THE
JUDAIZING PROBLEM, AND OTHERS
THE
15th chapter of Acts is a
highly interesting chapter to study. With the termination
of the Old Testament Law on the cross (Colossians 2:14; Hebrews
9:15-17), the
Holy Spirit, step by step, was guiding the apostles and early church
into “all
truth” (John 16:13; 1 Corinthians 13:9-10). Breaking with the Law was
not easy for
them and it took time for them to come into the fullness of the New
Testament
revelation. After God showed that Gentiles should be accepted into the
church
with the household of Cornelius (Acts 10 and 11), Paul and Barnabas
later broke
new ground as they were sent out into the Gentile world with the gospel
(Acts
13, etc.). Being sent out from the church at With
this interesting Scripture noticed and highlighted, we now move on to
some
other thoughts
arising in connection with this chapter. In response to our emphasis on
wanting
to have Scriptural precedent or principle behind all that we practice
in the
church, a
person once said to this writer that the 15th
chapter of Acts furnishes us a
Scriptural example of a church convention, like that of a world,
national or
state convention (organizationally set up and drawn from many local churches). Thus,
a national
or other such regional name could be appropriately applied to the
gathering.
But does Acts 15 furnish such an example or precedent?
Review the first section of this article. The church at
We remind you that the church in the New Testament was
made up
of local, independent and autonomous entities. To apply world, national
or
regional names beyond the local church is to leap frog the simple New
Testament
concept and have a ready-made setup for a denominational identity (and
apostasy
in that direction). Who gave anyone the authority to thus name such
gatherings,
and thus imply that they are collectively representing a vast number of
churches? In the New Testament, the stratum of the organization of the
church
does not go beyond the local church. LOCAL,
AUTONOMOUS CHURCHES CORPORATELY speaking, the church has its
being locally. When the New Testament makes reference to Christ’s
followers in
an organized sense in the world, or in any given region, it is never
THE
CHURCH, but CHURCHES. There is no such thing as a universal church or a
national
church. There is no such thing as a church organization in any sense of
the
word on a state, regional, or district basis (just the local,
independent and
autonomous church is all that we find in the inspired Scriptures). Yes,
Christ
said, “I will build my church,” but he is speaking of the whole church
in a
general sense and did not have reference to a collective unit or
organization.
When we read the New Testament Scriptures about Christ’s followers in
an area,
it was never THE CHURCH OF
CHRIST, but CHURCHES
OF CHRIST (Romans 16:16). It was
never THE CHURCH OF MACEDONIA, but THE CHURCHES OF MACEDONIA (2
Corinthians
8:1). It was never THE CHURCH OF ASIA, but THE CHURCHES OF ASIA (THE
SEVEN
CHURCHES OF ASIA) (1 Corinthians 16:19; Revelation 1:4). It was never
THE
CHURCH OF GALATIA, but THE CHURCHES OF GALATIA (Galatians 1:2). It was
never
THE CHURCH OF JUDAEA, but THE CHURCHES OF JUDAEA (Galatians 1:22). And
so we
could go on!
Beloved, this is not without significance—in fact, it is
very
significant! This means the followers of Christ in the world or in any
given
area were not welded together by an ecclesiastical organization on a
universal
scale, nor on the basis of some political region—but that each church
was
locally based, independent and autonomous in its church life and
government.
Each was a complete entity within itself—the only entity. Therefore, we
read
the following: “The
Colossians 4:16 and Philippians 4:15 are also significant
references. Philippians 4:15 is especially significant. The latter part
of this
latter reference reads: “NO CHURCH communicated with me concerning
giving and
receiving, but ye only.” By CHURCH he means the local church, for he is
saying
this in contrast with the local Philippian church, and this implies
that Paul
was not expecting CHURCHES (as a group) to communicate as an organized
singular
unit to support him—for the extent of the government and organization
of the
church was only local. (Yes, this implies that he was not expecting
help from
an organized unit such as a district or national church, nor from local
churches working through a crystallized district or other organization
beyond
their local boundries: NO CHURCH communicated).
Thus, the only way we can speak of Christ’s followers in
the
world in an organizational sense (when speaking of more than one
congregation)
is to speak of them as “CHURCHES OF CHRIST.” To think in terms of “THE
CHURCH
OF CHRIST” is to move in the direction of denominationalism. TheSwordANDStaff| |