What did "church" mean to the disciples?

What did the disciples understand by the word "church" (Matthew18:17)" TARGET="_blank">Matthew18:17)?

What the disciples understood from the Lord teaching wasn't always what they could and should have understood. This changed when the Comforter came (John 14:26)." TARGET="_blank">John 14:26).

The Lord taught (Matthew 16:13-19)" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 16:13-19) that their future identity was not Jewish. Their understanding of a church apparently developed from what they knew of synagogue life (see James 2:2," TARGET="_blank">James 2:2, "assembly" is "synagogue"). They therefore understood an assembly to be a place of prayer and scriptural instruction. Judaism's total rejection of Christ marked His followers as Christians (Acts 11:26)" TARGET="_blank">Acts 11:26) and meant the church of God was distinct from both Jew and Gentile testimonies (1 Corinthians 10:32;" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 10:32; Hebrews 13:13)." TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 13:13).

In Matthew 18," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 18, the Lord invests a church with distinct authority. God's purpose of a universal and eternal reign to be effected through His redemption of Israel (Exodus 15:18)" TARGET="_blank">Exodus 15:18) awaits fulfillment. Rejecting the Son brought the destruction of "The City of the Great King" (Matthew 5:32; 22:2-7)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 5:32; 22:2-7). Until God moves to fulfill His purpose for Israel and the world, each church in the locality where it exists has authority to administer for God among His people, carrying out God's will on earth through His Word (18:15-20).

After the Passover supper (John 13:2)" TARGET="_blank">John 13:2) and after Judas left the room (1 Corinthians 11:24)," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 11:24), the Lord instituted a new activity for a church. Distinct from the Passover, this supper would perpetuate the memory of the Lord and of His death. Later Paul taught that this necessitated mutual care (1 Corinthians 10:17; 12:25)." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 10:17; 12:25).

At a minimum, the disciples understood the Lord's teaching in Matthew 18" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 18 to mean that a church is a place for prayer, proclaiming the truth of God, and carrying out God's Word. Through the Spirit's further enlightenment, they understood its fuller uniqueness, significance, and preciousness.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Does 1 Timothy suggest a paid pastor position?

Does 1 Timothy 5:17," TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 5:17, 18 suggest a paid pastorate?

A few obvious details in 1 Timothy make it clear that neither Timothy nor any Ephesian elder was the paid pastor. No New Testament passage supports such a practice, no matter how convenient or prevalent it may be.

All the overseers in Ephesus, where Timothy was, were to assist in teaching the saints (1 Timothy 3:2)." TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 3:2). Paul had taught these men to labor with their hands in doing their work with the flock (Acts 20:34, 35)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 20:34, 35). In addition, in 1 Timothy 5:17," TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 5:17, Paul is not speaking about one man, but about "elders that rule well." These elders received honor for the responsibility entrusted to them. They were also to be honored in another way. The law taught that an ox was allowed to eat in order to satisfy the necessity (his hunger) caused by his work. Thus, elders that ruled well were to receive financial assistance in cases where their labors caused them to lack the necessities of life. This is quite different from a contractual arrangement where one man is paid to do the preaching.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Was the tree in the Garden of Eden a real tree or merely a symbol?

Would it be correct to say that the two trees mentioned in Genesis 2:9," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 2:9, viz, the “Tree of Life,” and the “Tree of the knowledge of good and evil,” are only symbols, and not literal trees? Does the latter tree represent the limit or boundary of the liberty God gave to-Adam?

Mere statements of opinion, even when said to be shared by “leading theologians,” carry no weight, unless supported by scriptural proof. Personally, I have never beard of any theologian or indeed anyone else who held such views as stated above, although of course, modern unbelief hates the story of the fall of man, and would fain get rid of it at any cost. But if the tree of knowledge is only a symbol, representing “the limit or boundary of the liberty God gave to Adam,” (!) (whatever this exactly means), of what is the tree of life a symbol?

The two trees are mentioned first in Genesis 2:9" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 2:9: “And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree, that is pleasant to the sight, etc.: the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” Here the same Hebrew word for tree is used throughout, and in each case the tree is said to have been made to grow out of the ground. Surely they are literal trees all through. Again, in verses and 17 the tree of life is not mentioned apart from the trees whose fruit might be eaten; the only exception being the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This would be very strange if it were intended to convey the injunction that they might eat of all the literal trees (including the symbolic tree of life), but that they must not eat of the symbolic tree of knowledge. It is the same in Genesis 3:2," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 3:2, “We may eat,” says Eve, “of the trees of the garden, but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it.” Here we see that the tree of knowledge was like the tree of life, in the most accessible part of the garden, even the midst. How could two abstract symbols be in the midst of the literal garden? Eve clearly understood the tree of knowledge to be a literal tree, and so it is to the end of the chapter— “Hast thou eaten of the tree?” etc. The tree of life certainly was literal too, bearing fruit capable of maintaining the human body in its daily wear and tear—a kind of elixir of life, so much sought after since. I see that Cruden gives an interesting note in his Concordance under “Tree” in this sense: “Tree of life so-called because it was a natural means of preserving man’s life and freeing him from all infirmities, etc., during his abode on earth.” This agrees with the fact that after the fall God deprived his creatures of access to the tree of life, lest their existence should be indefinitely prolonged in a sin-haunted body.

Perhaps the great ages of the early patriarchs resulted from the fact that Adam and Eve had eaten of this life-preserving fruit. What then was the tree of knowledge? We do not know what kind of fruit it bore, except that it was very attractive, but God chose it to be the test tree for their obedience (for every moral creature, angel or man, has had to be tested). Much objection has been raised by unbelief against so much depending on such a simple thing as eating a bit of fruit! But surely the simpler the test, the easier of fulfilment, and the greater the responsibility of failure. If God had chosen to give them only one tree to eat from, and forbidden all the rest, that would have been, of course, perfectly legitimate, but much more difficult for them. Instead God gave man in His love an infinitely easy test, and solemnly warned him of the dreadful consequences of disobedience, but he fell and was alone responsible. How great the contrast of the Second Man! The commandment He received of His Father was to lay down His life. This was a test infinitely difficult of passing, but He came out triumphant: “He was obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted Him, and given Him a Name which is above every name,” etc. Had Adam passed his easy test, I do not think he would have been put to another, but would for ever have been in blissful harmony with God’s will. I think what we have seen shows that we may safely reject the ideas referred to by our questioner, as unsupported by Scripture, and so contrary to the facts.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

What is "baptism unto the remission of sins"?

What do passages like Acts 2:38" TARGET="_blank">Acts 2:38 and 22:16 mean?

Three passages speak of "baptism unto the remission of sins." They are Mark 1:4," TARGET="_blank">Mark 1:4, Luke 3:3," TARGET="_blank">Luke 3:3, and Acts 2:38," TARGET="_blank">Acts 2:38, all three relating to Jews. Two of these concern John’s baptism. In Acts 19:1-6," TARGET="_blank">Acts 19:1-6, 12 individuals had been baptized with John’s "baptism of repentance," but they were not saved, having never received the Spirit (Romans 8:9)." TARGET="_blank">Romans 8:9). In fact, Paul states (Acts 19:4)" TARGET="_blank">Acts 19:4) that the purpose of John’s baptism and ministry was that people should believe on the coming Christ. When the people were baptized by John, they turned from their nation’s characteristic resistance to God’s message (Acts 7:51, 52)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 7:51, 52). This prepared the way for their faith in Christ.

In the third passage (Acts 2:38)," TARGET="_blank">Acts 2:38), Peter repeatedly exhorted his Jewish listeners to save themselves "from this perverse generation" (v. 40, JND). Thus when they personally repented and "gladly received his word" (v. 41), being baptized as believers served two purposes: submission to the authority of Jesus Christ ("baptized in [lit., upon] the name of Jesus Christ"); renunciation of their nation’s resistance to God’s message.

Being "baptized unto the remission of sins" was only possible therefore for a Jew. John’s baptism prepared them for faith in Christ. The baptism in Acts 2" TARGET="_blank">Acts 2 proclaimed that they already had faith in Christ. In both cases, the baptism did not remove those sins before God, but renounced before others their previous disobedience. It testified against the nation’s rejection of Christ and released them from any relationship to the coming national judgment that rejection would bring.

The statement in Acts 22:16" TARGET="_blank">Acts 22:16 is to be understood in the same way. Paul was already saved when Ananias spoke to him about baptism (Romans 10:9)." TARGET="_blank">Romans 10:9). He had resisted God’s message and opposed the name of Jesus (26:9). Now as he called on that name and identified himself with the Lord Jesus in baptism, he repudiated his zealous participation in his nation’s rejection of Christ.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Printable Bible word search puzzles

Printable Bible Word Searches

Printable Bible word search puzzles is a program that allows you to turn a Bible verse into a printable word search puzzle worksheet.

Click here to go to step one of the printable Bible word searches page.

You may also want to print one of 350 Pre-made Printable Bible Word Searches on this site. Almost every Bible story is included in this series. In addition to a printable Bible word search, you will find Bible Crossword worksheets, Wordfind, Fill in the Blank and coloring worksheets for various age groups.

If you prefer to create your own Bible worksheets, then choose one of the following Bible worksheets creators...

Bible Workshets Word Find

Bible Worksheets Word Scramble

Bible Worksheets Crossword Puzzle Creator

Bible Worksheets Cryptogram Puzzle Creator

Bible Worksheets Fallen Quotes

Other pages in this section

About this site

Should church put you on a guilt trip?

Some have suggested that gospel teaching should not convey at sin makes men guilty, but that sin is shameful. Is this right?

Sin is shameful, but it is far more. It is rebellion against divine sovereignty. It offends the very character of God. It ultimately violates God's righteous law, which was given "that every mouth may be stopped and ALL THE WORLD may become GUILTY BEFORE GOD" (Romans 3:19)." TARGET="_blank">Romans 3:19). Guilt is very real and stems from breaking God's law.

Some object because this puts people on a "guilt trip." To soft pedal the reality of guilt is no kindness to the lost. Guilt is NEVER relived by denial. Evading guilt is a serious mistake; guilt is the central issue between man and his Creator. In salvation God removes guilt. None can know guilt removed without facing and acknowledging it. Let the preacher clearly declare the problem of guilt and then the remedy, "Being justified (CLEARED of all guilt!) freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Romans 3:24)." TARGET="_blank">Romans 3:24).

J. Slabaugh

Other pages in this section

About this site

How does a deacon differ from an elder?

How does a deacon differ from an elder?

Paul addressed both bishops (elders) and deacons in the Philippian epistle (1:1). In his writing to these believers, he is concerned that the assembly is endangered and needs to be saved from the spiritual condition of "murmurings and disputings" (2:12-14). By addressing the bishops and deacons, he seems to imply that together they carry a responsibility for the assembly’s spiritual condition. The elders are responsible to care for the condition of the sheep, while the deacons were to communicate healthy food for the spiritual strengthening of the believers.

Although someone observing our usual practice might not think we believe this, but not all elders are deacons and not all deacons are elders. Elders are responsible to the Lord for the guidance of the assembly (Hebrews 13:17)" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 13:17) and for the state of the flock (Acts 20:28)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 20:28). They guide the assembly to recognize the capabilities of certain individuals and they entrust spiritual responsibility to them. Those to whom they entrust such responsibilities are deacons, serving the Lord and the assembly and they are accountable to those elders.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Should one assembly judge errors in another?

DISCIPLINE
What should be our attitude to a neighbouring assembly, where moral or doctrinal evil is allowed to go on unjudged?

I presume what is meant by “moral or doctrinal evil” is something grave and fundamental, and not merely differences of judgement as to such questions as the exact rules to be followed at the Lord’s table, or regulations as to ministry. We have no authority in God’s Word as far as I can see, for cutting off an assembly, but we are not obliged to have fellowship with every assembly.

The Lord in His messages to the Seven Churches of Asia (Revelation 2" TARGET="_blank">Revelation 2: and Revelation 3" TARGET="_blank">Revelation 3: has to reprove Ephesus for “leaving her first love”; Pergamos for allowing among them those holding the doctrine of Balaam, or the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes; Thyatira for “suffering that woman Jezebel.. . to teach and seduce God’s servants”; Sardis for dead-alive profession; and Laodicea for luke-warmness and self-satisfaction. Yet, though in each case appeal is made to him “who hath an ear to hear what is said unto the churches,” in no case is one church, or alliance of churches, instructed to deal in discipline with some other church.

Not even in the case of Smyrna or Philadelphia, with which no fault was found, is any such instruction given. Is there then nothing to be done? Clearly the exhortation “to hear” what is said to the churches, shows that no church should be indifferent to the state of other churches. Prayer for the erring church must be ever in season, and godly exhortation by word or letter always permissible. But what should be done if all prove abortive? Then all direct contact with the assembly as such must be avoided. It is she who is morally responsible for shutting her doors against those who stand for truth and righteousness. Can we imagine Smyrna having practical fellowship with Pergamos, or Philadelphia exchanging platforms with Thyatira? But the modem method, if we rule out “inferences” and “logical deductions”, of excommunicating churches or groups of churches, is profoundly foreign to Scripture.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Bible Coloring Sheets

Select several of the 350 Bible Coloring Sheets that cover nearly every story in the Bible. These pre-made Bible coloring sheets are in PDF format. The sheets contain a word search activity, a crossword puzzle activity and a Bible coloring sheet.

You may also be interested in Bible worksheets that you can create from a Bible verse.

Word Find

Word Scramble

Crossword Puzzle Creator

Cryptogram Puzzle Creator

Fallen Quotes

Other pages in this section

About this site

Why did Satan attempt to usurp God's throne?

Be the first to give an answer to this question. Write an answer in the comment section below. Please provide your name and if you have a website or blog, be sure to include the URL and email address in your answer.

Answers will be reviewed.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Main Menu

Printable Bible Word Searches