The Structure, Ministry, and Functions of the Church
Introduction
What the church is determines what the church does. Further, the structure of the local church is determined by the nature of the church. Thus, the practical matters of the structure and functions of the local church are determined not by pragmatism, what may happen to be effective for a particular community, but by theology, what the church is by its very nature. The descriptive portions of Scripture which present the organization and practice of the church in the New Testament need to be correlated with the doctrinal sections which present the character of the church itself.
The church is the whole company of believers who are spiritually united to Christ who is the head of the church. One of the favorite descriptions of the church by the apostle Paul is “the body of Christ.” Christ is the head (Col. 1:18). The church as His body is a unity. A person is made a member of that body by the work of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:13) and as a member of the body is organically related to every other member.
There is one church. Every believer from the day of Pentecost to the Rapture is a member of that church (cf. “all,” 1 Cor. 12:13). The church then is the whole company of the redeemed from the time the church was formed on the day of Pentecost until Christ comes again to take His bride, the church, to Himself. This aspect of the church is often referred to as the universal church.
The universal church is not the sum total of local churches, nor is it the combination of all those who are members of local churches. The members of the body of Christ are all individuals, not churches. [2] A local church may have individuals in it who are not true believers (cf. Rev. 3:16–17). These are not part of Christ’s body. These individuals have only the external profession of being Christians, but not the inward reality.
The local church is the body of Christ particularized in a specific locality. [3] The genuineness of a local church is not determined by a required organization [4] or by certain practices. It is the reality of the relationship of individuals to Christ which determines the reality of the local church. An assembly of believers in fellowship with Christ may be imperfect in their organization and practice. They are still a true local church. A group of professing Christians who have not been born again may have the organization and practice of the New Testament church, but they are a church in name only. They are not genuine. The issue is whether Christ is in the midst or not.
The Nature of the Church
Christ the Head of the Church
Colossians 1:18 says that Christ is the “head of the body, the church.” The figure of Christ as the head and the church as His body teaches important truths about the church.
Historically the truth that Christ is the head of the church has been understood to mean that He is the sovereign Lord of the church, ruling over it and directing it according to His good pleasure. This interpretation of the term “head” has been questioned in the latter part of the twentieth century by “evangelical feminists.” There are a large number of popular works which maintain that the term “head” in the Greco-Roman world did not convey the idea of “authority over” but the idea of “source.” [5] It is important therefore to specify what idea is conveyed by the figure that Christ is the head of the church.
Wayne Grudem in an extensive study of ancient Greek sources has shown decisively that the meaning of “head” as “ruler” or “person of superior authority or rank” is quite common. [6] Furthermore, there are no instances where “head” is used in the sense of source. To say that Christ is the head of the church is not to say that He is the source of the church. Rather it is saying that He is the sovereign Lord of the church. [7]
The importance of this truth lies in the fact that Christ is the only one in the New Testament who is called the head of the church. There is no earthly head who acts in the place of Christ. There is no pastor, elder, or bishop who is the head over a local church or a group of churches. To put any man in that place is to usurp the position and authority of Christ Himself. In the New Testament His authority as head has not been conferred to a vice-regent who rules in His place and under His direction. The church is directly responsible to Him as the sovereign Lord of the church.
Further, each individual local church is responsible to Him. There is no association of churches, or council of churches, or leaders outside the local church to which the individual church is accountable. [8] When believers in the church gather in His name, He Himself is in the midst (Matt. 18:20). He exercises His rule and the church is accountable to Him alone.
The Church the Body of Christ
The truth of the church as the body of Christ emphasizes the unity of the church as well as the mutual interdependence of the members of the body.
Ephesians 4:4 says that there is one body. The oneness of the body emphasizes the unity of the church which is not to be broken by division or faction (cf. 1 Cor. 1:10–17). The tendency in the history of the church is to follow men (Paul, Apollos, Cephas, Luther, Calvin, Wesley), or a form of church government (Presbyterian, Congregational), or particular practice (Baptist), or a particular location (Church of England, Church of Rome). These are all denials of the oneness of the body of Christ, and this tendency should be resisted.
This makes it difficult for the believer today who wants to follow Scripture in its simplicity. The name Christian (Acts 11:26) has come to signify any who are associated with Christendom, including those whose beliefs and practice deny the essential truths of the Christian faith and who manifest no desire to please God. On the other hand it is possible to take no denominational name and yet have a denominational or sectarian attitude. If I do not receive or welcome as a brother or sister anyone who is received by Christ (Rom. 15:7) and who is in fellowship with Him, then I am sectarian in attitude and practice.
The Government and Ministry of the Local Church
The Government and Organization of the Church
The Universal Church
The New Testament does not have any organizational structure for the church universal. [9] There was, however, a unique place occupied by the apostles in relation to the whole church. They were chosen by Christ, they had had a unique relationship to Him during His earthly ministry, and they were commissioned by Him to make disciples of all men. Paul says that they were part of the foundation of the church (Eph. 2:20). Because of this they had a unique position of authority. The writings of the apostles were recognized as authoritative, and apostolicity was the primary test for recognizing a book as inspired and canonical. Yet even among the apostles there was a division of labor. In Galatians 2:7–8 Paul is recognized as the apostle to the Gentiles and Peter as the apostle to the Jews. The other apostles are not mentioned in this regard. The significant point, however, is that there were no others that had a position of authority over more than one church. Further there is no indication that the position of apostle was passed on to the next generation. There were no successors to the apostles. This seems evident from the unique qualifications of the apostles. They were with Christ throughout His earthly ministry from the time of John the Baptist. They were eyewitnesses of the resurrection. (Acts 1:21–22). Paul himself was an exception who had not been with Christ. He was “untimely born” (1 Cor. 15:8) and was the last one to whom Christ in His resurrection body appeared (1 Cor. 15:8). The New Testament does not know of any other exceptions. The gift of apostleship ceased with the twelve. [10]
The Organization of the Local Church
The view that no organization is taught in the New Testament. Is there an organizational structure for the local church taught in the New Testament? Some say no. They maintain either that the New Testament is not clear, or it does not command any particular structure. There is liberty for Christians to choose any organization for the church which is practical and profitable. This view is based on the following arguments:
- There is no pattern taught in the New Testament. [11] The New Testament practice is fluid and varied. Some see a congregational pattern in certain passages, a presbyterian system in others, and an episcopal system in others. It is argued that there is no single standard practice.
- God never intended to give us a blueprint for the organization of the church which we should follow. It is wrong to insist on one type of organization or government as being correct when the New Testament never does.
- God has given great freedom for varied organizational structures in the church depending on different circumstances, different situations, and different cultures through the centuries. We may choose what is best for us.
There is evidence of a second group of leaders who are called deacons, but the mention of them is not as frequent or as widespread as is the reference to elders. The qualifications for deacons are given in 1 Timothy 3:8–12, and they are mentioned in Philippians 1:2. This twofold leadership is the only leadership mentioned in the New Testament for the local church. There is no evidence that any other leadership would ever be needed or wanted.
What is the evidence that there was a consistent pattern of organization in the churches of the New Testament which is meant to be normative for us? Particularly, what is the evidence that there was a consistent pattern of a plurality of elders in each local church?
It is important to note that the pattern of a leadership group of elders for a local church existed in the New Testament over a widespread area and among culturally diverse groups.
- Elders are mentioned in the churches in Judea (Acts 11:30) and specifically in the church in Jerusalem (Acts 15:2, 4, 6, 22, 23).
- On Paul’s first missionary journey he appointed elders in the churches in Asia Minor in the cities of Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch (Acts 14:23).
- Elders are mentioned in western Asia Minor in the city of Ephesus (Acts 20:17).
- Peter writing to churches in northwestern Asia Minor exhorts “the elders among you” (1 Peter 5:1).
- Paul writes to the overseers and deacons in Philippi (Phil. 1:1).
- Writing to Timothy in Ephesus, Paul gives the qualifications of overseers (1 Tim. 3:1–7). He specifically says at the end of the chapter that he is writing these things in order that if he is delayed in coming himself “you may know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15).
- Titus in Crete is instructed “to appoint elders in every city” (Tit. 1:5).
- In Thessalonica there was a group of those who “diligently labor among you, and have charge over you in the Lord and give you instruction” (1 Thes. 5:12). These are not specifically called elders or overseers, but they are clearly a group of leaders in that church who have the same function as elders.
Elders
Elders and overseers. This same group is called indifferently elders or overseers. This is seen in Titus 1:5–7 where Titus is instructed to appoint elders in every city in verse 5. But then verse 7 says, “For the overseer must be above reproach.” The same officials are called both elders and overseers. Also in Acts 20 when Paul called the elders of the church at Ephesus to meet him (Acts 20:17), he addressed them and said, “Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers.” It is further to be noted that in Philippians 1:1 Paul only mentions two groups, overseers and deacons (not overseers, elders, and deacons).
The view that there was only a single elder or overseer. By the second century instead of two groups, overseers and deacons, there were three. One of the overseers or bishops became the chief overseer who presided over the group of elders. There was thus a single bishop along with the elders and deacons. Some have attempted to see the pattern of a single pastor of the church not only in this second-century practice, but in the New Testament itself. It is suggested that Peter or James was the chief elder or the president among the elders. Timothy is also considered by some to be the individual pastor of a local church. In addition the angel of each individual church addressed in the letters to the seven churches in Revelation 2–3 is often considered to be the pastor of that church.
There is a danger of reading later church practice or present church practice into the New Testament itself. Peter and James were leaders in the church in Jerusalem. They were classed as apostles (Gal. 1:19). Peter was often a spokesman among the apostles, but there is nothing to indicate that he was over the other apostles. James was also one of the pillars of the church in Jerusalem, but not the only one (Gal. 2:9). At the council in Jerusalem in Acts 15 the church at Antioch consulted the apostles and elders in Jerusalem (Acts 15:2, 4, 6, 22, 23). While Peter and James spoke up, the decision was the decision of the group. There is no indication that either Peter or James was the pastor of the church in Jerusalem. In fact James seems to have occupied a unique position in the church because of his relationship to the Lord as his brother (Gal. 1:19). But it is a mistake to take the unique position of the apostles whose position was not perpetuated in the church and make it the model for the pastor of the church today.
Timothy also did not have the position of local church pastor as it is usually thought of. He was a special representative of the apostle Paul and therefore an apostolic delegate. He would be sent to individual churches on behalf of Paul and minister to them under the apostle’s direction. The identity of the angels of the churches in Revelation 2–3 is unclear. It may be that there are literal angels associated with and ministering to individual churches. The term angelos is not used of Christian leaders in the New Testament, and they are never rebuked in the letters to the seven churches. But even if they were human messengers, there is no indication that they occupied the position of being the sole leader or even the main leader of their church. They could have been the messengers who carried or even received the letters. The commentaries on Revelation are by no means agreed on the identity of the “angel,” and it would seem a tenuous basis to rest the modern office of pastor on such an obscure passage.
The concept of the house-church is also used by some scholars to reject the teaching of multiple elders in the local church. It is clear that the church did often meet in the houses of believers (Rom. 16:5; 1 Cor. 16:19; Col. 4:15; Philemon 2). It is suggested that while there may have been a plurality of elders in each city, there may have also been a plurality of house-churches in each place with one pastor presiding in each. These pastors collectively were the elders of the citywide church.
This hypothesis is ingenious, but it is in fact pure speculation. There is no evidence at all that there was a single elder presiding over an individual house-church. There is no reason why there could not be a plurality of elders in these individual assemblies. The hypothesis is built on the fact that there must have been a large number of believers in a city like Ephesus and that they must have met in numerous buildings. The fact is that we do not know how the singular church at Ephesus met with its group of elders exercising pastoral oversight. But this hypothesis overlooks the fact that there were small churches which also had a plurality of elders. Paul appointed a plurality of elders in the young, recently evangelized churches of Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch (Acts 14:23). The church of Thessalonica was less than a year old when Paul wrote 1 Thessalonians and yet there was a plurality of leadership (1 Thes. 5:12).
The function of elders. The name “elder” describes the person as one who is older and mature, while the name “overseer” describes the work. Overseers exercise oversight in the church. They preside over the assembly as a husband and father presides over his own house (1 Tim. 3:5; cf. 5:17). They are instructed to shepherd the church as a pastor shepherds his flock of sheep (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:1–2). This refers to caring for the total welfare of the flock. This would include feeding the flock, leading the flock, and protecting the flock.
The elder must feed the flock. This is why the overseer must be “able to teach” (1 Tim. 3:2; cf. 5:17). Paul says that he must be sound in his doctrine so that he “may be able to exhort in sound doctrine and refute those who contradict” (Tit. 1:9).
The elders must lead the flock. The good shepherd goes before his sheep and they follow him (John 10:4). The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor (1 Tim. 5:17).
The elders must protect the flock. Paul knows that after his departure there will be false teachers who will be a great threat to the flock (Acts 20:29–30). It is the responsibility of the elders to be on guard and on the alert (Acts 20:28, 31). They must be able to refute those who teach false doctrine (Tit. 1:9). In Acts 15 the elders in Jerusalem joined with the apostles in dealing with the doctrinal issue which arose when Judaizers insisted that Gentiles must be circumcised and keep the law in order to be saved.
1 Timothy 5:17 indicates some division of labor among the elders. “Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.” All elders “rule” or “preside.” This is the same word that is used in 1 Timothy 3:4–5 (προΐστημι) to indicate the primary responsibility of elders in overseeing the assembly. But some elders especially labor in the Word and teaching. This would be because their spiritual gift lies in the area of teaching.
Conclusion. The pattern of a plurality of elders governing the local church in the New Testament is not only widespread geographically (Jerusalem, Judea, various parts of Asia Minor, Europe, Crete), it includes churches which are mainly Jewish as well as those which are mainly Gentile. Even more significantly, the instructions concerning elders in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 indicate that this was the government of the church which the apostle expected to be perpetuated. It is the instruction given so that you might “know how one ought (δεῖ, dei)to conduct himself in the household of God, the church” (1 Tim. 3:15).
Alexander Strauch notes that there are more instructions given in the New Testament regarding elders than on other important church subjects such as baptism, the Lord’s Supper, or the Lord’s day. [13] In the history of the church this instruction concerning church organization has often been ignored and the secular models of monarchy (episcopal), oligarchy (presbyterian), and democracy (congregational) have been followed. The greatest danger followed when a single elder began to preside and ultimately became the chief authority. One person became the bishop of the church. With the threats to the church it was more efficient for one individual to make decisions, guard the doctrine of the church, and exercise discipline over false teachers or believers causing disturbances. When this kind of authority was combined with an autocratic spirit, it became a great detriment to the church. But the practice of the church in later centuries is not our authority for the practice of the church today. When the New Testament gives us a consistent pattern and couples that with specific instructions concerning the qualifications and practices of elders, why should this area of Scripture be less authoritative for us than others?
Deacons
The fact of deacons in the church. The evidence for deacons in each church is much less. Paul writes to the saints which are in Philippi “along with the overseers and deacons” (Phil. 1:1). In 1 Timothy 3:8–13 we also have the qualifications of deacons. In verse 10 Paul says that they are to be examined and then “let them serve as deacons, if they are beyond reproach.” Thus, it is clear that there was an official group of deacons who served in the church.
The term διάκονος (diakonos) means “servant” and is frequently used in an unofficial sense for anyone who ministers or serves. Paul refers to himself as a diakonos (Rom. 15:8; 1 Cor. 3:5 [along with Apollos]; 2 Cor. 3:6; 6:4; 11:23; Eph. 3:7; Col. 1:25). He was a diakonos in a general or unofficial sense. He was faithfully serving or ministering for Christ. Others who are called diakonoi are Phoebe (Rom. 16:1), Tychicus (Eph. 6:21; Col. 4:7); Epaphras (Col. 1:7), and Timothy (1 Tim. 4:6). Whether these are called diakonoi in the official or unofficial sense is not always clear. The fact that Phoebe is called a diakonos and “women” are included in the list of qualifications of deacons in 1 Timothy 3:11 suggests to many that there were women deacons. But the Greek word “women” (γυναῖκες, gunaikes) is also the normal word for “wives” and commentators differ as to whether 1 Timothy 3:11 is talking about women deacons or wives of deacons. One must conclude that the evidence is not clear enough to decide definitely.
The one remaining passage that might have a bearing on deacons is Acts 6 where the “seven” were chosen to assist the apostles in the daily service of food to the widows in the church. There was a dispute between the Hellenistic (Greek-speaking) Jewish Christians and the Hebrew (Aramaic-speaking) Christians concerning the treatment of widows. The seven were chosen to deal with these matters so that the apostles might devote themselves to prayer and the ministry of the word (Acts 6:4). Were these seven the first “deacons?” They are commonly considered such. But the term diakonos is not used in the passage. It is said that the apostles would devote themselves to prayer and the ministry (diakonia) of the word. But the apostles were not deacons in the official sense. The apostles also said that “it is not desirable for us to neglect the word of God in order to serve (diakonein) tables” (Acts 6:2). Because the “seven” were chosen for that “service” (diakonia), they have commonly been considered the first deacons. One cannot be dogmatic.
One may conclude that the New Testament church had not only elders, but also deacons who served in the leadership of the church. Whether every church had deacons is not clear. There is not enough evidence.
The function of deacons. The New Testament nowhere gives the exact functions and duties of deacons. Their responsibilities must therefore be inferred from 1) their name, 2) their qualifications, 3) their relationship to elders, and possibly 4) the description of Acts 6.
- The word διάκονος (diakonos) emphasizes the work of a servant. It was used for waiting on tables (cf. Luke 17:8; John 12:2), for caring for household needs, and for service generally. [14] It is the term used by our Lord to describe His basic work. He came not to be served, but to serve and give His life a ransom for many (Mk. 10:45). This attitude of service was to characterize His disciples. Every kind of work in the propagation of the gospel may be described as a diakonia. The word itself indicates that deacons are ministers, servants of the church.
- The qualifications of deacons in 1 Timothy 3:8–13 are all spiritual. They are essentially the same qualifications as those of elders. One might infer from this that their work is a spiritual work and is similar to the work of elders.
- Deacons in the primary references of Philippians 1:1 and 1 Timothy 3:8–11 are linked with the elders. From this one might infer that they are assistants or helpers of the elders. They do what the elders want them to do to assist them in the ministry of the church.
- The appointment of the seven in Acts 6 has had a strong influence in the church on the role and function of deacons. They are given responsibility over the more practical matters of finances, the care of widows, the building (although there were no separate church buildings in the New Testament era), and such matters. It should also be noticed that the qualifications of the seven in Acts 6:3 are also spiritual. They must be “of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom.” It may be that there was no dichotomy between the spiritual work and the practical work of the seven. They not only cared for the widows of the assembly and their daily serving of food (the serving of tables, Acts 6:2), but Stephen in Acts 6–7 and Philip in Acts 8 were active in preaching and evangelism.
The Ministry of the Church
What the church is determines what the church does and the place of the individual in the ministry of the church. 1 Corinthians 12:13 indicates that the church is the body of Christ. By the baptizing work of the Holy Spirit each believer is joined to the body of Christ. The church is not a building, an organization, or an association of individuals. It is an organism. Each member is joined to Christ and is not only related to Him, but is also related to every other member. Each person in the body has a vital function to perform. Each has a necessary ministry to the other members of the body. What that is is seen in the New Testament teaching on spiritual gifts.
Spiritual Gifts
What is a Spiritual Gift
In 1 Corinthians 12:4–6 Paul uses three words for spiritual gifts which help us understand what they are. In verse 4 he uses the word charisma. In verse 5 he uses the word diakonia, and in verse 6 he uses the word energeµma. Charisma, from which we get the word charismatic, is related to the word charis which means grace. Spiritual gifts are charismata because they are abilities graciously given by God to minister in the church. They are not earned, deserved, or merited. They are diakoniai. The word means service or ministry. The spiritual gifts are functions or ministries. They are not offices which a person holds. A minister in a church does not occupy a position but performs a function. They are energeµmata. This word means “effect” or “operation.” The verbal form of this word is always used in the New Testament of a supernatural working or operation. The spiritual gifts are abilities given by God so that He can work through the gifted believers to perform His work.
We can see from the different words describing spiritual gifts that they are supernatural abilities given by God to believers for service in the body of Christ. The word “supernatural” does not mean that this is the ability to do the supernatural, but rather the source of the ability is from God. The ability is to do a work for God. The strength and power come from God. The strength of the church is not in its members or in superior men or women. It comes from the Holy Spirit working through those who have been given a special ability to minister in the church. In the words of Zechariah the ministry of the church is “Not by might, nor by power, but by My Spirit, says the Lord of hosts” (Zech. 4:6).
Spiritual gifts are more than natural abilities. This does not mean that there is no relationship between spiritual gifts and natural abilities. God fits the vessel for its use. In Galatians 1:15 Paul indicates that God had separated him from his mother’s womb. Through his background in Tarsus, his home life and upbringing in Judaism, and his education under Gamaliel God prepared him to be the apostle to the Gentiles and the writer of thirteen books in the New Testament. But it was not until Christ appeared to him on the Damascus road that he was converted and called to be an apostle (cf. Acts 26:16–18). He did not have the gift of apostleship before he became a Christian.
Who Has a Spiritual Gift?
1 Corinthians 12:7 indicates that every believer has a spiritual gift. “But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.” The word “each one” is emphatic in the Greek. Verse 11 in the same chapter reiterates, “But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills.” Ephesians 4:7 in the context of spiritual gifts says, “But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift.”
This means that there is no believer who does not have a spiritual gift. Women not only have the spiritual gifts, they have all of the gifts that men have today. With the exception of the fact that there were no women apostles, women could have any of the spiritual gifts. Philip’s daughters had the gift of prophecy, which 1 Corinthians 14:1 says was one of the greater gifts. In Titus 2:4–5 the older women were to teach the younger women. Paul mentions many women who labored with him in the gospel and who therefore presumably had the gift of evangelism. Any restrictions on the place the gift may be exercised do not argue against the fact of the gift (cf. 1 Cor. 14:34–36; 1 Tim. 2:11–12).
If every believer has a spiritual gift, this means that Christians who are only ten years old also have their spiritual gifts. Their gifts may need to be developed, but if every Christian has a spiritual gift, there can be no exceptions. We may also say that while one believer may have several spiritual gifts, no one has all of them. This is the implication of the illustration of the body in 1 Corinthians 12:12–30 where there are many different members in the body.
What Is the Purpose of the Spiritual Gifts?
1 Corinthians 12:7 says that “each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good” (NASB). The phrase “common good” is an interpretive translation. The Greek phrase πρὸς τὸ συμφέρον (pros to sympheron) literally means “for [someone’s] benefit.” But it does not specify for whose benefit. Is it for the benefit of the individual who has the gift, or for the benefit of the assembly, or both? The translation “for the common good” takes spiritual gifts as being for the benefit of the assembly. The following reasons support this interpretation.
- 1 Corinthians 14:12 says “since you are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek to abound for the edification of the church.” Gifts are given that the church may be edified.
- This is also the teaching of the figure of the body in 1 Corinthians 12:12–26. Each member in the body does not exist for its own benefit, but for the benefit of the whole body. It functions not for itself, but for the body.
- 1 Peter 4:10 says “as each one has received a special gift, employ it in serving one another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God.” The gifts are given for us to minister to one another.
- In the next verse, 1 Peter 4:11, Peter says that all of our gifts and all of our service is that God Himself might ultimately be glorified.
- The one verse that is often interpreted to mean that the gifts are for the individual’s own personal benefit is 1 Corinthians 14:4, “One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church.” To conclude that the purpose of the gift of tongues was self-edification is to confuse purpose with result. Self-edification is a result or a by-product of the exercise of one’s spiritual gift. But that does not mean it is the purpose of the gift. One may say that the person who exercises the gift of evangelism and who sees fruit from his labor will be edified and blessed. But one would hardly conclude from that that the purpose of the gift of evangelism is self-edification. The biblical teaching on spiritual gifts drives us away from the individualism and self-centeredness which characterize so many Christians and gets our focus on our ministry to others and the way we may benefit them.
There are four passages in the New Testament which discuss spiritual gifts: 1 Corinthians 12, Romans 12, Ephesians 4, and 1 Peter 4. No passage contains a complete list of the spiritual gifts and the scope of this article does not allow us to discuss each individual gift. There is one fundamental distinction that is made in 1 Peter 4:11 which should be noted. After saying in verse 10 that each one has received a special gift, Peter says, “Whoever speaks, let him speak, as it were, the utterances of God; whoever serves, let him do so as by the strength which God supplies.” There is a distinction made here between speaking gifts and serving gifts. Teaching, evangelism, exhortation would be examples of speaking gifts. Helps, administration, mercy, and giving would be serving-type gifts.
A person who has a serving-type gift should not feel compelled to have a speaking-type ministry. Nor should a person with a speaking gift feel compelled to do many of the necessary works and chores which would take him away from exercising his gift. The important thing is for each person to find his or her particular niche and do one’s work for the glory of God.
There is another distinction among the spiritual gifts which should also be recognized. Some of the gifts given to the church were temporary. They were intended only for the early period of the church and are no longer given today. The charismatic movement has questioned this assumption, but it should be obvious that at least one spiritual gift was temporary, the gift of apostleship. It is clear from 1 Corinthians 12:28–29 and Ephesians 4:11 that the apostle had a special spiritual gift of “apostleship.” One of the requirements to be an apostle was to have seen the risen Christ (1 Cor. 9:1). Another was to have been with Christ from the time of the baptism of John the Baptist until the resurrection (Acts 1:21–22). [15] No one today meets these requirements and the very nature of them precludes apostles today. [16]
Two types of gifts seem to have been temporary, foundational gifts and sign gifts. Paul says in Ephesians 2:20 that the church was built on the foundation of His holy apostles and prophets. These gifts were for the initial period of the church when apostles and prophets were inspired by God to give new revelation. With the completion of the New Testament revelation the foundation was completed and the gifts are no longer manifested.
The purpose of the sign gifts is seen in Hebrews 2:3–4. “How shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? After it was at the first spoken through the Lord, it was confirmed to us by those who heard, God also bearing witness with them, both by signs and wonders and by various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit according to His own will.” This says that God was bearing witness to the message of the apostles with mighty miracles. Miracles were always subservient to the Word. They were designed to get attention and to attest God’s messenger. They are not found frequently throughout the Bible, but rather especially at times of new revelation. They are found at the time of Moses, of Elijah and Elisha, and the time of Christ and the apostles. With the full revelation of God in Scripture, that is with the completion of the New Testament, these kinds of miracles ceased. God is still a God of miracles, but we should not look for miracle workers. These gifts were temporary.
Ministry in the Church
The Authority for Ministry
If each believer is gifted by the Holy Spirit to minister in the church, then this gives each one of us not only the responsibility to minister, it also gives us the authority for ministry. The authority to teach, pastor, evangelize, administer, or help in the assembly does not come from having a certain kind of education or from any human ordination or licensing. It comes from God the Holy Spirit who has gifted us and called us to exercise that gift for the benefit of others and for His glory.
In a body each member is different, and each member is important. This is the teaching of 1 Corinthians 12:12–26. We do not choose our spiritual gifts. They are given to us sovereignly by the Holy Spirit who “distributes to each one individually just as He wills” (1 Cor. 12:11). That means that we must function in the body as we are, as God has made us, not as we would prefer to be. We must accept our place in the body and not envy someone else who has a different gift. The fact is that it is the uniqueness of each one of us and the uniqueness of our gift and function in the body that gives us our place of importance. We have a unique ministry that only we can perform. There should be no sense of rivalry in the church any more than there should be a sense of rivalry between the ear and the foot in the body. Each part is important and each has a unique function to perform. When any member does not exercise his gift, the whole body suffers.
The Ministers in the Church
Who are the ministers in the church and to whom do they minister? The teaching of 1 Corinthians 12 is that each believer is a minister and each believer is ministered to. The individualism that characterizes the church of the twentieth century is foreign to the church of the New Testament. There is an interdependence in the body of Christ which makes each one of us our brother’s keeper.
Any concept of the ministry of the church which conceives of the ministers as the few and the ministered to as the many is fundamentally deficient. The problem where there is one minister in the church is that the gifts of all of the other ministers in the church are neglected. Each of us is called by God to edify and bless others. There is a limit to the amount of work one person can do and there is a limit to the ability of one individual. One person may be a gifted evangelist, but that does not mean that he is the person who can teach and build up the saints. Another may be a great teacher, but not a pastor or counselor. Another may be a great pastor, but he is very unorganized. He does not have the gift of administration. Further, different people with different needs respond to different individuals in the assembly.
The work of the ministry is the work of each believer in the assembly. This is seen in Ephesians 4:11ff. The risen Christ has given gifts, particularly gifted individuals to the church. He has given some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers (Eph. 4:11). But the purpose of the apostles, prophets, and so on is the equipping of the saints for the work of the ministry (πρὸς τὸν καταρτισμὸν τῶν ἁγίων εἰς ἔργον διακονίας, pros ton katartismon tōn hagiōn eis ergon diakonias, Eph. 4:12). The work of the ministry is not the work of the apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastors and teachers. It is the work of the saints. They are the ministers. The goal of this ministry of the saints is the building up of the body of Christ. The church has greatly impoverished itself by restricting its ministry to the few rather than allowing each member of the body to exercise its divinely bestowed spiritual gift. The church as a collective whole is to reach the maturity of a full-grown man. This can only be done by the ministry of every member of the body.
Office and Ministry
A fundamentally different concept of ministry has developed where the concepts of office and gifts have been confused. Elders (or overseers) and deacons have positions of leadership in the church. It is often assumed that these leaders are the ministers in the church. The elders or pastors, or as is most often the case, the single pastor or elder does the work of the ministry. He may wind up teaching, preaching, evangelizing, pastoring, administrating, driving the Sunday school bus, and filling the baptistery. It is the work of the few to the many.
But this is not the concept of ministry that is taught in the New Testament. The ministry in the local church is not the work of one person, or the work of a few, it is the work of each believer in the church. Ministry in the church should not be confused with office in the church. Each person in the body has a spiritual gift and is to minister in the church. But not everyone is an overseer. There is no specific gift that an elder must have. An elder may have any of the spiritual gifts and must exercise that gift as a member of the body. But he had the spiritual gift and should have exercised it long before he was recognized as an elder. Thus a person may have the gift of teaching and should be teaching in the church even though he may not be an elder. A person may have the gift of pastor, but that does not automatically make him an elder. Gifts must be developed and the individual must grow and mature before he is qualified to be an overseer. An elder must be able to teach and he is to shepherd the flock, but that does not mean that this is the area of his spiritual gift any more than it means Timothy had the gift of evangelism just because he was to do the work of an evangelist (2 Tim. 4:5).
The Functions of the Local Church
The Goal of the Church in Different Spheres
What the church is to do and how it functions is to be seen first in relation to God, then in relation to the world, and finally in relation to believers.
In Relation to God
The goal of the church in relation to God is to glorify Him. Looking at the work of God in blessing the church, Paul says that it is to the praise of the glory of His grace (Eph. 1:6, 12, 14). The Westminster Shorter Catechism says that “man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.” [17] This is not only the goal of each individual Christian, it is the goal of the church itself. All that the church does, whether in worship, in evangelism, or in the mutual ministry of believers to one another, is to glorify God. “Whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” (1 Cor. 10:31).
In Relation to the World
The goal of the church in relation to the world is to preach the gospel. The great commission was to go into all the world and make disciples of all men (Matt. 28:19). The disciples were commanded to be witnesses to Christ “in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth” (Acts 1:8). As a result of persecution in Jerusalem, all of the believers except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria (Acts 8:1). But those who were scattered “went about preaching the word.” They went out to a lost world taking the gospel to them.
In Relation to Believers
The goal of the church in relation to believers is for each one to minister to the others to build up the body of Christ (Eph. 4:12). The further goal is for all of us to “attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fulness of Christ” (Eph. 4:13). Paul says that he proclaimed Christ “admonishing every man and teaching every man with all wisdom, that we may present every man complete in Christ” (Col. 1:28).
The Church and Evangelism
The work of evangelism is one of the central ministries of the church. Even believers who do not have the gift of evangelism like Timothy are to “do the work of an evangelist” (2 Tim. 4:5). The young church at Thessalonica was commended because “the word of the Lord has sounded forth from you, not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every place your faith toward God has gone forth, so that we have no need to say anything” (1 Thes. 1:8). The church in the book of Acts was constantly growing because believers were preaching the gospel.
But nowhere in the New Testament is there any indication that the church met to preach the gospel. Rather the church met to worship, to teach the word, to pray, to have fellowship. The meeting of the church was to edify believers and to glorify God. But it was not to preach the gospel to unbelievers. Rather the saints went out into the world to preach the gospel.
Even the evangelist in Ephesians 4:11 equipped the saints for the saints to do the ministry of evangelism. They were equipped in the church to preach outside the church. Where did they find unbelievers? It might be in the temple (Acts 3), in the midst of the Sanhedrin (Acts 4, 5, 7), in the synagogues (this was the place where Paul often went, cf. 9:20; 13:5; etc.), on a road in the desert (Acts 8:26), in a private home (Acts 10:23–48), in the market place, on the Areopagus in Athens, in prison, etc. They preached the gospel wherever they found unbelievers.
The practice of preaching the gospel in the church meeting developed when many unbelievers started attending church. It was a convenient time to present the claims of Christ. But there is no biblical mandate for an “evangelistic service” when the church comes together. There is a mandate to equip the saints to preach the gospel. The work of Christians is not to invite unbelievers to church so that they might hear the gospel. It is to preach the gospel themselves. There are many saints who reject the concept of one-man-ministry but have adopted the practice of one-man-evangelism. Instead of preaching the good news to unsaved friends and neighbors, they invite them to hear the evangelist or the preacher. This was not the biblical practice. This does not mean that the gospel should not be clearly presented in the church. But it should be taught to believers in a way that will make them more effective communicators. The book of Romans is the great New Testament treatise on the gospel. But it was written to Christians to teach them, not to the unsaved to lead them to Christ.
Some churches cling to the gospel meeting even when there are no unbelievers who attend. The biblical mandate to preach the gospel has been taken to mean preach the gospel in church. This means that the work of evangelism is not really done, and it also means that the saints are not built up to do the work that they are to do. Tradition has replaced Scripture in determining our church practice, and the work of the church is not done.
The Activities and Practices of the Church
What is it that the church should do? This can be seen from the descriptions in the book of Acts as to what the church actually did and from the commands as to what the church is to do.
Baptism
The New Testament practice. The first thing that happened in the New Testament when a person believed was that he was baptized. This was the command of Christ to His disciples. “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19). This was the uniform practice of the early church. When a person believed, he was baptized (cf. Acts 2:38, 41; 8:12, 36–38; 9:18; 10:48; 16:15, 38; 18:8; 19:5). There was no delay. There was no such thing as an unbaptized Christian.
The reason for baptism is simple. It is the command of Christ. The church in the New Testament was not disobedient to the Lord in this command.
The subjects of baptism. Those who were baptized in the book of Acts were all believers. They heard the gospel, they responded in faith, and they were baptized. This is true of those who were saved on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2), the Samaritans (Acts 8), the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8), Cornelius and his house (Acts 10), Lydia and her house (Acts 16), the Philippian jailer and his house (Acts 16), and the Corinthians (Acts 18). The only ones who were baptized were believers.
It has been argued on the basis of the reference to the households of Lydia, the Philippian jailer, Crispus, and Stephanas that the baptism must have also included the infant children of the believers (Acts 16:15, 33; 18:8; 1 Cor. 1:16). This is a gratuitous inference which is nowhere found in these texts. In Acts 16:33 Paul spoke the word to the jailer with all who were in his house. Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his household (Acts 18:8). The households were baptized because the households believed. There is no reason to believe that the case of Lydia and Stephanas was any different. There is certainly no specific indication that infants or any who did not believe were baptized.
The meaning of baptism. Baptism is a symbolical act. The word “baptize” is a transliteration rather than a translation of the Greek word βαπτίζω (baptizō). Baptizō means “to dip, immerse.” [18] The immersion in water symbolized the washing and cleansing of sin. Because baptism was the initial act of the new believer after coming to faith in Christ it was also a public act of confession of faith. A believer identifies himself with Christ by the act of baptism. [19]
The significance of baptism is also seen in the relationship of water baptism to the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Some would sharply distinguish water baptism and Spirit baptism on the basis of the words of John the Baptist. “I baptize you with water; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.” But Ephesians 4:5 says that there is “one Lord, one faith, one baptism.” If there is one baptism, then water baptism and Spirit baptism are not two completely different things. The one is the picture of the other. The baptism of the Holy Spirit is the reality. The Spirit joins us to Christ so that we are united with Him. “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:13). The Spirit in His baptizing work identifies us with Christ so closely that we are united to Him. The baptism in water pictures this truth.
In Romans six Paul says that “all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death” (6:3). He also says, “We have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life” (6:4). Through baptism we have been identified with Christ in His death and resurrection. Is this referring to water baptism or the baptism of the Holy Spirit? Ephesians 4:5 says that there is only one baptism. Romans 6 is speaking of the reality of our union with Christ so that we died to sin with Him, were buried with Him, and rose with Him. That reality is the work of the Holy Spirit. Water baptism cannot produce that reality, but it does picture the reality. [20]
Thus baptism is an initiatory rite which pictures our cleansing from sin and our identification with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection. As such those who put their faith in Christ were appropriately baptized in the New Testament. Those who argue for infant baptism have a problem here, for they must say that when infants are baptized, their baptism means something different than it means for all who were baptized in the New Testament. Unless one accepts the Roman Catholic view of baptismal regeneration, it does not mean that they have been cleansed from sin. It does not symbolize the fact that they have been united to Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection so as to walk in newness of life. What does baptism mean for a paedobaptist? Does it signify that this child is going to be cleansed and united to Christ in the future? That would not be accurate because there is no certainty. Infant baptism is more of a pledge by Christian parents that they will raise their children to fear the Lord and they will teach their children the gospel in order that they might come to know Him. But that is a fundamentally different notion of baptism. It is a view of baptism which is nowhere taught in the New Testament. [21]
Is baptism necessary for salvation? Some have said that baptism is necessary for salvation. This is the position of Roman Catholics who say that the water in John 3:5 refers to baptism. “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” They also find support in Titus 3:5 (the washing of regeneration) and Ephesians 5:26 (Christ cleansed the church by the washing of the water by the word). Others say that Acts 2:38 and Mark 16:16 indicate that baptism is required for salvation. “Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins” (Acts 2:38). “He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned” (Mk. 16:16).
The following considerations indicate that baptism is not a requirement for salvation:
- The clear teaching of the New Testament is that salvation is by faith alone. “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast” (Eph. 2:8–9). “‘Sirs, what must I do to be saved?’ And they said, ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved’” (Acts 16:30–31). “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law” (Rom. 3:28). If baptism is necessary for salvation, then all of these verses which only mention faith are misleading. The Philippian jailer in Acts 16 was not given the whole gospel.
- Even more serious, a human work is added to faith as a requirement for salvation. This contradicts all of the verses which say that salvation is by faith apart from works. It distorts the gospel so that there is a different kind of gospel. This is the precise point Paul makes in the book of Galatians. The Galatian opponents were saying that the ritual of circumcision was necessary for salvation (cf. Acts 15:1). Paul says that this is a different kind of gospel which is not really another gospel (Gal. 1:6). Those who rely on works are “under a curse” (Gal. 3:10).
- In 1 Corinthians 1:13–17 Paul says that he had baptized very few of the Corinthians in order that no one could say that he was making converts to himself. But he concludes by saying, “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel” (1 Cor. 1:17). Paul could never have said that if baptism was an essential part of the gospel necessary for salvation.
- The dying thief (Luke 23:43) was promised paradise in the presence of the Lord. But he never had the opportunity to be baptized.
- John 3:5, Titus 3:5; and Ephesians 5:26 are not pertinent because they are not talking about baptism at all. Titus and Ephesians are talking about the spiritual cleansing from sin. The background of John 3:5 is found in Ezekiel 36:25–27. “Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.” The water of John 3:5 is the spiritual washing by which we are cleansed from all filthiness.
- Acts 2:38 and Mark 16:16 mention baptism along with faith not because baptism was necessary for salvation, but because faith in Christ was immediately accompanied by baptism. It was a symbol of the reality which took place when a person believed. But salvation comes from the reality, not from the symbol. It is significant that in the Mark passage the negative statement is “he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.” It says “the one who has disbelieved.” It does not say “the one who has not been baptized.”
There is a summary statement at the end of the section on the day of Pentecost which gives a description of the activities of the new church (Acts 2:42–47). Verse forty-two is a key verse because it mentions four primary activities of the church. “And they were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.”
The Apostles’ Teaching
The importance of the apostles’ teaching. The teaching of the apostles was central in the life of the early church. In Matthew 28:19–20 the Lord commissioned His disciples, “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” The apostles were to teach what Christ commanded. They were the ones who were the link to the teaching of the Lord Himself. They were the foundation of the church (Eph. 2:20) because they were the ones commissioned by Christ, taught by Christ, and authorized by Christ to teach His message.
At first the teaching of the apostles was given to the church orally through their preaching and teaching. Gradually that teaching was written down so that we now have the apostles’ teaching in the New Testament Scriptures. The New Testament writings were accepted as Scripture and recognized as authoritative because they were apostolic. The apostles were the ones authorized by Christ. He had promised them the Holy Spirit who would guide them into all truth (John 16:13). They were inspired in their teaching. “Which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words” (1 Cor. 2:13). Their writings were prophetic scriptures (Rom. 16:25–26).
The apostles’ teaching was accepted as the Word of God and was taught in the church from the outset. In the book of Acts growth in the Word is practically synonymous with growth in the church. “And the word of God kept on spreading; and the number of the disciples continued to increase greatly in Jerusalem” (Acts 6:7; cf. 12:24; 13:49; 19:20). In Acts 6 when the apostles found that waiting on tables took too much of their time, they found others to perform that work. “We will devote ourselves to prayer, and to the ministry of the word” (Acts 6:4). They were determined that nothing would take precedence over the ministry of the Word.
The reason for the importance of the apostles’ teaching. The apostles’ teaching was accepted as Scripture.22 Because it is Scripture it is inspired and therefore 1) able to give the wisdom that leads to salvation, and 2) is “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:15–17). The Word of God is the divine means of changing lives.
The extent of the teaching. The teaching of the apostles was comprehensive and thorough. Paul said to the elders of the church at Ephesus that he “did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable” (Acts 20:20). “I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole purpose of God” (Acts 20:27). This included hard doctrines as well as easy. It included unpopular truths as well as popular ones. There were no truths which Paul avoided, because everything God has revealed to us is important for us to know.
The goal of the teaching. The goal of the apostles’ teaching was first of all to make disciples (Matt. 28:19). It was not enough just to make converts. The young Christians needed to be nurtured, guided, and brought to maturity and stability through the ministry of the Word.
The goal of the teaching was not just to have the truth terminate with the individual, but to be passed on to others. “The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, these entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2).
The goal of the ministry of the teachers in Ephesians 4:11 is that they might equip the saints for the saints themselves to do the work of the ministry. Thus, the goal of the apostles’ teaching is to have mature believers, stable in their Christian lives, following Christ in obedience, and serving Him in ministering to others.
Fellowship
The word “fellowship” means sharing something in common. It was a common word and described a wide variety of relationships from business partnerships, to the common life shared by marriage partners. It was used of philosophers who shared a common view of life and of Plato’s ideal society where property was shared in common.
The fellowship of believers in the New Testament was dynamic and exciting. Religious, political, and social barriers were broken down so that there was a real sense of unity, care and concern for one another, and bearing one another’s burdens. It was a fellowship which began when the Lord called the disciples to Himself. “And He appointed twelve, that they might be with Him, and that He might send them out to preach” (Mark 3:14). Their relationship to Christ brought them into relationship with each other. John said in his first epistle that he is writing what they have seen and heard “that you also may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ” (1 John 1:3). The fellowship on the vertical level with the Father and the Son created the fellowship on the horizontal level with one another. Those in fellowship with Christ are going to be in fellowship with one another just as a hundred pianos tuned with the same tuning fork are going to be in tune with each other.
The expressions of fellowship. The fellowship of the believers can be seen in the summary sections of Acts 2:43–47 and 4:32–37. In Acts 2:44 “those who had believed were together, and had all things in common.” They met together (2:46; 5:1), they ate together (2:46), they worshipped together (2:42, 47), they shared their material goods (2:44–45), and they worked together in the propagation of the gospel. The two summary passages in Acts 2 and Acts 4 indicate the remarkable unity and love that existed among the believers. They had all things in common (Acts 2:44; 4:32). They were willing to sell their possessions and share with those in need (Acts 2:45; 4:34–37). The key is in the phrase “one heart and soul.” They were of one mind. They shared their material possessions, not because this was demanded or legislated. It was a completely voluntary action. It was the spontaneous generosity of believers who had a genuine love for one another.
The barriers and differences which would have separated them in the past disappeared. Matthew the tax collector should have been at odds with Simon the Zealot. The Zealots were an intensely patriotic and anti-Roman party which was violently opposed to any involved in the tax system which collected money for the Roman government. Yet Simon and Matthew were together because of their common relationship to Christ. The disciples had quarreled before the crucifixion as to who was the greatest (Luke 22:24–30). But that self-centeredness had disappeared, and there was a true sense of fellowship. The greatest barrier, that between Jew and Gentile, was also broken down in the same way. In Ephesians 2:11–22 peace was first established with God for those who had once been far from Him, and then peace was established between those who were reconciled to God. The barrier which divided them collapsed.
The nature of fellowship. It is clear that that which binds Christians together is God’s Son. In many cases the only thing that those from widely differing backgrounds share in common is Christ. But that is the essential. “God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord” (1 Cor. 1:9). Because we share in Christ we share the things of Christ with each other. Christians today often have difficulty developing this kind of fellowship. G. Campbell Morgan says:
It has become very difficult for Christian people to talk of the things of Christ to each other. They meet together in ordinary life, and they talk of everything except the deepest things of their spiritual life; and that not because they have not deep experience, not because they are unfamiliar with the things of God and His kingdom, but because they have never learned how to help each other in mutual converse concerning them. These early Christians talked together of the things of their spiritual life, and there is no surer way to conserve and strengthen Christian life than that of such fellowship. [23]Fellowship is not an option for believers but is a necessary part of the life of the individual and the life of the assembly. Christians are meant to live their lives in the community of the church as well as in the midst of the world. Children learn many things from their parents without a word ever being spoken. We also learn many of the most important truths of the Christian life from seeing that truth embodied in the life of another believer. William Kelly observes, “For ‘teaching’, however valuable, is not enough without ‘fellowship’; and few weigh how much they owe to the presence and living commentary on the truth which sharing it all together in practice furnishes.” [24]
The Breaking of Bread
The names of this act. Acts 2:42 says that the disciples were continually devoting themselves to the breaking of bread. This ordinance has been known by a number of different names. From Acts 2:42 and 20:7 it has been called “the breaking of bread.” (“On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread”). From 1 Corinthians 11:20 it has been known as “the Lord’s Supper.” (“When you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper”). Because the Lord gave thanks before He broke the bread and passed the cup it has been called “the Eucharist” (1 Cor. 11:24; Matt. 26:27; Mk. 14:23; Lk. 22:17). The Greek word “to give thanks” is εὐχαριστέω (eucharisteō). From 1 Corinthians 10:16 it has been called “the Communion Service” (“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?” KJV).
The reason for breaking bread. The reason why the church regularly breaks bread is the same reason why the church baptizes believers. It was the command of Christ and it was the practice of the New Testament church. In Matthew and Mark it is not clear whether the Lord was commanding the disciples to eat the bread and drink the cup on that occasion or whether they were to do it as a continuing ordinance. There is a hint in Luke 22:19 as to the repeated nature of the command, “Do this in remembrance of Me.” The command “do this” is in the present tense in Greek (ποιεῖτε, poieite) which signifies a repeated or a habitual action. It is even clearer in 1 Corinthians 11:24–25 where Christ says, “Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”
It was also the practice of the New Testament church to celebrate the Lord’s Supper. In Acts 2:42 they were continually devoting themselves to the breaking of bread. In Acts 20:7 they came together to break bread. There were a number of disorders in the meeting of the church at Corinth so that Paul says, “When you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper” (1 Cor. 11:20). But this shows that the purpose of their coming together should have been to eat the Lord’s Supper in a proper way (cf. 1 Cor. 10:16–17).
The significance of the Lord’s Supper. The meaning of the Lord’s Supper is to be seen in the words of Christ at its institution. “The Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it, and said, ‘This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.’ In the same way He took the cup also, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.’ For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes” (1 Cor. 11:23–26).
1) The bread and the cup are symbols of the body and the blood of Christ. This is the normal way of taking the words of Christ, “This is My body.” “This cup is the new covenant in My blood.”25 They are symbols which are meant to remind us of Christ. “Do this in remembrance of Me” (1 Cor. 11:24, cf. v. 25). The word “remembrance” (ἀνάμνησις, anamnēsis) means “a reminder, a calling to mind.” The symbols remind us of Christ and are designed to bring Him consciously to our mind. The bread specifically represents His body. It is that body which He assumed at the incarnation when He became man. It therefore refers to His complete human nature. It was the body in which He bore our sins on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24). The eternal Son became mortal man in order that He might be subject to death so as to die for our sins (cf. Heb. 2:14–15).
The cup, or specifically the contents of the cup, represents His blood which was shed as a ransom price for our sins (Eph. 1:7; 1 Pet. 1:18–19). It is that blood shed for us that secures the forgiveness of sins (Eph. 1:7) and is the foundation of the new covenant which is grounded on the forgiveness of sins (Jer. 31:34).
The primary significance of the Lord’s Supper must be seen in these words, “Do this in remembrance of Me.” These are the specific words used by our Lord at the institution of the supper. The symbols are to remind us of Christ. It does not say that believers are to be occupied with their salvation, but with Christ Himself. It is in remembrance of Me. Further it is not Christ as a teacher or benefactor, but as a sacrifice. The Corinthians were treating the Lord’s Supper as an ordinary meal. They needed to reflect on the Lord’s death and the implications of it for them. As one reflects on the person of Christ and His sacrificial death for us, the appropriate response is that of thanksgiving, praise, and worship.
2) It is an announcement of the basic facts of the gospel. Paul says that “as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim (καταγγέλετε, katangellete) the Lord’s death until He comes” (1 Cor. 11:26). The word “proclaim” is often used in the book of Acts for preaching the gospel (Acts 4:2; 13:5, 38; 16:17; 17:3, 13, 23; 1 Cor. 2:1; 9:14; Phil. 1:18; Col. 1:28). The breaking of the bread and the drinking of the cup are a silent proclamation of the fact and significance of the Lord’s death. To whom is this proclamation made? To God, to the world, or to one another? Since the Lord’s Supper was designed for the worship of believers, any unbelievers would only be there by chance. It is not likely that it was designed to be a witness to them. Rather this is the collective confession of believers to one another and to God as to the center of their faith. All centers around Christ and His substitutionary sacrifice for our sin. When He comes again and we are in His presence, there will no longer be any need for reminders. This is therefore a temporary ordinance, lasting only until the end of this age, “until He comes.” Charles Hodge says:
“As the Passover was a perpetual commemoration of the deliverance out of Egypt, and a prediction of the coming and death of the Lamb of God, who was to bear the sins of the world; so the Lord’s Supper is at once the commemoration of the death of Christ and a pledge of his coming the second time without sin unto salvation.” [26]
3) The eating of the bread and the drinking of the cup are symbols of our faith in Christ. John 6:53–55 is a passage which has an indirect bearing on the Lord’s Supper. Our Lord says, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.” This is not a passage which is talking primarily about the Lord’s Supper. He says in verse 53 that “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.” The requirement for salvation is not the performance of a ritual, but faith in Christ. In the discourse in John 6 where Christ says that He is the bread of life He uses a very strong figure. Eternal life comes from the spiritual nourishment which is obtained by feeding on Christ, eating His flesh and blood. This refers to partaking of Him spiritually by faith.
John 6 is not referring to the Lord’s Supper per se. But in the supper when we eat the bread and drink the wine, we symbolize the fact that we are feeding on Christ in the sense of John 6. We are trusting in Him to give us life and sustain us in that life. Faith in Christ is not just a momentary, one time thing. It continues, and we symbolize in the Lord’s Supper our continuing trust in Christ for our salvation.
4) The Lord’s Supper also symbolizes the unity of the body of Christ. 1 Corinthians 10:16–17 says, “Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread.” Each individual breaks a fragment of the bread for himself and taking it indicates his individual fellowship with Christ on the grounds of His sacrificial death.27 There is communion with Christ. But the fact that all of the believers do this in partaking of the one loaf is an indication of the oneness of the body of Christ. There is a vertical fellowship with Christ, but there is also a horizontal fellowship with one another.
It is a great tragedy in the history of the church that the ordinance which is supposed to symbolize the unity of the body of Christ has become a means of its division. Some believers are not allowed to have communion with other believers. One church will not accept those who come from a different group.
Unless we “accept one another, just as Christ also accepted us to the glory of God” (Rom. 15:7), we disobey the Lord and deny the unity of the body of Christ. Any believer who is in fellowship with the Lord Jesus Christ should also be in fellowship with us (unless we are the ones out of fellowship with Him). How can Christ invite one of His own to His table and be willing to sit with him and have fellowship with him, but we are not willing to sit at the same table?
The frequency of the Lord’s Supper. How often the church should celebrate the Lord’s Supper is only suggested in the New Testament. There is no specific commandment. As stated before, the command to “do this” in the present tense indicates that this is to be done repeatedly. The statement “as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup” likewise indicates that the Lord’s Supper is to be celebrated repeatedly. But neither indicates how often. Acts 2:42 says that “they were continually devoting themselves to…the breaking of bread” which would indicate that this was not only repeated, but frequent. Acts 2:46 says that “day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart.” This indicates a daily breaking of bread, but the problem here is that the same expression is used both for the Lord’s Supper and for the daily meals. Both were indications of the fellowship in the early church. There is no way of proving which is in view in Acts 2:46. Acts 20:7 says, “On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread.” Here the specific purpose of gathering was to break bread. This shows the emphasis placed on this ordinance. The verse suggests that the first day of the week was the time when believers met to break bread. But again one cannot prove that this was done every first day of the week. 1 Corinthians 11:18ff. is actually one of the most pertinent passages for this. Paul criticizes the Corinthians for the way they were wrongly celebrating the Lord’s Supper and he instructs them as to its proper observance.28 He says that because of abuses “when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper.” This would imply that when they do meet, it should be to eat the Lord’s Supper. The Lord’s Supper was a proper part of their gathering each time they met together. This implies that if the church met weekly on the first day of the week, then the Lord’s Supper was also celebrated then. In fact the observance of the Lord’s Supper on a weekly basis (and in some cases even daily) prevailed in the church until the time of the Reformation.
Prayer
The disciples met together in constant prayer in Acts 1 waiting for the fulfillment of the promise of the Holy Spirit (1:14). In Acts 2:42 they were continually devoting themselves to prayer. Individual prayer is seen in the life of Christ and the apostles. But it was also the practice of the church to pray corporately. They were instructed by Paul to pray continually (1 Thes. 5:17). They were to pray for all the saints (Eph. 6:18) and even for all men everywhere (1 Tim. 2:8). They were to pray in their times of care and anxiety that God would meet all their needs (Phil. 4:6). They prayed for Peter’s release from prison, and Paul asks for prayer for his deliverance from unbelievers when he was in danger, in prison, or under attack (Rom. 15:30–31; Phil. 1:19; 2 Cor. 1:11). Paul frequently asks for prayer concerning his preaching of the gospel that he would be fearless, that he would preach clearly, that there would be an open door for the message, and that it would spread rapidly (Eph. 6:19–20; Col. 4:4; Col. 4:3; 2 Thes. 3:1). The church prayed when seeking guidance (Acts 13:3), and those who received a financial gift from other Christians naturally prayed for those who gave to them (2 Cor. 9:14).
Prayer is the act of believers who recognize their needs and their own insufficiency. The assembly that is at ease and is self-satisfied is not going to be praying. An assembly which is active and involved in the spiritual warfare which is thrust upon us as we seek to live in a hostile world is going to be characterized by prayer.
Discipline
Church discipline might seem to be an activity of the church which is of a fundamentally different character from subjects like biblical teaching, worship, prayer, and fellowship. These are positive. Yet church discipline seems to be negative, a way of punishing those who do not conform. This is a mistaken view of church discipline. Church discipline in the New Testament is always viewed as a positive thing which is designed for the benefit of the individual, the church, and the glory of God. God’s discipline of Christians is for their welfare just as every father disciplines his own children whom he loves (Heb. 12:6–7). The discipline of the church is no different. It is to restore the sinning Christian (Gal. 6:1). It is for his ultimate salvation (1 Cor. 5:5). It is to keep sin from spreading in the church (1 Cor. 5:6–7). It is a warning to other believers not to fall into the same sin (1 Tim. 5:20). It is to keep the name of God from being blasphemed (cf. 1 Tim. 6:1).
The ground for discipline. The basis of church discipline is found in the character of God as holy. The first instance of discipline in the church was taken by God Himself in the case of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1–11). Because of their hypocrisy and lie in pretending to have a spirituality which was not real, God took them in death. There was no warning and no opportunity for repentance. Peter in this case did not cause the death of either. He rebuked Ananias who fell dead by the judgment of God. In Sapphira’s case he announced her impending death, but it was God’s act, not Peter’s words which brought it about. God was teaching the young church that the free and gracious forgiveness of sins was not an encouragement to take sin lightly or a license to indulge in sin. God is holy and His church is holy. This was an object lesson which brought great fear on the whole church (Acts 5:11).
The authority for the church to exercise discipline is found in the numerous commands which are found throughout the New Testament. “Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly” (1 Tim. 5:20 NIV). “Keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching you received from us.… If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of him. Do not associate with him, in order that he may feel ashamed” (2 Thes. 3:6, 14). “Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him” (Tit. 3:10). “Watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them” (Rom. 16:17). “But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?” (1 Cor. 5:11–12).
Sin is like leaven which spreads and infects and corrupts (1 Cor. 5:6). It must therefore be purged out (1 Cor. 5:7).
The attitude in discipline. The church must be very careful in this area to avoid extremes. With the church growth movement which is so popular there is a tendency to have large churches where individuals can participate in the services without being well-known. Because of the desire to get people to feel comfortable in church so that they will continue attending, care is taken to offend no one. This type of attitude is extremely reluctant to discipline.
On the other hand many have the tendency toward strictness and severity. The absolute holiness of God demands absolute holiness in the church. Every offense is a ground for excommunication. When we consider the fact that we all continue in the flesh and continue to sin, the limited and infrequent examples of discipline in the New Testament should make us cautious. God in His grace and mercy does not judge all of our hypocrisy and pretense as He did with Ananias and Sapphira. The Corinthian church had many deviations, yet only in the case of the man who was living in an incestuous relationship was the church instructed to put him out of fellowship. It is beyond our ability to keep the church completely sinless.
Scripture looks at discipline as a loving act which is done in concern for the care and welfare of the individual. “Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted” (Gal. 6:1). There is a humility here and a spirit of love and gentleness which the stern defenders of God’s holiness overlook. The apostle Paul also recognizes that different individuals are to be treated differently. In 1 Thessalonians 5:14 he says, “And we urge you, brothers, warn those who are idle, encourage the timid, help the weak, be patient with everyone.” Some who are more willful are to be warned. But there are others who are timid and weak who are to be encouraged and helped. Paul particularly urges an attitude of patience. A person who has repented needs to receive love and forgiveness (2 Cor. 2:7–8). This is different from the indefinite probation even after repentance which produces discouragement and which can be used by Satan (2 Cor. 2:7, 11).
The procedure for discipline. There are two principles which are taught in the procedure of discipline.29 1) The knowledge of the sin should be kept to the smallest group possible. If God has not made a sin known publicly, then we do not need to. On the other hand, if He has allowed it to become a matter of general knowledge, then it needs to be dealt with openly. 2) Disciplinary measures should increase in strength until there is repentance.
The first principle is seen in Matthew 18:15–20. Private confrontation by an individual is followed by a group of two or three. This is then followed by the consideration of the church. The matter only advances to the next level if the person refuses to listen. It would seem appropriate to add, as an intermediary step between the group of two or three and the whole church, the bringing of the matter before the elders.
It also seems that there were various forms of discipline depending on the type of offense. Some are to be admonished (1 Thes. 5:14), others warned (Tit. 3:10), others rebuked (2 Tim. 4:2; Tit. 1:13; 2:15). The first warning is followed by another, and then the church is to have nothing to do with that person (Tit. 3:10). In 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14 the church is not to associate with those who are idle and disobedient. This does not seem to be the full excommunication of 1 Corinthians 5:5. It is meant to be the warning to one who is a brother (2 Thes. 3:15). When all steps have failed and the person still does not respond, “let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax-gatherer” (Matt. 18:17). Paul says that the impenitent sinner is to be removed from the midst of the church (1 Cor. 5:2, 13). Believers are not to associate with that person (1 Cor. 5:9). In verse 5 he says that such a person is to be “delivered to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” In putting the believer outside the church he is delivering him to that sphere where Satan rules. Paul expects that this will result in physical chastisement, sickness and even death. The world lies in the power of the evil one (1 John 5:19). The devil holds the power of death. But he can only touch the body. The purpose of God in not allowing a Christian to continue in sin is “that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus” (1 Cor. 5:5). He will take the believer in death rather than let him continue in sin (cf. 1 Cor. 11:30–32).
The effect of discipline. The goal of all discipline is the restoration of the sinning individual. This is seen in all of the passages which have been referred to. Discipline can cause a person to be ashamed (2 Thes. 3:14) and sorrowful (2 Cor. 2:7), but it is a sorrow which leads to repentance (cf. 2 Cor. 7:9–10). The effect of discipline on the church is warning (1 Tim. 5:20) and fear (Acts 5:11). We should also be humbled, knowing our own sinful propensity (Gal. 6:1).
The guardian of the church. The holiness of God, the sinfulness of man (even believers), and the fact that we can only judge open, manifest sin may cause some to be uneasy. How can we guard the honor and holiness of God in the church? The fact is that we cannot, and it is not our responsibility. Most sins are hidden from our eyes. Our responsibility as individuals is to judge our own hearts. “Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup (1 Cor. 11:28). Sins which are clearly evident are to be dealt with by the church (1 Cor. 5:12). But the ultimate guardian of the holiness and honor of God is God Himself. When Christians are sinning secretly, partaking at the Lord’s Supper in a way that dishonors Him, seemingly getting away with their disobedience, God Himself will take action. There were some at Corinth who were weak and sickly.
Some even slept, that is, they died (1 Cor. 11:30). Paul says that because they did not judge themselves, they were disciplined by God. God Himself will deal with those matters which we are unable or unwilling to deal with.
The Ordinances and Their Effect
Baptism and the Lord’s Supper have usually been considered in a separate way as special ordinances of the church. They are unique in that they were instituted by Christ Himself, and they both involve an outward rite which symbolizes some spiritual truth.30
There has been a great controversy in the history of the Christian church as to the effects of these ordinances. In Roman Catholicism they are called sacraments and are viewed as actually conveying saving grace. Through baptism a person is born again, and through the Eucharist he is spiritually strengthened and receives the forgiveness of sins.
The opposite of Roman Catholic sacramentalism would be the view that the ordinances are simply symbols and symbolical actions which represent divine truths. The Lord’s Supper aids us in thinking about the significance of Christ’s death for us, while baptism helps us think about our death to sin and our new life with Christ. But the spiritual reality is conveyed on the basis of the objective work of Christ through faith. The spiritual truth is valid apart from the symbolical rite.
Many of the Reformed would take a position in between. They reject the view that the sacraments magically or mechanically convey saving grace. But they also object to the symbolical view as too subjective. They say that the ordinances do not just portray something, they actually do something.
The issue is sometimes confused. The issue is not whether God uses these ordinances to strengthen and bless His people.31 The issue is also not whether Christ is spiritually present at the Lord’s Supper. [32] The issue is whether He is present at the Lord’s Supper in a different way than when He is present where two or three are gathered together in His name to listen to the teaching of the Word (Matt. 18:20). The issue is whether there is a special grace or a special blessing conveyed through baptism and the Lord’s Supper that is different from the kind of blessing which we receive when we read the Word and respond to the Lord in our daily life. “Calvin was not satisfied with Zwingli’s view that the Lord’s Supper provides no other communion with Christ than the benefits obtained for us at the cross.” [33] If the Lord’s Supper only conveys the normal blessings of God, does that make it superfluous?
The trouble with these views is that no one can define clearly what that special presence of Christ is or what that special blessing or grace is which is uniquely conveyed through the ordinances. [34] God calls us to exercise faith in His Son who died as our substitute, paying the penalty for our sins. The faith that we exhibit at baptism is the same faith that we first had before we were baptized. It is because of that faith that we get baptized. But I do not look to my baptism for the assurance of salvation. I look to the Savior who died for me, and I look to Him with the same faith that I had when I first believed. When I partake of the Lord’s Supper, I remember the saving work of Christ on the cross, and I renew my faith and trust in Him. The Lord’s Supper calls me back to the same faith I had when I first believed. This is not to be dismissed as subjectivism. The objective reality is the saving work of Christ on the cross which reconciles us to God. The subjective means on our part through which Christ’s work becomes effective for us is faith. The faith manifested in baptism and the Lord’s Supper is no different than the faith which is exercised at any time by the Christian. The blessing is therefore the same in each case. The ordinances are symbols of the reality but are not the reality themselves.
Conclusion
We have discussed three areas of the church: the government of the church, the ministry of the church, and the activities of the church. We have argued that the local church of the New Testament was governed by a plurality of elders and deacons, the ministry of the church was by each believer exercising his or her spiritual gifts, and the activities of the church included baptism, the teaching of the Word of God, fellowship, the breaking of bread, prayer, and church discipline. We would also conclude that these things are normative for the church and this should be the description of each local church today.
However, we have not argued that these are the marks of the church which are necessary for a church to be a true church. It is not the government of the church which makes it the church. It is not having a proper ministry. It is not certain forms of service. Wherever believers are gathered together with Christ in their midst and the gospel taught, there is the church of Jesus Christ. We would not conclude that the wide variety of church organizations, denominational divisions and structures, clerical and lay ministries, as well as liturgical and non-liturgical services are unimportant. But it would be wrong to cut off from the church those who truly belong to Christ.
Nor would we try to argue that any church which follows the organization, ministry, and activities of the New Testament church is automatically going to be a good church which is blessed by God. Things such as true devotion to Christ, the power of the Holy Spirit, true doctrine, obedience, dependence upon Christ, the fruit of the Spirit, all of these are essential to a vital, healthy, growing church. Correct outward forms cannot be a substitute for the inner realities of a vital relationship to Christ. But given the inner reality, there is blessing in following the norms of the church given to us in the New Testament.
Notes
- Jack Fish is a faculty member at Emmaus Bible College and the editor of The Emmaus Journal. This article was originally prepared for delivery at “Understanding the Church: A. Colloquium for Serious Christians” in St. Louis, Missouri on May 15-17, 1997. The colloquium was sponsored by Grace Bible Chapel.
- Cf. Robert L. Saucy, The Church in God’s Program (Chicago: Moody Press, 1972), 25.
- Saucy, The Church in God’s Program, 25.
- The churches of Asia Minor composed of the new converts from Paul’s first missionary journey existed without elders until Paul and Barnabas appointed them on their return to Antioch (Acts 14:23).
- These views may be traced back to the seminal study of Stephen Bedale, “The Meaning of κεφαλή in the Pauline Epistles,” Journal of Theological Studies, n.s., 5 (1954): 211-215. The problem for the feminists is not the truth that Christ is the head of the church, but the parallel truth in Ephesians 5:23 that the husband is the head of the wife.
- Wayne Grudem, “Does ΚΕΦΑΛΗ (‘Head’) Mean ‘Source’ or ‘Authority over’ in Greek Literature? A Survey of 2,336 Examples,” TrinJ, 6 NS (1985), 38–59. (Reprinted from the appendix of The Role Relationship of Men and Women, by George W. Knight III (rev. ed., Chicago: Moody Press, 1985), 49–80. See the continuing debate in Trinity Journal in Richard S. Cervin, “Does Κεφαλή Mean ‘Source’ or ‘Authority Over’ in Greek Literature? A Rebuttal,” TrinJ 10 NS (1989): 85-112; Wayne Grudem, “The Meaning of Κεφαλή (‘Head’): A Response to Recent Studies,” TrinJ 11 NS (1990): 3-72. This is also printed as an appendix in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, ed. by John Piper and Wayne Grudem (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1991), 425–468.
- Against the meaning “source” are the following arguments: 1) Usage: The word “head” never means source in the sense of origin of. The source of a river is called the head of the river in the sense that it is one of the extremities of the river. The mouth or outlet of a river is also called the head, but it is not the river’s source. 2) While it is true that the woman in Genesis 2 was created from the man, this is not the idea conveyed by the term “head.” a) The parallel in 1 Corinthians 11 is that Christ is the head of the man and the head of Christ is God. This does not mean that God the Father is the source or origin of God the Son. The Son in His deity is eternal and self-existent. He is not a derived or secondary divinity. 1 Corinthians 11:3 is saying that God is the head of Christ in the sense that the Son in His office as Mediator and Savior has submitted Himself to the will of God the Father. (“Behold, I have come, in the roll of the book it is written of Me, to do Thy will, O God” [Heb. 10:7]). This has to do with His office and His work, not with His essence and nature. b) In Ephesians 5:23–24 there is a direct correlation between Christ being the head of the church and the church being submissive to Him. The church is to be submissive because He is the sovereign head of the church, not because the church is derived from Him.
- Acts 15 is no exception. The church at Antioch consulted with the apostles and the elders in the church at Jerusalem because it was appropriate to look to the apostles who had a unique relationship to Christ, and also because the ones stirring up trouble in the church in Antioch were from Judea (Acts 15:1).
- Cf. Saucy, The Church in God’s Program, 17.
- There are others called apostles in the New Testament, but not in the same sense as apostles of Christ. They were apostles of the churches, sent out by a specific church to fulfill a particular task. Cf. 2 Corinthians 8:23 where the literal translation would be, “as for our brethren, they are apostles of the churches.” 2 Corinthians 8:19 shows that they had been appointed by the churches to handle the financial matters of the collection for the saints in Jerusalem.
- George Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, ed. Donald A. Hagner (rev. ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 579.
- It should also be noted that the epistles to Timothy and Titus were not written to them as individuals. They were authoritative instructions for the churches. 1 and 2 Timothy conclude with the words, “Grace be with you.” The “you” is plural in Greek (ὑμῶν, hymōn). Titus ends, “Grace be with you all.”
- Alexander Strauch, Biblical Eldership (revised and expanded, Littleton, CO: Lewis and Roth, 1995), 103.
- K. Hess, “Serve, Deacon, Worship,” The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. by Colin Brown, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978), 3:545.
- The apostle Paul was conscious that his apostleship was unique in that he did not fit this requirement. He was one “untimely born” (1 Cor. 15:8). But he was directly called by Christ (Gal. 1:1) and was recognized by the other apostles as the apostle to the Gentiles (Gal. 2:8; cf. Rom. 11:13).
- Those who were commissioned by individual churches to perform a specific task were “apostles of the churches” (see note 9 above), but this was not the spiritual gift. The spiritual gift which was listed as the most important gift (1 Cor. 12:28) was restricted to the twelve along with Paul. The brethren in 2 Corinthians 8:23 were sent by the churches to watch over the collection for the saints in Jerusalem so that there could be no question of impropriety (cf. 8:19–21). They were “apostles of the churches” as opposed to an “apostle of Christ Jesus” (1 Cor. 1:1; cf. Gal. 1:1).
- Cf. Philip Schaff, ed., “The Westminster Shorter Catechism,” The Creeds of Christendom, 3 vols. (reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983 [= 1931]), 3:676.
- “βαπτίζω,ς BAGD, 130. The meanings “plunge, sink, drench, overwhelm” are also cited as other meanings found in non-Christian literature.
- “Identification” seems to be the meaning of the word in 1 Corinthians 10:2 where it says of Israel when they passed through the Red Sea, “All were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.” They were identified or associated with Moses through this act which is described as being baptized into Moses.
- The parallel passage in Colossians confirms that the reality spoken of here is that of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Colossians 2:12 says, “having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.” The baptism in verse twelve is parallel with circumcision in verse eleven. But the circumcision in verse 11 is not ritual circumcision. It is the circumcision “made without hands.” So the baptism in verse 12 is not the ritual, but the reality.
- The primary argument for infant baptism is from the analogy of circumcision. Infants (male infants) were circumcised in the Old Testament as a sign of their entrance into the covenant community. But there is a fundamental difference between the old covenant and the new covenant. One became a member of the nation of Israel by physical birth. The church is the fellowship of those who have been born again. Even foreign servants were circumcised in the Old Testament (Gen. 17:10–13). Only those who believed were baptized in the New Testament.
- For the acceptance of New Testament books as Scripture see 1 Timothy 5:18 (Luke) and 2 Peter 3:15–16 (Paul’s letters).
- G. Campbell Morgan, The Acts of the Apostles (Westwood, NJ: Fleming H. Revell Company, n.d.), 92–93.
- William Kelly, An Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles (3d ed. London: C. A. Hammond, 1952 [= 1914]), 29.
- Roman Catholics take these words literally. They hold to a doctrine of transubstantiation where the bread and wine are transformed by the consecration of the priest into the literal body and blood of Christ. They retain the sensory characteristics of bread and wine, but in reality they are no longer bread or wine. They are the actual body and blood of Christ. Lutherans also hold that the sacrament is literally the body and blood of the Lord. They do not say that the bread and wine are changed and cease to be what they were before. But the true body and blood of Christ are present in, with, and under the bread and wine so that the participant literally eats Christ’s body and drinks His blood. This has been referred to as consubstantiation. The symbolical nature of the Lord’s word should be manifest in several ways. 1) The Lord’s body was there at the institution clearly separate from the bread. His hand was holding the bread. 2) Even Roman Catholics and Lutherans do not attribute the same literalness to the words concerning the cup. “This cup is the new covenant in my blood” (1 Cor. 11:25). The cup is not changed into the new covenant nor is the cup the new covenant. The contents of the cup represent His blood. But His blood is not itself the new covenant. Rather His shed blood is the foundation for the new covenant. But if one insists that the words, “This is my body,” be taken literally, then the words concerning the cup must also be taken literally. 3) The words, “this is my body,” are figurative just as many other expressions of Christ are figurative. “I am the vine.” “I am the door.” “I am the light of the world.” The fact that these words are figurative seems obvious, and the words at the Lord’s Supper should be taken in the same way.
- Charles Hodge, An Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians (1864, reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969, 229–30.
- The “we” in these verses is not the “we” of the apostles or certain church leaders. It is the “we” of all believers who partake of the Lord’s Supper. Each believer breaks the bread for himself. There is no hint that a minister or clergyman is the one who dispenses the elements to the others. Each one partakes himself.
- It is clear from 1 Corinthians 11:21–22 that the Lord’s Supper was celebrated at Corinth as part of a full meal which was called a love feast (cf. Jude 12). But instead of sharing the food which they brought with others, some who had more food were selfishly keeping it to themselves. Some who had little were hungry, while others were overindulging and even became drunk. The love feast itself was not intended to be a normative practice which was required in the church. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:22 and 11:34 that the normal meal can be eaten in one’s own home. What is important for the church is that which the Lord commanded to be observed. It is to be observed according to His instructions and in a decent and orderly fashion.
- See Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 897.
- Roman Catholicism calls these sacraments and includes five others: confirmation, penance, extreme unction, holy orders, and marriage. Of these the first four have no basis in Scripture. Confirmation is the ratification of the baptism of infants. Penance takes the scriptural confession of sins to God and makes it an official church act where you confess to the priest and receive forgiveness through the church. Extreme unction (the last rites) has no basis in Scripture, and holy orders is taking the Old Testament priesthood into the church. In doing so the priesthood of all believers is for all practical purposes denied. The only one of these which is scriptural is marriage. But marriage is the general ordinance of God for the human race and not a specific ordinance of the church.
- Some would signify this by calling them means of grace.
- Zwingli affirmed this as well as Calvin.
- G. C. Berkouwer, The Sacraments (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969), 226.
- We are not concerned here with the sacramental theology of Roman Catholicism or Lutheranism. Both of these do clearly define what they mean by the presence of Christ and the saving grace conveyed through the ordinances.
No comments:
Post a Comment