Truth Magazine

By Daniel H. King

To successfully deal with the question which is the theme of our study, two things are necessary. First, we must appreciate the fact that the church or kingdom of Christ and God saw the light of earthly day in the first century of our own era. This is manifestly evident if one recognizes the thrust of the Master’s declaration in Mt. 16:18, “I will build my church” and hosts of statements flowing from the pens of His apostles. For example, that of Paul, “To the intent that now unto the principalities and the powers in the heavenly places, might be made known through the church. that manifold wisdom of God” (Eph. 3:10). Also, it should be noted that Scripture sets forth solemn warnings of the impending apostasy of that body. It was thus already revealed to and known by the first generation of the Savior’s flock that “the faith once delivered to the saints” would not be held fast by many (Acts 20:29-30; 2 Thess. 2:1-12; 1 Tim. 4:1-6; 2 Pet. 2:1-3; 1 Jn. 4:1ff; 2 Jn. 7ff; Jude 3-5; etc.). A “falling away from the faith” was to occur, in fact, was already happening at the close of the apostolic age. The digression itself was to be from “the faith,” the body of teaching, instruction and admonition delivered by Jesus through His ambassadors, the apostles (Jude 3; 1 Tim. 1:3; 6:3; etc.). History declares that the results of this apostasy were devastating, though deceptively so. The saddest and most destructive element of the defection was the fact that so few recognized it for what it was or is.

Therefore, most professed Christians have been (and still are) satisfied to unquestioningly accept and embrace whatever retrogression has transpired since the apostles, the earliest days, and that first faith which bound primitive disciples together. Moreover, there eras and is a startling apathy about recapturing what once was: And yet the reason is obvious; unless one comes to realize that something has gone awry, then he will be content to allow things to continue as they have for centuries. Worse than this, the backward movement only gathers momentum, impetus, and the respectability of age as time marches on.

The Attempts of the Reformers

The sixteenth century witnessed heroic efforts on the part of great and good men .like Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Knox, and others toward revitalizing and reforming that which the papists had been .perverting and corrupting for nearly a millennium. One of the repercussions of their courageous work was the shattering of papal power over world governments: For such a boon to the common weal, we will all forever `remain in their debt. But more important than this was the unique plea which they contributed (or should we call it rather a statement of fact since it is entirely biblical and their special gift was simply its recognition and popularization). Sold scriptura, “Scripture alone” was their slogan. They tossed it into the face of the irate papists, stole the hearts of the common people with it, and made it their, banner. For all that, as their own movements took separate courses in such areas as church government, polity, and doctrine, they fell prey to the same foul beast that had .conceived and given birth to popery. Creeds took the place of Roman sovereignty for many of those salvaged ‘from the sinking hulk that was Romanism.

Now “the faith” had two enemies: Roman Catholicism tire the one hand and Protestant creeds on the other. Both represented something quite other than that which the earliest Christians held as their authority. Sold scriptura had been unseated by the various confessions, creeds and church disciplines. The Bible had been just as thoroughly supplanted by the creeds as it was by the popes. The warring sects and parties were the fruit of another “falling away.” The children of this movement had left the original ground of their very existence – which would undoubtedly have eventuated a full restoration of the New Testament order. If only its slogan had meant more to its founders and converts than a mere watchword or rallying-point! But, alas, it did not.

“Restoration of New Testament Christianity”

James O’Kelley of the Methodist church, Abner Jones and Elias Smith of the Freewill Baptist communion, Barton W. Stone a Presbyterian, and Thomas and Alexander Campbell of the Seceder Presbyterian church – these, with a multitude of others, decried conditions current in denominationalism and broke with it in both spirit and allegiance. The movement which has been the result of their toil and travail has come to be known by religious historians as the “Restoration Movement”, since its intention was the restoration of apostolic authority and the order which it brought in the early church.

Regardless of this noble ideal, since its very beginning it has had its traitors as well as .detractors and opponents. Sometimes they have posed as friends of the church and “true heirs” of the pioneers. Almost always, though, they have argued the merits of the existence of such an association or union of Christians on the ground that it is unnecessary, even bigoted and prideful. One advocate of this sort of thinking has recently voiced his objection thus:

Segments of God’s community need to be reformed and revived but not restored. We restore something, that is missing. If God’s new Israel was ever lost we had a head without a body, a king without a kingdom, and a shepherd without a sheep. Churches or religious parties can be started, lost, and restored. But our king has never been without a kingdom.

In this case, a sophistic detractor avoids the real issue raised on historical and scriptural grounds and introduces a false charge against those of us who urge “restoration of apostolic Christianity.” I do not recall preaching, nor do I remember anyone else ever saying; that God’s new Israel was ever lost or that. the body of Christ ceased to exist. Should it be obliterated from the face of the earth even now (a thing which may well be impossible), still would that “heavenly Jerusalem” persist, yea “stand forever” (Dan. 2:44; Heb. 12:22, 28). The promise that it would “stand forever” includes its earthly sojourn but embraces something more: its existence beyond time and eternity. This same point would assuredly cover any period when saints were either few or absent from this world’s multitudes. Additionally, the presence of saving grace, of the blood of Christ, of the ekklesia, and the rest in Scripture absolutizes that which may seem to be abstract in any generation or among any race of men. After all, the same knife cuts both ways, so to speak. How would our accuser explain the fact of any nation or race of men or geographical area where the message seems now or in the past to have had difficulty in taking root, much less flourishing? India, China, and Africa are excellent cases in point. Recall that the passage says also, “it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms” (Dan. 2:44). As a matter of simple observation it is clear that these two are parallel in every respect. If there can be a nation at a given period which does not accept the truth of the gospel, then there may certainly be an entire generation of men that may so decide. Whether that has ever happened I do not pretend to know, nor are any of us in a position to tell. I am perfectly willing for God to know that which it is impossible for me to ascertain. I would counsel all others to do the same (Deut. 29:29).

Another thought strikes me at this juncture with regard to our critic’s censorious blast: our use of the word “restoration” is in complete harmony with both the dictionary definition and common sense. “To restore” is “to bring back to or put back into a former or original state” (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, p. 1936). That is precisely what we intend on all fronts, just a few of which we shall mention here:

1. Restoration of the baptism which the early church practiced: immersion “for” or “in order to” remission of sins (Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16; 1 Pet. 3:21; Rom. 6:3-4; Col. 2:12).

2. Restoration of the government of the church: congregations were autonomous, severally overseen by a plurality of elders (bishops, pastors) from their own number, qualified for the task (Acts 14:23; 1 Pet. 5:1-5; Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:lff; Tit. 1:5ff).

3. Restoration of apostolic authority over the individual churches, and the Lordship and headship of Christ over the entire body through the acceptance of Holy Scripture as the full and complete revelation and the sole Divine Law for all Christians (2 Pet. 1:3; 2 Tim. 3:14-17; Jude 3; Rev. 22:18-19).

4. Restoration of the “unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” by the forsaking of denominational titles and names which demonstrably serve only to separate and divide would-be disciples of Christ (1 Cor. 1:l0ff; 3:4). Let men who follow Jesus be called Christians (Acts 11:26), and aggregates thereof simply “churches of Christ”, or “of God” (Rom. 16:16; 1 Cor. 1:2).

5. In short, restoration of the church of Bible times, of fellowship with God. Divinity has always been in the “restoration” business, since Eden anyway. All that God has done in human history has been toward the restoration of alienated humanity to Himself. The church represented in the very first place a “restoration” of this broken relationship. Albeit men are evermore moving away from Him in a plentitude of ways – moral, doctrinal, ecclesiastical, etc. God says to them, “Return, O backsliding children,” and to those who would restore that attitude of harmony, “restore such a one.”

The. aforementioned writer has obviously rejected the historic vision and aim to cultivate unity without regard for Divine authority and with precious little concern for Divine truth.

“Restore What?”

Another contemporary of ours has expressed himself in this area under the caption, “Restore What?” He objected to the thinking of many with: “Which one of the `New Testament churches’ is it proposed to restore? They were all different in some important respects.” To which question he also replies, “None of them in particular, and not all of them in the aggregate.” He further argues that the ideal for the church is in the teaching of Christ and the Apostles, rather than having been perfectly demonstrated by a first-century congregation:

There is a standard against which the church is to measure itself. That standard is the apostolic description of the church as the body of Christ, agent of reconciliation and redemption in the world. To speak of `restoration’ is not to suggest that once there existed a perfect group of congregations after which all subsequent Christian communities were to be modeled. It is rather to point to the true character of the church disclosed in apostolic testimony.

That disclosure is permanently relevant and authoritative. Any assembly of people calling itself `church’ is authenticated or accused in the light of its resemblance to, or deviation from; the scriptural norm (Fred P. Thompson, in Envoy for November, 1978; quoted in Fred O. Blakely, “Pertinent Thoughts on Restoration,” Banner of Truth, August, 1979, p. 2).

Much of what the author of the above says is on target. Howbeit, there is present in these thoughts a discernable effort to loosen the authority of apostolic examples contained in Scripture. The standard is significantly more than what the author alludes to as “the apostolic description of the church as the body of Christ, agent of reconciliation and redemption in the world.” This is a part, but only that. It is one aspect of a larger whole and may be simply defined as one man’s condensation of a multifaceted truth. Indeed, the early church is exemplary for- us in the. role of “agent of reconciliation and redemption,” but from whence do we learn that this is the sole measure for the church today? Will a mere claim to such suffice, or must it be proven in other ways? Did the apostles not demand and receive absolute adherence to their word in the first century? Were the churches not completely submissive to their rule (a rule not their own but that of the Spirit for the Head)? And if that rule is to extend to our own day, then how shall it be determined what they would have the church to do today aside from the examples of that which they commanded the early congregations to do and the instructions which they delivered to them in their letters or the oral edicts provided in Acts? It is manifestly a question of apostolic authority! Such human sidestepping of the plain sense of Scripture serves only to dethrone the apostles! Remember that Jesus told them that “in the regeneration” (a period which none would say we have left behind), “when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Mt. 19:28).

It is altogether beside the point to claim that one congregation exhibited the ideal for which we should strive. We arrive at the model by a simple “composite,” in this case allowing the full New Testament to speak in the matter. That is exactly what we do in all cases (or at least what we should do). All that the Bible says about any subject represents the Word of God on that point. If that particular is found absent or perverted, then it needs to be “restored” to its original purity in order for that man or group of men to be “restored” to God’s grace and favor.

Too, it will not do to allege as Thompson does that “they were all different in some important points.” Naturally the churches of the New Testament showed individuality and even diversity in areas important and unimportant. However that may be, the unimportant aspects are precisely this and require neither definition nor discussion, while the significant ones were subject to apostolic rebuke and refutation. For example, the Corinthian disciples diverged from the practice of eating the Lord’s Supper at the same time in the assembly apart from ordinary meals or feasts. With a stern hand Paul put them back on the right track in their observance in 1 Cor. 11. A church which similarly digresses from the apostolic pattern today would be similarly rebuked by the same divine guidance found in the precise document in the exact location. Corinthian or any other kind of deviation from the apostolic norm offers no refuge and provided no comfort for those who question the existence of such a New Testament ideal or pattern for the church. The same would apply to all other instances in the same category. “For this cause have I sent unto you Timothy, who is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, who shall put you in remembrance of my ways which are in Christ, even as I teach everywhere in every church (1 Cor. 4:17).

Our reason for introducing this point and for arguing it with such vigor is quite plain: rediscovery of the apostolic pattern, renewed appreciation for its place in the individual and common life of Christians, and reapplication of the pattern to both is the very heart and soul of genuine “restoration.” Nothing is really restored if we fail to restore this primitive norm in outward form, inward piety and conviction, and acceptance of the actual teaching of Jesus and His apostles.

Conclusion

To the question “Can the church of the first century be restored’!” we are compelled to voice a resounding “Yes!” Whenever and wherever the pure seed of the kingdom, the Word of God (Mk. 4:14) is planted, the crop may be expected to be unswervingly synonymous with that of the first century: Christians. As they individually and collectively follow the instructions of Jesus and His apostles and prophets in working and serving God in both spheres, it may truly be said that the church of the first century has been restored then and there. Men have been restored to their former fellowship with God, and the Lord has been glorified. May God bountifully use us all to that end!

Truth Magazine XXIV: 3, pp. 50-53
January 17, 1980

By Johnny Stringer

In referring to God’s people, the New Testament uses several different terms which describe us from different standpoints. We are called saints (1 Cor. 1:2, 16:1) because we have been sanctified – that is, set apart unto the service of God. We are called disciples (Acts 11:26), for we have dedicated ourselves to learning and following the teaching of Christ. Inasmuch as our lives are devoted to God’s service, we are called servants (Rev. 1:1). In reference to the relationship that exists between us and God, we are called children (1 John 3:1); being children of the same spiritual Father, we are referred to as brethren (Gal. 6:1). Having submitted ourselves to King Jesus, we are described as citizens in His kingdom (Eph. 2:19). When God’s people are pictured as constituting a body comparable to the physical body, the New Testament refers to us as members of the body (Rom. 12:5). Since we are engaged in warfare against the forces of evil, we are appropriately described as soldiers (Philemon 2). The name which most specifically identifies us as whose religion we practice, as to the Leader to Whom we are devoted, is the name “Christian” (Acts 11:26; 26:28-29; 1 Pet. 4:16).

Some have questioned the divine origin of the name “Christian,” arguing that it was an epithet given to the followers of Christ in derision by their enemies. The scriptural evidence, however, leads to the conclusion that it was God who gave the disciples the name “Christian.” In presenting the earliest history of Christianity, Luke says that “the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch” (Acts 11:26). The word which is translated “called” is chrematizo. It is found eight other times in the New Testament (Matt. 2:12, 22; Lk. 2:26; Acts 10:22; Rom. 7:3; Heb. 8:5, 11:7, 12:25) and is translated by the terms “warned,” “called,” “revealed,” and “spake.” The significant point is that, in each of these eight verses, the word has reference to a divine utterance. It is clear, therefore, that if chrematizo is used in Acts 11:26 in the same way that it is used every other time it occurs in the New Testament, God is the one who called them Christians. There were inspired men there (Paul and Barnabas) through whom God could have spoken in revealing this name for His people; the fact that they were called Christians is mentioned in connection with Paul and Barnabas’ work with them. Moreover, the fact of their being called Christians is simply stated as a significant point in the history of God’s people, without even the slightest hint that the name was without divine approval or not of divine origin. It should also be noted that when Agrippa spoke of being converted, he referred to it as becoming a Christian; Paul’s reply indicates that he found nothing objectionable to that terminology (Acts 26:28-29). Finally, Peter endorses the name “Christian,” and shows that it is a name we can wear without shame (1 Pet. 4:16).

Denominational Names

It is scriptural and right to call ourselves by the various designations found in the New Testament. However, there are many who claim to be followers of Christ, H ho call themselves by names not found in God’s word. The reason for this is simple. Those who claim to be Christians have divided into hundreds of factions. Denominational bodies have formed, and each denominational group has given itself a name to distinguish itself from every other denominational group. A member of such a denomination cannot simply refer to himself as a Christian, for people in other denominations claim to be Christians, too. Hence, in order for people to know his religion, he must identify himself by his denominational name (such as Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran).

It is contrary to God’s will for Christians to divide into factions and to distinguish themselves from other Christians by sectarian names. Paul rebuked the saints in Corinth when they began to form factions and call themselves after certain human leaders so as to distinguish one faction from another. In I Cor. 1:10, he urged them to have no divisions among them. In verses 11-12, he described the situation which reportedly existed in the church at Corinth. Various factions were calling themselves after various prominent men. In response, Paul made the point that Christ is not divided, hence could not be the head over many different factions. He then sought to impress the Corinthians with the fact that it was Christ who had been crucified for them, and that it was in Christ’s name that they had been baptized; hence, their loyalty should not have been to anyone other than Christ (v. 13). How sinfully inappropriate it was, therefore, to call themselves after men, thereby exalting men rather than Christ. If all would be utterly loyal to Christ, then all would be united in following Him, the factions would cease to exist, and all would simply be Christians.

Sectarians today who wear names to identify themselves as to which faction they belong, do so in violation of the principle established in 1 Cor. 1. Some identify themselves as “Baptists” because they believe in immersion; some identify themselves as “Presbyterians” because of their form of church government; some identify themselves as “Methodists” because of the methodical practices of the group from which their denomination arose; some call themselves “Lutherans” after the human leader whose work resulted in the development of their denomination. These are just a few of the many sectarian names worn by people who claim to be followers of Christ. The outrageous thing about the whole situation is that many actually defend such factionalism as good! Those who defend this pitiable condition among professed believers must completely ignore our Lord’s prayer for unity among believers (John 17:20-21), Paul’s rebuke of the Corinthians for the division among them (1 Cor. 1:10-17), and Paul’s plea to the Ephesians that they maintain unity (Eph. 4:3-6).

Just Christians

We do not read in the New Testament about any of today’s denominations and denominational names. We do not read of one group of congregations being organized into one denomination and another group of congregations being organized into another denomination, so that an individual had to call himself by a denominational name in order to identify his religious affiliation. The Christians we read about in the New Testament formed local churches (congregations) as saints in a particular locality would band together to worship and work as a unity; no local church was affiliated with any denominational system. Being united through their common loyalty to Christ and His teachings, all of God’s people were simply Christians. One man was not one brand of Christian, while another man was another brand of Christian.

Is it possible to be just a plain, simple Christian today, without being a part of a sect and therefore having to wear the name of that sect? It most assuredly is. In fact, not only is it possible, but it is the only scriptural thing to do. There are people today who have avoided all denominational structures and are simply Christians. They have become Christians by complying with the terms of Acts 2:38. Such people in various localities have banded together to form local churches, just as the Christians did in the New Testament. These local churches are independent, not affiliated with any denominational group – just like those we read about in the New Testament. The church of which I am a part is such a group. We are just a group of plain, simple Christians, such as the one at Ephesus, the one at Philippi, and the others we read about in God’s word. We have no ties with any denominational structure; hence, we wear no denominational name to identify us as such.

Hence, if I am in a conversation in which people begin giving their religious affiliations, and one person says he is a Presbyterian, another says he is a Methodist, and another says he is a Catholic, I will simply say that I am a Christian. Some might think I should say that I am a “Church of Christer.” It is true that the local congregation of which I am a part refers to itself in its advertising as a church of Christ. However, this is not because it is a member-congregation in a denomination by that name. We are not affiliated with a denominational organization by that name. We use that name simply because it describes what we are – that is, a local church belonging to Christ. The local churches in the New Testament were described in that way (Rom. 16:16). Therefore, in the conversation in which people are identifying themselves by sectarian names, it would be wrong for me to chime in with the announcement, “I’m Church of Christ,” thereby implying that I am a part of a denomination by that name and that the name “Church of Christ” is nothing more than a denominational name to distinguish my sect from other sects. Rather than thus using the phrase “church of Christ” in a denominational sense, I will simply say that I am a Christian. Their response may be to affirm that they are Christians, too, but they want to know which particular denomination I am in. To that, I will reply that I am in none of them, that I am a part of a local church which is independent, not connected with any denominational body, that I am simply a Christian, and that I have maintained my undenominational status because such was the practice of local churches in the New Testament. This will open the door for further teaching.

Sometimes we have forms to fill out in which we are asked to give our religious preference. We are asked to check whether we are Catholic, Jew, or Protestant. In case we are neither of these, we can put a check by the word “other,” and then state what we are. I would not check Catholic, for I surely am not that; I would not check Jew, for I am not a Jew; and I would not check Protestant, for I am not a part of any religious body that grew out of the Protestant Reformation. I would check other, and then write simply, “Christian.” That is all I am. That fully identifies me as to Whose teachings I believe and practice. I am a member of no sect, hence I have no sectarian name by which I must identify myself. How wonderful it would be if all who profess to follow Jesus would truly follow Him and Him alone, giving up all denominational affiliations and denominational names, practicing pure, simple, undenominational Christianity, so as to be nothing but Christians.

We leave you with the words of two of history’s best known theologians. Martin Luther pled,

I pray you to leave my name alone, and call not yourselves “Lutherans,” but “Christians.” Who is Luther? My doctrine is not mine. I have not been crucified for anyone. St. Paul would not permit that any should call themselves of Paul, nor of Peter, but of Christ. How, then, does it befit me, a miserable bag of dust and ashes, to give my name to the children of Christ? Cease, my dear friends, to cling to these party names and distinctions; away with them all; let us call ourselves only “Christians” after him from whom our doctrine comes.

Charles Spurgeon, one of the most famous and highly esteemed Baptist preachers ever to live, said,

I look forward with pleasure to the day when there will not be a Baptist living. I hope they will soon be gone. I hope the “Baptist” name will soon perish, but let Christ’s name last forever.

Questions

1. Name several terms used in referring to God’s people and tell what ideas each implies.
2. How many times and where is the word “Christian” used in the Bibles?
3. Why do some who claim to be followers of Christ call themselves by names not found in God’s word?
4. Where is it recorded that Paul rebuked saints for calling themselves after certain human leaders?
5. What practices are identified by the use of the name Baptist, Presbyterian, and Methodist?
6. How can one become just a simple Christian today?
7. What were the thoughts of Martin Luther and Charles Spurgeon concerning the wearing of denominational names?
8. How can Christians today use the phrase “church of Christ” in a denominational sense?

Truth Magazine XXIV: 2, pp. 43-44
January 10, 1980

By Earl E. Robertson

The fact of the existence of the church of Christ seems to be sufficient to satisfy some to the point of expressing no interest in any specifics concerning its establishment. While on the other hand others place stress on its origin but have little interest in its present condition. We are, however, interested in the prophecies, promises and facts given in the word of God concerning the Lord’s church. Many problems are extant in the churches because an appreciable interest and understanding of the origin of the church does not exist. Holding a position that the church was established before the first Pentecost after the resurrection of Christ (Acts 2) or a premillennial view that the kingdom is yet to be founded will inevitably cause problems within churches. The evil ramifications necessary to these false positions have in the past and will in the future divide churches and, in some instances, destroy them completely. This study is then vital and essential to the life and well-being of any congregation.

Prophecy

Though some are adamant that it makes no difference when and where the church was founded, the word of God stresses both the time and place. Isaiah wrote, “And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more” (2:2-4). With added dimension Daniel foretells the establishment of God’s kingdom, the church, in the dream of Nebuchadnezzar and the interpretation of it (Dan. 2). Isaiah and Daniel prophesied near the same time (Isaiah during the Assryian empire and Daniel during the Babylonian – about one hundred years apart) and of the same people. While Isaiah called it the “house” of the Lord Daniel called it the “kingdom”. They were not speaking of two different things, but one and the same thing – the people of God while Jesus is on the throne ruling.

These two prophets prophesied some six-hundred to seven-hundred years before Christ. Isaiah’s prophecy covers some four phases of the church: time, extent, place and nature. The time would be in the “last days”; the extent embraces “all nations”; the place would be “Jerusalem”, and “peace” would be the nature of the kingdom. The church was a part of the eternal purpose of God (Eph. 3:10, 11). It was not an afterthought of God to bridge the gap when the Jews rejected the Messiah, thus preventing Him in the establishing of the kingdom, as falsely claimed by the modern millennialists. God eternally planned the church and caused the prophets to tell beforehand of its beginning. Isaiah specifies the time when this would happen. The last days remove forever the possibility of the church beginning prior to Pentecost of Acts 2. It could not, therefore, have been established during the Mosaic dispensation. This was, the time Jesus lived. John the Baptist also lived at this time. However, John did not found a church and neither did Jesus during his personal ministry. Baptist preachers used to contend that Jesus founded His church during the days of John the Baptist’s ministry, but they could never prove such by the scriptures.

The prophecy of Isaiah 2 demands that the church of Christ be founded in Jerusalem. No other city in all the world can serve as a substitute. The man of God specified Jerusalem. Acts 2 gives a perfect and total fulfillment of this prophecy.

The prophet shows that the provisions of the reign of the Messiah would be extended to man universally. The “house of the Lord” would be made up of all nations. During Moses’ time it was to the Jew; but the last days would bring God’s blessing to all men through Christ in the church. The commission Jesus gave to the apostles was world-wide in scope.

The church would be the sphere and relationship in which peace would obtain. Peace with God is established through Christ in His body (Eph. 2:16). It is in this house that all peoples have peace with each other; it is in the church we find the barriers removed.

Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, had a dream but in the passing of the night shadows forgot it. He was sore troubled and called the magicians, astrologers, sorcerers and Chaldeans to reveal unto him this dream. These men were unable to tell Nebuchadnezzar anything about the dream and openly declared unto him, “there is none other that can shew it before the king, except the gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh” (Dan. 2:11). Daniel the prophet of God was called and he both told the dream and the interpretation of it. The dream was one of an image whose brightness was excellent, but whose form was terrible. The image consisted of a head of gold, breast of silver, belly and thighs of brass, and legs of iron with feet of part iron and part clay (Dan. 2:31-33). Nebuchadnezzar further saw in his dream a stone cut out without hands that smote this image, and became a great mountain and filled the whole earth. Daniel revealed this entire dream unto the king and then gave him the interpretation of it. He tells the king that the head of gold represents himself and the Babylonian empire; that the second kingdom, the Medo-Persian empire, is represented by the breast of silver; the third kingdom represented by the belly and thighs of brass was the Grecian empire with Alexander the Great; and the fourth kingdom, the Roman empire, was represented by the legs of iron. This fourth and last kingdom consisted of the Caesars and Herods, and it would be during the fourth kingdom that the God of heaven would set up the kingdom (Dan. 2:44). It was during the reign of the Herods and Caesars that John the Baptist began his work (Matt. 3:1) saying, “Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Jesus was born in these days (Matt. 2:1 ff; Lk. 2:1 ff). Jesus began His own ministry in those days preaching “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel” (Mk. 1:14, 15).

Isaiah said the house of the Lord would be established in the last days and Daniel says the kingdom of God would be set up in the days of the Herods and Caesars. Daniel shows that God can change the times and seasons, remove kings and set up kings (2:21). God’s word being true the world could expect God’s kingdom to be established while the Herods and Caesars were ruling. This not only rules out the possibility of the church being established prior to Pentecost of Acts 2, but it demands that the church be set up before the so-called millennial period.

Promise

Jesus promised to build His church and give the keys of the kingdom to the apostles (Matt. 16:18, 19). When the Lord was confessed by the apostle Peter to be the Son of God, Jesus gave the promise to build upon that rock – the rock of truth couched in the confession – “thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” This is the only foundation the church of Christ can possibly have (1 Cor. 3:10, 11). Paul emphatically says “other foundation can no man lay” than the one already laid – Christ Jesus. Jesus is the tried and precious foundation stone (Isa. 28:16). “Will build” is future tense. So, during the personal ministry of Christ, He was promising to build His church. He spoke of it as “at hand” or “nigh.” It was to come soon, but it was not at that time in !existence. Jesus taught the disciples to pray for it to come (Matt. 6:9-10). He sent the 12 to preach “the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt. 10:7), and the 70 to preach “that the kingdom of God is come nigh” (Lk. 10:10, 11). Jesus told some that “there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power” (Mk. 9:1). This kingdom which Jesus promised had to come into the world during the lifetime of the disciples to whom He then spoke, yet, the millennialists say the Christ had to postpone the establishment of the kingdom because He was rejected by the Jews (John 1:11, 12) and just set up the church to bridge the gap! Pshaw. The church and the kingdom are one and the same people. The people who make up the church and the kingdom of Christ are the same people. They both are blood-bought (1 Pet. 1:18, 19; Acts 20:28; Eph. 1:7). To be a blood-bought member of the church is to be a blood-bought citizen of the kingdom of God.

In the promise made by Jesus that some of the disciples would not die until they had seen the kingdom come with power (Mk. 9:1) is the Lord’s veracity. In Luke 24:44-49 Jesus told the disciples to go to Jerusalem and wait until they were endued with power from on high. Luke further shows they were not to depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father (Acts 1:4). All of this was just before Jesus ascended back to heaven. The promise of the Father was the coming of the Holy Spirit. The coming of the Holy Spirit would give the power – the power as promised by Jesus in Mark 9:1. The Holy Spirit came on the first Pentecost after the resurrection of Jesus from the dead (Acts 2:1 ff). Pentecost was an annual feast of the Jews (see Lev. 23:16). It was 50 days after the Passover. Jesus had gone to Jerusalem for the Passover feast (Matt. 26:1ff). The disciples made ready for the Passover and, as they sat together, Jesus announced to them that one of them would betray Him. On this occasion He instituted His supper, they sung an hymn and went out into the Mount of Olives. After this the mob took Jesus away. Mockingly He, was tried and condemned to die. He was crucified then buried in Joseph’s new tomb, but God raised Him from the dead the third day. He walked among men for forty days teaching them things concerning the kingdom of God and proving Himself to be the resurrected Christ with many “infallible proofs” (Acts 1:3). When the forty days were over He ascended and a cloud received Him out of their sight. Pentecost was some 10 days away. While they waited in Jerusalem these ten days God made ready the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles. The Spirit came on Pentecost and the power came with Him (Acts 2:1-4). But remember, the Kingdom was to come with power! When the power came the kingdom would be there, too. The power came at Pentecost; therefore; the kingdom came at Pentecost. No, the kingdom was not in existence during His earthly ministry. Luke 22 shows the church and the kingdom are one and the same people. Here Jesus said, “I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.” Mark’s account says, “. . . until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God” (14:25), and Matthew says, “. . . until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom” (26:29). When the “disciples came together to break bread” (Acts 20:7) such was the church and the Lord’s supper was in it (1 Cor. 11:18-34). Either the Kingdom and the church are one and the same or the disciples stole it from the kingdom and put it in the church. Who can believe it?

From the first Pentecost after the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, the kingdom/church has been in existence and Jesus has all this time been the king over the kingdom and the head of the church. Let no millennialist deceive you in this matter! Furthermore, let none of the middle-of-the-roaders influence you to compromise such fundamental Bible doctrine.

The church could not have been established before the resurrection of Christ. God would use David’s seed (Christ) in fulfilling the prophecies and promises made through the prophets concerning the building of the church (2 Sam. 7:12; Psa. 132:11; Acts 2:29ff). In the synagogue at Antioch, Paul used these scriptures to prove to the rulers and others that God had kept His word in raising the ion of David from the dead, that He saw no corruption in the flesh, and through Him “is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins.” The kingdom/church could not be established until after Christ’s ascension into heaven (Lk. 19:12; Dan. 7:13, 14; Acts 1:11). When He ascended heaven received Him (Psa. 24:7-10) and He was seated on David’s throne over His kingdom (Lk. 1:32, 33). So, Pentecost was the beginning (Acts 11:15) of the last days (Acts 2:17); the reign of Christ (Acts 2:34, 35); the first gospel sermon (1 Cor. 15:1-5; Acts 2:23, 32); and the kingdom of Christ (Mk. 9:1; Lk. 24:49; Acts 1:8; 2:1-4).

The various passages dealing with the establishment of the church before Pentecost point to Acts 2, and the passages after Acts 2 point back to this Pentecost identifying the church as an established fact. After the preaching of Acts 2, Luke tells us the Lord added to the church the saved (Acts 2:47). No more do we read of promises that the church will be established; rather, they affirm its existence. The tense on the verb “are built” in Ephesians 2:20 shows its existence at that time was a fact. Various apostolic letters were addressed to the churches (see 1 Cor. 1:2 for example).

Conclusion

We can rejoice in having the facts which inform us of the Lord’s doing concerning the establishment of the church. We rejoice to know that the church is a product of prophecy and divine promise (not an accident or afterthought); that Jesus built His one and only church; that it was established in Jerusalem; that it came into existence on the first Pentecost after Jesus’ resurrection from the dead; that the Lord adds the saved to it (yea, translated into it, Col. 1:13), and live with the promise that He will deliver it up to the Father when the end comes (1 Cor. 15:23, 24).

Questions

1. Name two false positions taught as to the time of the church of Christ being established.
2. Why is it necessary for us to know when the church was built?
3. How could men foretell accurately when the church would be established?
4. In what city did Jesus build His church?
5. How many churches did Jesus promise to build?
6. Does the Lord add unsaved people to the church?
7. Can one join the church (1) universally (Acts 2:47) ___________________ (2) locally (Acts 9:26) _______________?
8. How do you prove the church and the kingdom are one and the same?
9. With what did Jesus purchase the church?
10. What will happen to the church when Jesus ceases to reign on the throne at the right hand of the Father?

Truth Magazine XXIV: 2, pp. 40-42
January 10, 1980

By Bob Buchanon

More and more I am amazed at the colossal ignorance of, and unconcern for, the purpose of Christ’s blood shed on the cross! Liberal-thinking preachers for many years have been making efforts to eliminate the blood of Christ from man’s need of coming to God and some even look upon the blood as repulsive. Many work hard trying to separate the church from salvation saying that the church has nothing to do with salvation.

God Chose Blood

Since man’s first sin in the Garden of Eden, God has required the shedding of blood for the atonement for sin. God instructed Cain and Abel concerning the kind of sacrifice He wanted. It is said of Abel, that by faith he “offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain” (Heb. 11:4). This blood sacrifice must have been precisely what God wanted since faith comes by the word of God (Rom. 10:17). The first thing Noah did after he came out of the ark was offer a burnt-offering (Gen. 8:20). When Israel was delivered out of the slavery of Egypt, blood was used in their deliverance (Ex. 12:7-13).

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says, “The rite of circumcision is an Old Testament form of blood ceremony. Apart from the probably sanitary importance of the act is the deeper meaning in the establishment of a bond of friendship between the one upon whom the act is performed and (Jehovah) Himself. In order that Abraham might become `the friend of God’ he was commanded that he should be circumcised as a token of the covenant between him and God, Genesis 17:10-11” (see “Blood,” p. 489). The patriarchal age was marked by sacrifices and rites of blood by those desiring to please God.

In Abraham’s covenant, his own blood had to be shed. Later an atoning animal was to shed blood, but those who did appropriate the blood of animals were only ceremonially, and temporarily clean, because it was not possible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sin (Heb. 10:4). In all ages, however, there must always be a shedding of blood. The covenant under Moses was dedicated by the blood of animals. Moses took the blood of calves and goats and sprinkled both the book and the people, saying, “This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and all .the vessels of the ministry, and almost all things by the law are purged with blood and without the shedding of blood is no remission of sins” (Heb. 9:20-22).

Since there is no salvation but by blood, and since the blood of bulls and goats could not take away sin, it naturally follows that some blood of greater merit must be applied. As the first covenant was sealed by the blood of animals, the New Covenant was sealed by more precious blood, the blood of Jesus.

The Individual Is Bought With A Price

Each child of God has been purchased. Paul wrote, “What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirits, which are God’s” (1 Cor. 6:19-20). This was accomplished by the blood of Christ (Eph. 1:7), something of far greater value than silver and gold (1 Pet. 1:18). Each child of God has the same hope, having been purchased by the blood of Christ.

Unto the saints in Galatia, Paul wrote, “But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world” (Gal. 6:14). Paul would not be found guilty of minimizing the cross of Christ, and what it had done for him. He would never equate the cross of the Lord, as some do today, to some $2 ornament worn as jewelry about the neck. To Paul, the cross was the symbol of the blood which Christ had shed thereon, and this gave it the fullest meaning.

It is only when we find what the blood of the cross did for lost men that we have an appreciation for it. The view of Paul is far different from those who claim such love for the blood of Christ, and sing loudly of the “Old Rugged Cross,” yet spurn the very thing which the shed blood of the cross purchased for us. To fully appreciate the cross of Christ, we must look much further than the shape of the tree on which Jesus died.

The Church Purchased By The Blood

Paul’s statement in First Corinthians 6:20 shows that every member of the church has been bought with the price of the blood of Christ; the church is composed of members; hence, the church has been purchased with the blood of Christ. He has given for it His own most precious blood, thus making it His own by the dearest of all ties. The transcendent sacredness of the church of Christ is thus made to rest on the dignity of its Lord and the consequent preciousness of that blood which He shed for it. We must maintain that, had not this Lord been God, His blood could have been no purchase for the souls of a lost world and the promise of redemption in His church would have been impossible. Since the church has cost heaven its dearest treasure, we ought to value it very highly indeed!

When Paul met the elders from Ephesus at Miletus, he discussed many important things. Included in the discussion was this thought: “Take heed unto yourselves and to all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood” (Acts 20:28). Paul wanted them to know that the body of Christ owed much to the blood of the cross! This cannot be emphasized enough. Jesus Christ gave His blood to purchase the church and it should be remembered by all that He has never complained of being defrauded in the deal.

It was by this sacrifice that the church was bought and sanctified. When Paul wrote back to his friends and brethren at Ephesus, he said, “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it” (Eph. 5:25). This divine institution was the spiritual body of Christ. Nothing is like it is in the world, and nothing else like it in the Bible. Now, if Jesus had promised to build a multiplicity of churches, then we might have the option of choosing one to our liking. But since He promised to build only one (Matt. 16:18), and added the saved to only that one (Acts 2:41-47), then no option is extended!

Since Jesus Christ loved that church so dearly that He gave Himself for it (Eph. 5:23), God “gave him to be the head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all” (Eph. 1:22-23). You just cannot afford to down-grade any institution so important to the Lord, that it was purchased with His own blood! To belittle the church of the Lord is to belittle the very blood of the cross which bought it. Unto the saved in Christ, Peter said they were redeemed with “the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot” (1 Pet. 1:19).

The Highest Price

The word, “purchase,” as used in Acts 20:28, occurs but in one other place in the New Testament – 1 Timothy 3:13: “For they that have used the office of deacon well, purchase to themselves a good degree and great boldness in the faith.” The word properly means “to gain or get for oneself, purchase” (W.E. Vine’s, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 231). This may be done by a price, or by labor.

No verse in the New Testament, or any other statement that could be imagined, could possibly exceed the power of Acts 20:28 in declaring the eternal importance and necessity of the Church which Christ established. Here the heretical notion of salvation by “faith alone” is shattered and counter-manded forever. By any definition, salvation by “faith alone” means salvation without the church of Jesus Christ; and in such a view the crucifixion of our Lord is reduced to the status of a senseless murder. As James Coffman said, “If men are saved, in any sense by the blood of Jesus, they must be saved through the church of which that blood is here declared to be the purchase price” (Commentary On Acts, p. 395).

That the church is, therefore, of peculiar value – a value to be estimated by the price paid for it – is clearly taught. This fact should make the purity and salvation of the church an object of special solicitude with the elders. They should be deeply affected in view of that blood which has been shed for the church; and they should guard and defend it as having been bought with the highest price in the universe. The chief consideration that will make elders faithful and self-denying is that the church has been bought with a price. If the Lord Jesus so loved it, if He gave Himself for it, they should be willing to deny themselves, to watch, and toil, and pray, that the great object of His death – the purity and the salvation of that church – may be obtained. Too many men like the title of elder, but do not like the work that is required; they like to see their name on a piece of stationery or bulletin, but do not want to put in the hours of labor that is required.

The Shepherd

Paul’s figure of speech to the elders is directly connected with a reference to the church as a flock; to the officers as overseers, or shepherds; and to their duty of feeding the flock. The figure as used by our Lord in John 10 should be compared with the expression in Acts 20:28.

How does a shepherd purchase his sheep with his blood? Pulpit Commentary noted, “The shepherd may actually give his life in fighting and killing the wolves. If he kills the wolves he saves the sheep, though he may himself die of his wounds; and then he plainly purchases the safety of the flock with his blood. These figures may be applied to the work of the Lord. He imperilled his life for our defence. He met our great foe in conflict. He overcame sin and death, and plucked death’s sting away. He died in the struggle, but he set us free; and so he has purchased us by his own blood. He has won, by his great act of selfsacrifice, our love and life for ever” (Vol. 18, p. 168).

Implications

It is easily seen that some count the blood unholy when they have little regard for the church of the Lord and see it as just another denomination of no importance in God’s scheme of redemption. Such say by their lack of respect for the church that the blood was wasted in purchasing the church.

Let it be said, in teaching and in practice, that the purchased church was not purchased to be a social club, but it has business second to none – that of saving souls. The borders of the kingdom must expand yet at the same time purity must be maintained within the church for it is Christ’s desire to present it a glorious church without spot or wrinkle.

Questions

1. How long has God required the shedding of blood as the atonement for sins?
2. How do we know that God Instructed Cain and Abel concerning the kind of sacrifice He wanted?
3. What was the first thing Noah did after he came out of the ark?
4. Explain why those who offered animals for atonement were only temporarily clean.
5. If the first covenant was sealed by the blood of animals, by what was the New Covenant sealed?
6. The cross was a symbol of what, to Paul?
7. Quote several scriptures in which Paul mentions the purchase of the church by Jesus’ blood.
8. What is the chief consideration that will make elders faithful and self-denying?
9. Discuss how a shepherd could purchase his sheep with his blood.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 2, pp. 37-39
January 10, 1980