HOW THE CHURCH BEGAN IN ACTS 2

 

An understanding of the term “CHURCH” is needed as we begin to understand ‘how’ the church began in Acts 2.

It comes from the Greek word ‘EKKLESIA’ and means a “called out body of people”. We can see how this agrees with 1 Pt. 2:9, which describes the church as being ‘CALLED OUT OF DARKNESS INTO HIS MARVELOUS LIGHT’. “But ye are an elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, that ye may show forth the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvellous light”.

Please read these related passages and study how this calling relates to the opening of one’s understanding (figuratively, opening of the eyes; or being able to see: Isa. 9:2; 42:16; Acts 26:18; 2 Cor. 4:6).

On a side note: One cannot be saved if they don’t understand the plan of salvation. Faith is not blind, rather it is based upon credible evidence (read Rom. 1:19-20 and Heb. 11:1. The people in Acts 2 heard and UNDERSTOOD – read Acts 2:11 – “we hear them speaking in our tongues the mighty works of God.”).

These ‘mighty works’ of God are not referring to the physical works of creation, but rather they relate to God’s works of deliverance or salvation (read Psa. 74:12).

Another key thing to understand as it relates to how the church began, is to understand what the Bible calls God’s ‘ETERNAL PURPOSE’. The following passages need to be studied in relation to this: Eph. 1:4; 2:10; 3:11; 2 Thess. 2:13-14; Mt. 25:34; 1 Pt. 1:20

We also see from several passages that Jesus was ‘foreknown from the foundation of the world’. This needs to be understood, for it points to things that were purposed by God BEFORE HE created “the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1).

Acts 2:23 – ^“him, being delivered up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God”. Read also: Lk. 22:22; Acts 3:18; 4:28; 1 Pt. 1:20

We also read of another important word as it relates to “HOW” the church began.

This is the word “CALLED” – it relates to the message of the gospel. Remember Peter said in 1 Pt. 2:9 that we were “called … out of darkness into His marvelous light”. Peter also wrote that we are “born of incorruptible seed”

1 Peter 1:22-23 – Seeing ye have purified your souls in your obedience to the truth unto unfeigned love of the brethren, love one another from the heart fervently: having been begotten again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, through the word of God, which liveth and abideth

Paul wrote:

1 Cor. 4:15 – we are begotten by the gospel

1 Cor. 15:1 – I make known unto you brethren, the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye received, wherein also ye stand,

So, as we answer “HOW” the church began, we see that God planned and purposed it prior to the ‘foundation of the world’. God predestinated salvation to be in Christ and no one else. The gospel, if true, must declare all this plainly. This was what those in Acts 2:11 called “the wonderful works of God”; this was the “works of salvation” mentioned by David in Psa. 74:12.

The gospel is the seed, the incorruptible seed; the word of God, which calls us out of the world.

The Jews in Acts 2 from every nation heard this message (seed; gospel), and about 3,000 responded as Peter commanded (Acts 2:38).

This response is mentioned in the Great Commission texts: Mt. 28:18-20; Mk. 16:15-16; Lk. 24:44-47.

Paul stated that this was the ‘form of doctrine’ that must be delivered and obeyed from the heart (Rom. 6:17-18), in order for one to be translated out of the power of darkness into the kingdom of God’s dear Son (Col. 1:13-14), which was prepared from the foundation of the world (Mt. 25:34).

When the “about 3,000” “gladly received” Peter’s words, their eyes (understanding) were opened. They were baptized, and added to the apostles (Acts 2:41). This continued daily (Acts 2:47). The “adding” was done by the Lord based upon their response as prophesied (read again: Isa. 9:2; 42:16; Acts 26:18; 2 Cor. 4:6).

With this response in Acts 2:41, the church was “built” as Jesus promised (Mt. 16:18).

These were Jews, not Gentiles. What about them? Did God have predetermined thoughts for non-Jews? Our answer lies in the words back in Gen. 12:3, when God promised to Abraham that “ALL” families of the earth would receive a blessing by Jesus.

The Gentiles were certainly included by “ALL FAMILIES OF THE EARTH”. The household of Cornelius was born of the same word/gospel/message. As Peter said, “God is no respecter of persons, but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is acceptable to him.” (Acts 10:34-35).

Accordingly, we read the apostle Paul stating that the “mystery” which was made known by his preaching was “that the Gentiles are fellow-heirs, and fellow-members of the body, and fellow-partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel” (Eph. 3:6).

“AUTHORITY, SILENCE, & AGREEMENT”

Can we understand and agree on the Bible? How fair and just would God be to place m​an's salvation upon what is written​, then give m​​an ​"w​hat is written” knowing all ​along that ​man could not understand it? (cf. Eph. 3:4; 5:17).​ We can agree on w​ha​t is written, but we disagree about what the Bible​ does not say. Note these examples:

1. Ex. 3:1-3. GOD spoke to Moses out of a “bush that burned with fire.” We​ can agree it was a “burning bush,” but ​disagreement arises when we speculate on what kind of bush it was. The Bible is silent ​as to the kind of ​bush.

2. Jn. 3:1-2. We can agree that Nicodemus came to Christ by night. However, disagreement comes when we force an opinion on “why” he came by night. Unity comes on the clear statement “by night,” and disunity comes when we try to make opinion a basis for unity.

3. Jn. 8:1-8. This scripture explicitly states that Jesus “wrote on the ground.” What did He write? We do not know. The reason is because the Bible does not declare it.

4. 2 Cor. 12:7-10. Much has been written about this thorn, and many opinions have been expressed as to what it is. We can agree Paul had a thorn because the Bible says so. We will never agree on what it was​, because the Bible is silent ​about that​.

​T​he written word provides a universal standard whereby man can live and be in unity with God and one another. While God's silence must be honored, it does not authorize man to act on his own authority.

“AUTHORITY: A SOURCE OR AN EXPEDIENT?”

Authority can be general or specific in nature. If general, there are expedient means to obeying what God has authorized. There must first be authorization to act, before expediency applies. These matters are clear from the scriptures.

When considering the question, “Is there a NEED for authority”; the answer is a clear ‘yes’ from numerous examples in the Bible. The need is seen in the examples of those who challenged it.

          ·      Moses: when confronting two of his brethren, had his authority questioned - Exod. 2:14.
    ·         John the Baptist had his authority to baptize questioned - Jn. 1:25
    ·        Peter & John had their authority challenged - Acts 4:7 
    ·         Jesus’ authority was challenged by the religious leaders of the day - Mt. 21:23

So, the question “Is there a need for authority in religion” is not new. However, it is important that we not misunderstand the issue within the question.  The issue is not, ‘Is authority needful in the sense of useful or helpful.  Rather, the question should be understood to mean, “Is authority necessary?”  

We need to understand this question as asking: MUST we have authority PRIOR what we practice in religion? Otherwise, what the Bible says about a subject is a moot issue (cf. 1 Peter 4:11).

Authority is not an expedient to accomplish what we have determined to do; rather it is the source by which we determine ‘if’ we can do the thing under consideration.                              

Therefore, if we don’t have authority for the practice; we cannot engage in the particular practice. Let us never presume to have authority​, rather let us look into the “perfect law of liberty, and continue therein” (Jms. 1:25).

“NEGLECT”

 No matter where it occurs, neglect results in damage, and possible ruin. This is especially true of spiritual neglect. We recognize when a fellow saint is struggling. Yet we delay. While we may pray for the brother, is prayer ‘alone’ fulfilling our stewardship? Prayer is very important, make no mistake about it. But it is not a substitute for obedience. When you know a brother’s faith is wavering, delay could very well result in death.  But not just for the weak brother…your soul may very well suffer death.  Gal. 6 demands involvement to restore, CONSIDERING YOURSELF. In times like this, the hearts of brethren are made known to one another.

The words from a familiar hymn, “there’s danger and death in delay…why d0 you wait dear brother”, certainly apply here. Unity within a local church doesn’t exist by prayer alone. It is maintained as brethren address the needs of one another. It was exemplified in Acts 2:44-45; 4:32-35; and 6:1-7 in benevolence. It was exemplified when the Corinthian brothers acted in the restoration of a brother involved in fornication (2 Cor. 7:8-11).  Finally, it was exemplified by the Philippians in their willing support of the gospel (Phil. 1:5, 7; 4:15).

When brethren neglect to act in these three areas, it is because of fear. Obedience will never occur from the faint of heart. This is why spiritual growth must be constantly monitored by shepherds. While it is an individual responsibility, when a brother is overtaken, and brethren neglect their responsibility, danger and death result.

May love of the brethren continue (Heb. 13:1).

“JOB, AS A FATHER”

 “Jehovah said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job? 
or there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, 
one that feareth God, and turneth away from evil.” 

(Job 1:8).

There are three things mentioned about Job as a father which deserves consideration:

1] HIS PRIORITY – Jehovah called Job “my servant” (1:8). What a statement! As great as Job’s wealth was (1:3), it did not measure up to his faith. Children can recognize their father’s priority in life.

2] HIS HONESTY – “Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt-offerings…for it may be that my sons have sinned, and renounced God in their hearts. Thus did Job continually.” (1:5). No father should accept that his child “does no wrong”. Job acknowledged the reality that his children were human and therefore subject to the lusts of the flesh (Eph. 2:3). Paul declared, “all have sinned” (Rom. 3:23). A father who is a servant of Jehovah must acknowledge that his own children are not immune from fleshly lusts (2 Pt. 2:18) and follow Job’s example. 

3] HIS EXAMPLE – He sent for and sanctified them with burnt offerings…CONTINUALLY. The reason? “IT MAY BE…that they have sinned and renounced God in their heart.” Not every sin is with a ‘high hand’. Some are committed ‘unwittingly’, in ‘presumption’, and in ‘secret’ (cf. Num. 15:24-30). Knowing this, Job exercised his faith and appealed to Jehovah for mercy on their behalf. “Give thanks to the Lord, for He is good; for His lovingkindness is everlasting.” (Psa. 118:1).

 

"THOSE THAT OPPOSE THEMSELVES"

“In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth” ~ 2 Tim. 2:25

It is amazing that so many religious and well-intended people who oppose baptism for remission of sins, HAVE been baptized…yet for some other reason. It seems strange that they would oppose teaching on the PURPOSE of baptism for the reason of ‘remission’, yet, submit to it for another PURPOSE.

Obviously, they have been taught differently as to baptism’s PURPOSE than we in the church of Christ. It seems strange that one would submit to an act that one denies as necessary…all because of its PURPOSE.

Baptism’s PURPOSE: what is it for? Two differing teachings on baptism’s PURPOSE are TAUGHT:

1] to ‘show’ remission, or

2] to ‘receive’ remission?

Yet, another point to consider: is baptism a ‘church ordinance’, performed by and on saved people, [as stated in a denominational creed]; or is it a command for an unsaved person to obey as a part of the new birth of John 3?

Again, it is not an act that is entirely opposed, for all those who differ, HAVE SUBMITTED to being baptized. So why oppose the act based upon the lone purpose of it being done “to receive” remission?

Consider some relevant questions and parallel examples to the rational on baptism’s purpose from the Bible:

~ Romans 10:13 – “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”

Does “calling” show salvation, or does “calling” mean, ‘in order to be saved’?

Is “calling” an outward sign of an inward grace, or does “calling” mean, ‘in order to be saved’?

Does it matter as to the PURPOSE for ‘calling’?

~ Mark 16:16 – “He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved.”

Does “belief” show salvation, or does “belief” mean, ‘in order to be saved’?

Is “belief” an outward sign of an inward grace, or does “belief” mean, ‘in order to be saved’?

Does it matter as to the PURPOSE for ‘belief’?

Now, regarding BAPTISM:

Does “baptism” show salvation, or does “baptism” mean, ‘in order to be saved’?

Is “baptism” an outward sign of an inward grace, or does “baptism” mean, ‘in order to be saved’?

Does it matter as to the PURPOSE for ‘baptism’?

Is it not clear that belief AND baptism are HOW one “calls” upon the name of the Lord?

Consider whether or not the logic used toward baptism’s purpose [as being to “show”] would make sense, if the same logic were applied to other matters, whose purposes are regarded as NECESSARY? For example:

“Faith is not necessary for remission of sins, but to show your salvation…”

“Repentance is not necessary for remission of sins, but to show your salvation…”

What about confessing that you are a sinner, quoting Romans 10:

“Confession is not necessary for remission of sins, but to show your salvation…”

What if one were to say that they don’t believe faith is necessary, but they believed to “show”…?

What if one were to say that they don’t believe repentance is necessary, but they have repented to “show”…?

Strange that one would oppose as necessary an act [baptism] that he, himself, has submitted to, on the basis of ‘not’ necessary.

Is this not an example of “those who oppose themselves” in “acknowledging the truth”?

This is why Jesus warned:

"Take heed WHAT ye hear" ~ Mark 4:24

"Take heed HOW ye hear" ~ Luke 8:18

“NEGLECT”

No matter where it occurs, neglect results in damage, and possible ruin. This is especially true of spiritual neglect. We recognize when a fellow saint is struggling. Yet we delay. While we may pray for the brother, is prayer ‘alone’ fulfilling our stewardship? Prayer is very important, make no mistake about it. But it is not a substitute for obedience. When you know a brother’s faith wavering, delay could very well result in death.  But not just for the weak brother…your soul may very well suffer death.  Gal. 6 demands involvement to restore, CONSIDERING YOURSELF. In times like this, the hearts of brethren are made known to one another.

The words from a familiar hymn, “there’s danger and death in delay…why d0 you wait dear brother”, certainly apply here. Unity within a local church doesn’t exist by prayer alone. It is maintained as brethren address the needs of one another. It was exemplified in Acts 2:44-45; 4:32-35; and 6:1-7 in benevolence. It was exemplified when the Corinthian brothers acted in the restoration of a brother involved in fornication (2 Cor. 7:8-11).  Finally, it was exemplified by the Philippians in their willing support of the gospel (Phil. 1:5, 7; 4:15).

 

When brethren neglect to act in these three areas, it is because of fear. Obedience will never occur from the faint of heart. This is why spiritual growth must be constantly monitored by shepherds. While it is an individual responsibility, when a brother is overtaken, and brethren neglect their responsibility, danger and death result.

May love of the brethren continue (Heb. 13:1).