in heaven, (d) There could be no Church on earth until the advent of the Holy Spirit; for the most basic and fundamental reality respecting the Church is that she is a temple for the habitation of God through the Spirit. She is regenerated, baptized, and sealed by the Spirit." (Lewis Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol. IV, p 45)
That the day of Pentecost marked the beginning of the church seems evident for the following reasons:
1. "The Lord spoke of the church as being future in Matthew 16:18. This apparently means that the church did not exist in Old Testament times.
2. The resurrection and ascension of Christ are essential to the functioning of the church. It is built on the resurrection (Eph. 1:19, 20), and the giving of gifts is required for its operation, which giving of gifts in turn is dependent on Christ's being ascended (Eph. 4:7-12). If by some stretch of imaginative theology the body of Christ could be said to have been in existence before the ascension of Christ, then it will have to be concluded that it was an ungifted and inoperative body. The church's being built on the resurrection and ascension of Christ makes it distinctive to this age.
3. But the principal evidence that the church began on the day of Pentecost concerns the baptizing work of the Holy Spirit. The Lord declared that this particular and distinctive ministry of the Spirit was still future just before his ascension (Acts 1:5). On the day of Pentecost it first occurred (the record does not say so in Acts 2 but it does in Acts 11:15, 16). Now, what is it that Spirit baptism does? The answer to this is found in 1 Corinthians 12:13; it places the believer in the body of Christ. Since this is the only way to enter the body (i.e., by the baptizing work of the Spirit), and since this work of the Spirit first occurred on the day of Pentecost, then the conclusion seems obvious that the church, the body of Christ, began on the day of Pentecost." (Charles Ryrie, A Survey of Bible Doctrine, pp. 157, 158)
III. The Nature of the Church. Before attempting to determine what it is, let us consider some things the church is not.
A. The church considered from a negative viewpoint.
1. It is not a new name for Israel.
Covenant theologians teach that the church has become God's elect people, as Israel once was. But this is not the case, as seen by the following arguments.
a. The promises are different.
(1) The promises and provisions concerning Israel were basically earthly in scope (see Ex. 15:26; Deut. 28).
(2) The promises concerning the church are basically heavenly in scope (see Eph. 1:3; Col. 3:1-3).
b. The seed is different.
(1) Abraham's physical seed refers to Israel (Rom. 9:7).
(2) Abraham's spiritual seed refers to the church (Gal. 3:7).
c. The births are different.
(1) Israel celebrated its birthday at the base of Mt. Sinai (Ex. 19-20).
(2) The church celebrated its birthday at Pentecost (Acts 2). The author of Hebrews brings out the great contrast between these two entities (12:18-24).
(3) Israelites became what they were by physical birth.
(4) Believers become what they are by spiritual birth.
d. The nationality is different.
(1) Israel belonged to this earth and to the world system.
(2) The church is composed of all nations and has no citizenship down here, but its members are strangers and pilgrims (1 Pet. 2:11).
e. The relationship with the Father is different.
(1) God is never presented as the Father of individual Israelites in the Old Testament.
(2) God is presented as the Father of all New Testament believers (Rom. 8:15; 1 Jn. 3:1).
(3) Israel is now under God's judgment (Rom. 10:21; 11:8).
(4) The church is free from all present judgment (Col. 2:13-15).
(5) Israel was God's servant (Isa. 41:8).
(6) The church—each believer—is God's son (Jn. 1:12; 1 Jn. 3:1).
f. The relationship with the Son is different.
(1) Israel is pictured as an unfaithful wife (Isa. 54:1-17; Jer. 3:1, 14, 20; Ezek. 16:1-59; Hosea 2:1-23).
(2) The church is pictured as a chaste virgin bride yet to be married in heaven (2 Cor. 11:2; Rev. 19:7-9).
(3) Christ was a stumbling stone to Israel (1 Cor. 1:23; 1 Pet. 2:8).
(4) Christ is the Foundation and chief Cornerstone of the church (Eph. 2:20-22; 1 Pet. 2:4, 5).
(5) Christ is Israel's Messiah and King (Jn. 1:49).
(6) Christ is the church's Savior, Bridegroom, and Head (Eph. 5:23).
g. The relationship with the Holy Spirit is different.
(1) The Holy Spirit rarely came upon individual Old Testament Israelites.
(2) The Holy Spirit actually lives inside each New Testament believer (see 1 Cor. 6:19).
h. The temple is different.
(1) Israel had a Temple (Ex. 25:8).
(2) The church is a temple (Eph. 2:21).
The above contrasts should make it
clear that the church is not Israel. Paul carefully distinguished these two separate entities when he wrote:
"Give none offense, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God" (1 Cor. 10:32).
2. It is not the kingdom.
The church is to be built up during this present time (Eph. 4:12), while the kingdom will be set up at a future time (Acts 15:16; Rev. 11:15).
3. It is not a building structure composed of wood, bricks, nails, and mortar.
4. It is not a state or national organization. Earl Radmacher writes:
"It is common today, especially in European countries, to witness a close connection between the state and the church so that one particular church is governed and supported by the state. It is interesting to note that all of the leading reformers, who so heroically freed the church from the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope, fastened a state church upon the people wherever they went and the churches which stood for absolute religious liberty were persecuted by these state churches." ( The Nature of the Church, p. 149)
5. It is not a denominational organization. Again, Radmacher writes:
"People often speak of the various denominations or churches, as, for instance, the Episcopal Church, the Lutheran Church, the Presbyterian Church; but this use of ekklesia is never found in the Scriptures." (Ibid., p. 150)
6. It is not what the Roman Catholic theologians say it is.
"It has been seen that the Roman Catholic doctrine of the church falls into two divisions, namely, the mystical body of Christ and the church on earth. These do not refer to two different churches, for the constituency of each one is the same; but they refer to two aspects of the church. Because of the identification of the mystical body with the visible church, their conclusion is that there is no salvation outside of the visible church. Although there are numerous books on the Protestant-Catholic dialogue and their ecumenical interests, it has been noted that any 'return' of Protestants to Rome must involve the recog¬
nition of the Pope as the vicegerent of Christ." (The Nature of the Church, p. 368)
7. It is not what the liberal theologians say it is.
"Liberalism, being strongly influenced by the social gospel, saw little need for the local churches, which simply impeded the progress of the transformation of society by feverishly clinging to their ecclesiastical dogmas and traditions. The church was regarded as being extraneous to the Christian faith, and a strictly human, mundane organization." (Ibid., p. 369)
8. It is not what the neo-liberal theologians say it is.
"Neo-liberalism, reacting against the worldly, human organization of the liberals, brought in a new sense of the importance of the church. They have come to believe that there is a church over and beyond the split denominations. It is a living society, begun in the work of Jesus and continuing that work through the ages. Thus, it is not simply a social organization; it is a divine institution, founded by God. This institution is often referred to by neo-liberals as the koi- nonia, the spiritual fellowship of all those who have committed themselves to the reign of God. One must not be deceived by the seeming orthodoxy, for in reality it is a subtle form of existentialism in which the church is simply a subjective state of being as regards the I-Thou encounter. Neo-liberalism denies that the organized church was in the plan of Christ." (Ibid., p. 369)
9. It is not what the neo-orthodox theologians say it is.
"Neo-orthodoxy has some striking similarities to neo-liberalism as regards the doctrine of the church, especially concerning the fluid nature of it. The church is an 'event,' that is, 'The Church is not constituted once for all, but that it is continually being recreated by renewed divine activity.' There are striking differences, however. Not only does Barth give much greater place to the Holy Spirit as the Creator of the church, but, whereas neo-liberalism tends to think of the organized church as a necessary evil, Barth feels that it is the church. Finally, he believes that the one, holy, universal church exists in each of the local congregations." (Ibid., p. 369)
10. It is not what the neo-evangelical theologians say it is.
"Neo-evangelicalism finds one of its most serious differences with fundamentalism in its doctrine of the church. Neo-evangelicalism tends to sacrifice the purity of the church for the peace and unity of the church. It is their opinion that heretics and unbelievers within the
church do not affect the nature of the church. Thus, they are willing to sacrifice purity for unity and opportunity. The job of separating the wheat from the tares, they say, will be Christ's at the second advent. Little attention is given to the New Testament passages demanding definite discipline and purgation in the church. Because the neo- evangelicalist believes that rapprochement can be effected with liberalism and neo-orthodoxy, he is willing to subordinate doctrinal particularity." (Ibid., p. 369)
B. The church considered from a positive viewpoint. We have briefly examined ten things that the church is not. Now the question: What is the church? Here three distinct positions may be distinguished.
1. The ekklesia of the New Testament refers only to those geographical groups of baptized believers who regularly assemble, led by pastors and deacons, for the purpose of worship, instruction, fellowship, and evangelism. This position, of course, would categorically deny the existence of a universal and invisible church. Thomas P. Simmons holds this view. He writes:
"Now the imaginary universal, invisible church never functions collectively. It holds no services, observes no ordinances, sends out and supports no missionaries. It is simply a colossal nonentity, without function, purpose, or reason for existence. It is the local church that functions for Christ. And it is the local church alone that can rightly be called the body of Christ." (A Systematic Study of Bible Doctrine, p. 353)
The extreme of this view is the bride-of- Christ position which says only a select group will compose the Savior's bride.
2. The ekklesia of the New Testament refers primarily (if not only) to that invisible body of Christ, composed of all believers, saved from the day of Pentecost to the rapture.
The extreme of this view is to downplay, if not actually deny the worth of local church assemblies, substituting instead swimming pool baptismal parties, coffeehouse evangelism, and ecumenical religious dialogues and buzz sessions.
3. The ekklesia of the New Testament embraces both the total body of Christ (including living and departed believers) and individual local assemblies, with the main emphasis being placed on the latter meaning. This position is held by most Bible students. The total body seems in view in 1 Corinthians 15:9; Galatians 1:13; Ephesians 5:25-32; Hebrews 12:23; Revelation 19:6-9, while the bulk of the remaining ekklesia references describe local church assemblies.
IV. The Purpose of the Church.
A. Its purpose considered from a negative viewpoint.
1. The purpose of the church is not to save the world.
The leaven of Matthew 13:33 is certainly not a picture of the gospel permeating and purifying society, thus turning it into the golden age of the millennium. To the contrary, world events will sour and become much worse before they get better (2 Tim. 3:1-7; 2 Pet. 3:1-5).
2. The purpose of the church is not to serve the world.
Nowhere in the New Testament is the church told to lobby for stronger pollution laws, or march for civil rights, or stage "pray-ins" for unpopular wars. This is not, of course, to say that individual believers cannot be involved in social action.
3. The purpose of the church is not to attempt to rule the world, as it did during Europe's Dark Ages.
4. The purpose of the church is not to fight the world.
All too often Bible believers fall victim to this error. Although there are those special occasions when local churches simply must stand up and thunder out against immorality and sin, the church's job is not to expend all its energies and resources fighting communism and alcoholism.
5. The purpose of the church is not to imitate the world.
It has been sadly observed that today the church is so worldly and (on occasion) the world so churchy that angels themselves could not separate the two.
6. The purpose of the church is not to isolate itself from the world.
This is the opposite error from that of imitation. About the time of Constantine there arose a new religious movement known as "monasticism." The philosophy of monasticism was that one could escape the perversions of the world by removing himself from the peoples of this world. But the job of the church is not to spend its life in silent contemplation.
B. Its purpose considered from a positive viewpoint. One of the great Bible teachers of this century was C.I. Scofield, author of the Scofield Reference Edition of the Bible. But many cannot agree with him concerning the purpose of the church. Scofield writes:
"Much is said concerning the 'mission of the church.' The 'church which is his body' has for its mission to build itself up until the body is complete (Eph. 4:11-16; Col. 2:19), but the visible church, as such, is charged with no mission. The commission to evangelize the world is personal, and not corporate. So far as the Scripture story goes, the work of evangelization was done by individuals called directly of the Spirit to that work. Churches and individuals helped the work of these men, but there is no trace of any corporate responsibility attaching to 'the church' as such." ( Bible Correspondence Course, III, p. 431)
It is almost inconceivable to read these words from the pen of such a scriptural giant. Surely Paul would not have agreed with him. The driving force behind his evil actions prior to conversion was to destroy every single local church (Acts 8:3). The burning purpose after his salvation was to start local churches (Acts 14:23). The sole reason for his second missionary trip was to establish those churches (Acts 15:36, 41; 16:5). One of his heaviest burdens was for the welfare of those local churches (2 Cor. 11:28). Of his thirteen known New Testament epistles, nine are directly written to local churches, and three to pastors of local churches. In these epistles he gives detailed instruction concerning the worship services (1 Cor. 11:1-16), communion (1 Cor. 11:17-34), gifts (1 Cor. 12), and officer responsibilities (1 Tim. 3; Titus 1) for local churches.
In view of the above, it is difficult indeed to conclude that Paul looked upon the church as an institution without program, plan, or purpose. The facts are that Christ has literally loaded down his church with many and manifold responsibilities and tasks.
1. It is to love God.
"Nevertheless 1 have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love" (Rev. 2:4).
2. It is to glorify God (Eph. 1:5, 6, 11, 12, 14;
3:21; 2 Thess. 1:12). How do we glorify
God?
a. Through our praise and prayer (Ps. 50:23; Jn. 14:13; Heb. 13:15).
b. Through our fruitbearing (Jn. 15:8).
c. Through our giving (Phil. 4:18; Heb. 13:16).
d. Through our preaching and ministry (1 Pet. 4:11).
e. Through our loving (Rom. 15:5, 6).
f. Through our acknowledging of God's Son (Phil. 2:9-11).
g. Through our believing of God's Word (Rom. 4:20).
h. Through our suffering (Jn. 21:18, 19; 1 Pet. 4:14, 16).
i. Through our witnessing (2 Thess. 3:1).
3. It is to display God's grace. (Eph. 2:7; 3:6,
10; 1 Pet. 2:9).
4. It is to evangelize the world (Mt. 28:19, 20;
Mk. 16:15; Lk. 24:47; Jn. 20:21; Acts 1:8).
Gordon G. Johnson writes:
"One day Dr. Wilfred Grenfell, medical missionary to Labrador, was guest at dinner in London, together with a number of socially prominent British men and women. During the course of the dinner the lady seated next to him turned and said, 'Is it true. Dr. Grenfell, that you are a Missionary?' Dr. Grenfell looked at her for a moment before replying. Then he said, 'Is it true, madam, that you are not?'" (My Church, p. 88)
5. It is to baptize believers (Mt. 28:19).
6. It is to instruct believers (Mt. 28:19; Phil.
4:8, 9; 1 Tim. 4:6; 5:17; 2 Tim. 2:2, 24, 25).
7. It is to edify believers (1 Cor. 14:26; Eph. 4:11, 12, 16; 1 Thess. 5:11; 2 Pet. 3:18; Jude 20 ).
8. It is to discipline believers.
There are three kinds of New Testament discipline.
a. Self-discipline (1 Cor. 11:31; 2 Cor. 7:1; 1 Jn. 3:3).
b. Sovereign discipline (Jn. 15:2; Acts 5:5, 10; 1 Cor. 11:32; Heb. 12:9, 10; 1 Pet. 4:17).
c. Church discipline (Mt. 18:17; Rom. 16:17; 1 Cor. 5:1-13; Gal. 6:1; 2 Thess. 3:6, 14; Titus 3:10, 11; 2 Jn. 1:10).
The nature of this judgment discipline will be discussed at a later point in our study.
9. It is to provide fellowship for believers (Acts 2:42; 1 Cor. 1:9; 2 Cor. 8:4; 13:14; Gal. 2:9; Phil. 1:5; 2:1; 1 Jn. 1:3, 6, 7).
John MacArthur, Jr., writes:
"The New Testament word for fellowship is koinonia. It means communion or fellowship—intimate communication. God designed men for fellowship. In Genesis 2:18, God says, 'It is not good that the man should be alone.' Man was not made to be isolated; being alone is not the will of God. People were made for fellowship. And the church, the body of Christ, is the epitome of fellowship—a body for fellowship! The church is a fellowship. The church was never intended to be only a building—a place where lonely people walk in, listen, and walk out still alone—but a place of fellowship.
Bruce Larson says, 'The neighborhood bar is possibly the best counterfeit there is to the fellowship Christ wants to give His Church. It's an imitation dispensing liquor instead of grace, escape rather than reality. But it is a permissive, accepting, and inclusive fellowship. It is unshockable, it is democratic. You can tell people secrets and they usually don't tell others, or want to. The bar flourishes, not because most people are alcoholics, but because God has put into the human heart the desire to know and be known, to love, and be loved, and so many seek a counterfeit at the price of a few beers.'
This need for fellowship is the genius of the church." (John MacArthur, Jr., The Church, The Body of Christ, p. 169)
MacArthur goes on to discuss the basis, nature, dangers, and responsibilities involved within this blessed fellowship.
a. The basis of Christian fellowship—the Person of Christ (1 Jn. 1:3).
b. The nature of Christian fellowship— sharing (Acts 2:44-47; 4:32, 34, 35).
c. The dangers of losing Christian fellowship—sin (1 Cor. 10:16, 21).
d. The responsibilities of Christian fellowship:
~ the doctrine of the church~
(1) Confess our faults (Jas. 5:16).
(2) Rebuke sin in each other (Eph.
5:11; 1 Tim. 5:20).
(3) Forgive one another (2 Cor. 2:6, 8;
Eph. 4:32; Col. 3:13).
(4) Bear one another's burdens (Gal.
6 : 2 ).
(5) Gently restore one another (Gal.
6 : 1 ).
(6) Prefer the weaker brother (Rom.
14:13; 15:1).
(7) Comfort and exhort each other
(1 Thess. 4:18; 5:11).
(8) Pray one for another (Jas. 5:16).
(9) Edify one another (Rom. 14:19;
Heb. 10:24).
(10) Admonish one another (Rom.
15:14; Col. 3:16).
10. It is to care for its own in time of need. (2 Cor. 8, 9; 1 Tim. 5:1-16; Jas. 1:27).
11. It is to provoke Israel to jealousy.
Robert L. Saucy writes:
“The extension of the blessings of salvation to those outside Israel during the age of the church when Israel is judicially blinded is designed by God to effect the final salvation of Israel and the fulfillment of her covenant promises. This in turn will bring the full Messianic blessing upon all nations (Rom. 11:11-15). The apostle explains this intent of God when he says of Israel, 'They did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous' (v. 11, NASB: cf. 10:10). The apostle magnified his ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles according to his testimony that 'somehow I might move to jealousy my fel- lowcountrymen and save some of them' (11:13, 14, NASB).
Through the grafting in of the Gentiles into the root of the Abrahamic blessing which initially belonged to Israel, God purposes by the church to bring a jealousy upon Israel which will cause her to desire to return to the place of blessing through repentance and the acknowledgment of Christ as her true Messiah." ( The Church in God's Program, p. 89)
12. It is to prepare rulers for the millennial kingdom (Rom. 8:17; 2 Tim. 2:12).
13. It is to act as a restraining and enlightening force in this present world (Mt. 5:13-16; 2 Thess. 2:6, 7; cf. Gen. 18:22, 23; 19:12-25).
14. It is to promote all that is good (Gal. 6:10). Henry Thiessen writes:
"While the believer is to separate from all worldly alliances (2 Cor. 6:14-18), he is yet to support all causes that seek to promote the social, economic, political, and educational welfare of the community. Paul says: 'So then, as we have op¬
portunity, let us work that which is good toward all men, and especially toward them that are of the household of the faith' (Gal. 6:10).
Here we note that we have a primary duty toward fellow-believers, but that we also have a duty toward the rest of the world. In this day of social service it is necessary to be clear as to the place of this ministry toward the world. Jesus' practice is the best example to follow. He always subordinated physical and other material help to the spiritual. He went about doing good and healing all that were oppressed of the devil, though His principal mission was never lost sight of (Acts 10:38-43). We should devote ourselves to social service on the same principle on which a man picks up sharp nails that he finds in the street on the way to his work. It is one thing for him to devote his entire time to ridding the streets of nails, and another to remove such nails as he can without interfering with his main task. That is, the work of reformation must be definitely subordinated to the work of evangelization. So also in the case of philanthropy. The Christian should make all his benevolences bear testimony to Christ. Jesus may have fed the five thousand as a humanitarian act; but He certainly did it primarily as a testimony to His own power and deity. Clearly, He went to dinners and suppers in order to testify to the truth. It appears that He healed the man born blind in order to win his soul (Jn. 9:35-38). In other words, the Christian must make all his good works testify to Christ." (Lectures in Systematic Theology, p. 436)
In summary, it may be said that the job of a local church is to make as many people as much like Jesus in the shortest time possible. God the Father is so much in love with his beloved Son that he desires to populate the entire universe throughout eternity with those individuals which resemble Jesus Christ (1 Jn. 3:2). But he desires to start the work in repenting sinners down here right now.
V. The Founding of the Church. Of all recorded statements our Lord made while upon this earth, perhaps no two have been more misunderstood, misinterpreted, and maligned than the ones in Matthew 16:18, 19:
"And I say also unto thee. That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Does this really teach that Jesus actually predicted his church would be built upon a man, and that that man was Simon Peter?
Henry C. Thiessen writes in detail concerning these verses and the claims of the Roman Catholic church.
"In the first place, note that we have here the word petra not petros. The former Greek word occurs sixteen times in the New Testament: eleven times it means a ledge of rock, and five times it is used metaphorically and refers to Christ (Mt. 16:18; Rom. 9:33; 1 Cor. 10:4 bis; 1 Pet. 2:8). Could Matthew 16:18 be an exception? In 1 Corinthians 10:4 the 'rock' (petra) is said to be Christ. Note that Peter himself used that term of Christ (1 Pet. 2:8, comp. vs. 4-8). In the second place, Jesus' parable of the two builders and the two foundations teaches the same thing. The house that was built upon the 'rock' (ten petran) stood the test of the rains, the floods, and the winds (Mt. 7:24-27). Surely the reference is to Himself. To the same effect, also, is Paul's teaching that Christ is the foundation of the building of God (1 Cor. 3:11) and the chief corner stone (Eph. 2:20-22). Petra is a ledge, whereas petros is a single rock. He says the distinction is nowhere confounded in literature. To the claim that Jesus spoke Aramaic and that we cannot tell whether the distinction of terms was made in the Aramaic, he replied that we have too little Aramaic from that time to prove or disprove the point. Besides, it is not certain that Jesus said this in Aramaic." (W. Hersey Davis, Unpublished Seminar Notes)
"To the objection that this view makes Jesus speak of Himself in the third person in Matthew 16:18 (kai epi taute te petra) we reply that He clearly does this in John 2:19, where He speaks of Himself as a temple. Those who heard Him say this, either did not understand His meaning or did not want to understand it, for they misquoted Him before Caiaphas (Mt. 26:61). Nor does the granting of the 'keys' to Peter present any difficulty. We must observe that Christ gave him the 'keys of the kingdom of heaven,' not of the Church (Mt. 16:19). If our interpretation of this term is correct, then Christ merely gave him the 'keys' to Christendom. Peter did open the door to the Jews and proselytes on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2), and to the Gentiles in the house of Cornelius later on (Acts 10). These two times in which Peter took the initiative would seem to fulfill the conditions of this promise. As for the authority to bind and loose (Mt. 16:19), it should be noted that Jesus later gave the same authority to declare people saved and forgiven on the basis of the fulfilled conditions to these blessings, that is, whenever an individual has fulfilled them." (Ibid., pages 412, 413)
VI. The History, Growth, and Character of the Various New Testament Churches. In 1 Corinthians 10:11 Paul writes:
"Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come."
Here, he refers to those Old Testament events. But we may with scriptural justification apply these
same words to the events recorded for us in the New Testament. Present-day church leaders will profit greatly by examining the joys, sorrows, sins, and strong points of these early local churches. Tire following is a brief summary of twenty-three such New Testament churches.
A. The church in Jerusalem:
1. Began at Pentecost (Acts 2:47) with at least 3120 (Acts 2:41).
2. Was pastored by James, the half-brother of Christ (Acts 15:13).
3. Performed many wonders and signs (Acts 2:43; 5:12-16).
4. Had all things in common (Acts 2:44, 45; 4:32-35).
5. Was in one accord (Acts 2:46).
6. Spent a good deal of time in prayer (Acts 2:42; 3:1; 4:24; 12:5-17).
7. Witnessed at every opportunity (Acts 3:12; 4:5; 5:42; 4:33).
8. Radiated Jesus (Acts 4:13; 6:15).
9. Was kept pure by God (had standards) (Acts 5:1-11; 8:18-24).
10. Grew constantly (Acts 2:47; 5:14; 4:4; 12:24).
11. Endured persecution (Acts 4:1-3; 4:21; 5:17-41; 7:54-60; 8:1-3; 12:1-4).
12. Appointed deacons (Acts 6:1-7).
13. Practiced baptism and the Lord's Supper (Acts 2:41, 46).
14. Sent forth missionaries (Acts 8:5, 14; 11:22; 13:1-3; 15:22).
15. Held the important meeting on circumcision (Acts 15).
16. Was Spirit-led (Acts 2:1-18; 4:31; 13:2-4; 15:28).
17. Preached the word (Acts 2:16-36; 3:13-26; 5:42; 6:4; 7:1-53).
18. Contended for the faith (Acts 15:1-21).
19. Apparently later compromised with the Ju- daizers (Acts 21:18-25).
B. The church in Antioch of Syria:
1. Was founded during that persecution period which followed the martyrdom of Stephen (Acts 11:19).
2. Experienced a great ingathering of souls (Acts 11:21).
3. The Jerusalem church sent Barnabas to "check it out" (Acts 11:22).
4. He became the first pastor (Acts 11:23).
5. Added many to the church at this time (Acts 11:24).
6. Barnabas then called Saul as associate pastor (Acts 11:25).
7. Here both would work for a year (Acts 11:26).
8. Was where believers were first called Christians (Acts 11:26).
9. Took up a large love offering for the needy believers in Jerusalem (Acts 11:30).
10. Was the home church of the first two Christian missionaries (Paul and Barnabas) (Acts 13:1-3; 14:26).
11. Later became their headquarters, both after their first missionary trip (Acts 14:26) and following the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:35).