This 13-part series of classes has been many years in the making. About 25 years ago I began in earnest to examine the features, character and characteristics of the church as it existed in its earliest years. As I sometimes do, I kept my notes all along the way, and this series of classes is to a large extent the product of those years of on-and-off studying the subject. Several things in my experience contributed to my interest in making this 25-year study which I will mention along the way, and those go much further back.
There may be some difficulty in using the individual parts of this series separately, although viewer are free to do so if it serves their purposes. But to those whose interest is in knowing what the church was like in its earliest years, I recommend starting with Part 1 - Introduction to the Church of the New Testament and proceeding through the parts consecutively.
I have prepared some slides that I used in presenting the series in a classroom setting before adapting it to use as sermons. I have left my cues to advance slides or activate animations in the notes as posted on Sermon Central. If anyone is interested in having the PowerPoint files with the slides, I will be happy to send them. Send me an Email at sam@srmccormick.net and specify what part(s) you are requesting. Be sure that the word “slide” appears in the subject line. It may take me several days to respond, but I will respond to all requests.
THE CHURCH OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
OUTLINE OF THE STUDY
I. Introduction
II. The Origin of the Church
III. What is the church?
IV. The First Christians
V. Authority in the First Century Church
VI. Problems in the New Testament Church
VII. How the Church Functioned
A. Introduction to Functions
B. Apostles, Prophets, and Teachers
C. False Apostles, Prophets, and Teachers & Various Gifts and Functions
D. More Gifts and Functions
E. Evangelists, Preachers, and Ministers, Servants and Deacons
F. Pastors, Elders, Bishops, etc.
VIII. How the Church Worshiped
===================================
V. Authority in the Church in the First Century
It is vitally important in those matters on which God directs the actions of man, to know, upon what authority anyone presumes to know God’s desires and commandments, and to express them to others,.
The chief priests and elders challenged Jesus after he had driven the money-changers from the temple, “By what authority do you do these things?” (Matt 21:23) It was, of course, a trap. If he said “God’s authority,” (though absolutely true) they would accuse him of blasphemy. If he said “Man’s authority,” they would say it was only themselves who possessed the authority to act and teach as he was doing.
If Jesus acted without authority, he was nothing more than a trouble-maker.
*Outline slide
A. What did authority consist of in the New Testament church? Upon what authority did the church exist, and conduct its worship and services as it did?
1. Not upon the authority contained in their bibles.
Their bibles were about Israel and the Law. Christ and the gospel were prefigured in their history and the things of the Law, but he was not fully revealed in their scriptures, nor was God’s full plan of redemption revealed, with instructions for replacing the feasts and Levitical system of sacrifices with a new kind of worship, and for conducting the work of the church that Jesus built.
The Old Testament scriptures only pointed to Jesus, but they were not the New Testament.
John 5:39 You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me,
The Old Testament scriptures had long been widely accepted by the Israelites and by Jesus as well, as God’s message to them. But at the time Christianity dawned, the Old Testament was not accepted as God’s word by non-Jewish people. Their bible (the Hebrew scriptures) foresaw only dimly the new relationship between God and man, in which man is washed and regenerated, made holy and sanctified, fit for the Master’s use, and fit to approach the very throne of Almighty God.
*Black slide
2. The New Testament scriptures would one day become recognized as the authority under which the church was to operate
“The New Testament is as perfect a constitution for the worship, discipline, and government of the New Testament Church, and as perfect a rule for the particular duties of its members, as the Old Testament was for the worship, discipline, and government of the Old Testament Church, and the particular duties of its members.” Proposition 4 of the Declaration and Address, by Thomas Campbell.
But the New Testament did not exist in the first years of the church, and as writings came into existence they were scattered geographically for many years. Letters written by Paul were to be shared with nearby local churches, but organizing them into a collection as a canon would not be completed until near the end of the century, and the content that is familiar to us today would not be generally accepted as an undisputed unit for many years.
People wanted to know with certainty how they could be released from their sins and have eternal life. That was important enough for people to want to know upon authority that what they were told would save them was true.
There is never a shortage of men, vying for supremacy, who claim to speak for God.
It was vital to know in the first century, and it is vital to know today, when someone claims to speaks for God, do they speak with authority, or do they merely speak for themselves?
With no New Testament to weigh and verify the words of men, how did the first Christians--and those to whom they brought the word of Christ--know upon reliable authority, the God’s plan for saving them and guiding their actions?
While the New Testament remained unwritten (abt 65 years), one who claimed to speak for God must show by what authority he so spoke. Anyone could make that claim, and many did. One who speaks for God must always have clearly recognizable credentials.
• Moses before Pharaoh “Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, 'Let my people go.’” – Plagues showed Moses’ credentials.
• Moses giving the law – the shaking, terrifying mountain and loud trumpet sound
• Prophets – their words came true
A. Jesus’ Authority
Hebrews 1:1-2 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.
Jesus speaks for God!
Christ was, and is, the head of the church
Eph 1:22 And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church.
There is no authority in the church that does not come from Christ.
1. Matt 7:29
The people were amazed, for “he was teaching them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes.”
2. Matt 9:6 Jesus, in healing a man afflicted with paralysis, showed that he had authority on earth to forgive sins. Astonishing, even to us!
3. Matt 28:18 “All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth.”
Another mind-boggling claim!
“…has been given…” Who gave him all that authority?
The Father did:
Rev 2:27 and he [he who conquers] will rule them with a rod of iron, as when earthen pots are broken in pieces, even as I myself have received authority from my Father.
4. Jesus demonstrated his authority by his teaching (Matt 7:29), signs, fulfilling prophecy, and by the very voice of God from heaven,
“This is my beloved Son in whom I am well-pleased, listen to him.” (Matt 17:5)
B. The Apostles’ Authority
The church was born after Christ ascended to heaven. How did Jesus exercise his authority as head of the newborn church?
Jesus was not out of the loop. He led the church by the operation of the Holy Spirit through his apostles.
Through his apostles!
1. An apostle is defined as “one sent out with a mission and the authority to accomplish the mission on behalf of the sender.”
An apostle is not merely a messenger, but one who has the authority to act for the sender.
The apostles were sent forth to make disciples by teaching, baptizing, and teaching again. I believe the first century church was under the government of the apostles and their hand-picked envoys for most of the first century (until the apostles and their envoys died). I see no biblical basis for believing that later church leaders are imbued with the authority to declare the things of God as an original source. Church leaders and preachers today speak things that originate from a source outside themselves.
Jesus was the source of the words the apostles spoke.
Joh 14:26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.
Joh 16:13-14 "But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. "He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you.
What the Holy Spirit gave to the apostles was from Jesus. The Holy Spirit did not speak on his own initiative, but as a conduit for the things that issue from Christ. John 16:13-14
2. The apostles exercised authority in the New Testament church from its beginning.
Acts 2:41-42 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.
3. The apostles’ authority must have been exercised in countless unrecorded ways, but it is evident in their letters that they acted, spoke, and wrote with authority from Christ.
a. Peter unabashedly gave directions far and wide to “those who are elect exiles of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,” in 1 Pet, and to “those who have a faith of equal standing with ours” and in 2 Pet., clearly as one in authority giving directions to readers everywhere.
b. John wrote to Gaius,
I have written something to the church, but Diotrephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge our authority. (3 Jn 1:9)
c. Paul cited his authority as coming from Jesus:
2 Cor 13:9-10 For we are glad when we are weak and you are strong. Your restoration is what we pray for. For this reason I write these things while I am away from you, that when I come I may not have to be severe in my use of the authority that the Lord has given me for building up and not for tearing down.
In writing about the silence of women in the assembly, Paul wrote:
1 Cor 14:37 If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment.
d. The authority of apostles was generally recognized and honored in the churches (except by some who because of jealousy challenged apostolic authority, forcing Paul to make a defense of his apostleship).
The idea arose soon that there were, or should be, successors to the apostles. Some have tried to implement that idea, and still do. But the men they claim are apostles are not true successors of a one-generation arrangement. Neither Jesus nor the apostles ever alluded to such an idea. It comes entirely from the imagination of humans. We receive truth from the same authority as the first century Christians. That has never changed. But the channel is not directly from apostles living among us. Today, the church is under the authority of the New Testament.
D. While the apostles were “in charge” of the church, they still brought the elders and the people into their council when something was to be decided, or action to be taken.
1. Hellenistic widows issue:
Acts 6:1-6 “the twelve summoned the congregation” They were to “look out from among themselves seven men to place over the matter.”
2. Circumcision:
Act 15:2 And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue.
Act 15:6 The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter.
Acts 16:4 Paul, Silas and Timothy delivered “decrees” that had been decided on by the apostles and elders that were in Jerusalem [most translations say decrees, ESV says decisions.]
Did the Jerusalem elders have authority to make decisions that were binding on the church in Antioch, or those in Pamphylia, Pisidia, and Galatia? (Was Jerusalem the “mother church?”)
Should we look for a mother church in Abilene, Searcy, or Denver? (Should we consider ourselves under the guidance of the Bear Valley or Sunset School, or a seminary? Note also Acts 15:26 and they sent this letter by them, "The apostles and the brethren who are elders, to the brethren in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia who are from the Gentiles, greetings.
The council in Jerusalem and the letter that came out of it does not suggest that the Jerusalem church seized power over other churches, or that they were entitled to assert it because of a an authorizing pecking order.
The upshot of the council was that those apostles and elders who met in Jerusalem agreed with what Antioch was doing! Beyond that, the decision and instructions were calculated to defuse the flashpoints arising from cultural differences between Jews and Gentiles, and to command the Gentiles against fornication (which was commonplace in their culture, accepted as the norm by many Gentiles). The letter was a precursor to what years later Paul would spell out in greater detail in Romans 14.
It was the kind of a decision that needed explicit buy-in and ownership from the Jerusalem church, because they (the Jewish brethren) were the ones “giving ground” by not demanding the Gentile brethren to keep the Sinai law. The Gentiles (addressees of the letter) were to observe the sensibilities of their Jewish brethren, and not flaunt the freedoms the Jewish community had not grown accustomed to. And they were to avoid the commonplace fornication which abounded in their culture.
We will not say very much about others in the church who possessed authority, such as apostolic representatives or envoys, or how the transition from apostolic authority to New Testament prophets and teachers, etc., and eventually to the written New Testament occurred.
That will be considered in detail in a later part of the series.
There was a gradual transition from direct apostolic exercise of authority to a permanent channel through which Christ exerts his authority as head of the church. That channel is the inspired writings by the apostles and other writers.
In that period of transition, the apostles could not be everywhere. Letters and treatises were written by apostles and others that were recognized as authoritative in conveying the will of the church’s builder. Those letters gained wide acceptance, although differences lingered about some of the writings and passages within them, as there was a large amount of Christian writing going on at the time. The question inevitable emerged: “Which writings were the sacred scriptures and which were merely the writings of faithful Christians or would-be religious leaders?”
The answer was not settled with finality for about 400 years. Who decided it then?
*Africa slide
Bishops attending a series of many councils and synods in Carthage and Hippo, both in Africa, particularly:
• (Third Council of Carthage, near present day Tunis – 397 AD) listed exactly our present 27 books, stipulating that only these were to be read in churches
• (Council of Hippo, which is the present town of Annaba, Algeria. – 419 AD) repeated the list from the Third Council of Carthage
The Old Testament, which was the bible as Christianity made its entrance, did not provide any instruction for formulating the New Testament, or authorize anyone to undertake the task.
The apostles never issued instructions for the compilation of sacred writings into a fixed collection. Nor did they give any guidance for deciding which writings were to be considered scripture.
Then what authority did those who met at Carthage and Hippo have to make such decisions?
Can we have confidence those people made all the right choices, both for what was in and what was out?
The church at large had migrated to the acceptance of the same selection informally on its own. So what was handed down from the formally recognized church of the time matched what the people already believed to be the sacred writings.
Why did the content gain popular acceptance in the churches?
• There is richness and power not found in ordinary writings.
• It is consistent with Old Testament scripture.
• The doctrinal interpretation of Jesus’ life and work are entirely consistent with Jesus’ own declarations about it as recorded by eyewitnesses and those who received it directly from eyewitnesses.
• The writers did not set themselves up as the head of the church, but points to the true head, Christ.
• The writers were ready to die, and most of them did, defending the right of every person to be saved through the gospel revealed and interpreted in it.
Apart from a few minor differences, the verdict of the first four centuries came to rest on the belief that the 27 books we know as the New Testament are sacred writings of divine origin.
