In the previous episodes, we had begun to examine the text of the New Testament in relation to the structure of the congregations. Always with the claim in mind: “We are doing exactly as the Christians in the 1st century did”.
In doing so, we touched on the organization of the congregations and the topic of donations, as well as baptism and peaceful coexistence. We could look at other specific aspects, but that would make this a rather long series. Let’s rather take a look at the historical context of what we have read so far.
The historical context
In fact, the congregations did not arise in a vacuum, but in very specific historical contexts with very specific needs of the disciples. Let us take a closer look at this context and then ask ourselves whether we have the same needs today and whether we can simply transfer everything to our own situation.
We often tend to see the history of the followers of Jesus in the first century as a homogenous thing – the first-century congregation. As if there was only ‚the one congregation‘ in the first century that lived this way or that. The following graphic is intended to show us some important aspects.
The development over time
At the top, I have drawn ‚generations‘ of 40 years each. This helps us to get a better sense of how much time really passed back then. Think about it in terms of ‚me‘, ‚my father/mother‘, ‚my grandfather/grandmother‘, ‚my children‘ and ‚my grandchildren‘. How much do you know about your grandparents? What did they tell you about their youth? For most of the followers of Jesus in the first century, the events in the life of Jesus were at best the accounts of the grandparents or great-grandparents‘ generation. And many were later pagans whose parents and even grandparents had not heard of Jesus, let alone met him.
Perhaps we also have the idealistic idea of ‚the congregation in Jerusalem‘ in mind. This may be because we can read the texts in the New Testament in minutes or a few hours. We completely lack a sense of the many years that pass in the accounts. And we have virtually no account of the second part of the first century in the New Testament.
An apostle Peter, James, the brother of Jesus, or an apostle Paul were no longer alive less than three decades after Jesus‘ death! It would be as if Jesus had been around in the early 1990s and today Peter, James, Paul and others had passed away.
And what happened in the time in between? Perhaps as early as a year after Jesus‘ death, Stephen was stoned and the congregation in Jerusalem was scattered. That would have been even before the year 2000.
The ‚Council at Jerusalem‘ (Acts 15) would have been as early as 2010, and in a few years the Temple and Jerusalem will be destroyed. Then those in Jerusalem and Judea will have to flee. But before that, persecution by the world power of Rome has already begun.
Meanwhile, the children and grandchildren have grown up and Jesus still has not returned. The gospel has been proclaimed throughout the Roman Empire, as far as Rome and beyond.
Perhaps we are now aware of the changes that have taken place during this time and how ‚the congregation‘ has changed dramatically in the first century.
It would also be interesting to take a closer look at how other apostles (missionaries) and overseers were appointed after the 12 apostles. That is, after the time when these apostles still laid their hands on them. And was there already monepiscopacy in Rome, that is, the leadership of the congregation by a bishop? In the first two centuries, it cannot be said with certainty when and where there was leadership by a group of elders and when one person in particular took the lead and was called a bishop.
Could it be that we have an idealized notion of ‚the congregation‘ in the first century? One that never existed in this form in early Christianity? Incidentally, the German term Urchristentum – meaning ‚early Christianity‘ – has only been used in German-language literature since around 1770 (see Wikipedia German Urchristentum, English ).
And we have not yet discussed the gradual detachment of Jesus‘ Jewish disciples from their religion, culture and environment.
The social context
The structure and changes in the congregations of followers of Christ in the first century must also be viewed in their social context. I would like to recall just a few facts:
Initially, the congregation in Jerusalem consisted only of Jews, and they were also initially perceived as such by others. It was only after some time that they could no longer go to the synagogues or the temple. In Acts 21:26, we read that Paul went with others to the temple in Jerusalem. It was only seven days later that he was seen and arrested in the temple by Jews from the province of Asia.
In the beginning, the 11 apostles personally chosen by Jesus were the most authoritative figures when it came to teaching about Jesus. Then James, the brother of Jesus, also appeared. As the congregation in Jerusalem grew and the gospel spread to other congregations, and as the apostles died, other ‚elders‘ had to take on their role as ‚overseers‘, even if they did not have the same authority.
Most of them could not read, let alone write. It had to be read out loud in the congregation. Or someone had to quote – either from the scriptures or from oral tradition.
The oral tradition became more and more difficult because the eyewitnesses died. And then those who still knew the eyewitnesses. At some point, many had never met Jesus, nor an eyewitness, nor those who knew them.
The various congregations had to deal with very different cultural contexts and local religions.
With the disciples from the Gentiles, completely new philosophical ideas and explanations came into the congregation that did not even exist in the Jewish context. Even if everyone heard the same thing, they did not necessarily understand the same thing because of their different personal backgrounds.
According to Acts 1:8, the apostles hoped that they would soon see the establishment of the kingdom. And Jesus did not tell them that it would not be so. Only that it was not their business to know. So this hope remained. But the decades passed. And that raised the question: If you were wrong about this, what might we have misunderstood?
As we have seen, the New Testament essentially describes the first half of the first century. How did the congregations develop? To answer that, we would also have to look at the other writings from that time, then those of the ‚Apostolic Fathers‘ and the Patristic period. Although that would help us to better understand the development of the congregations, it is beyond the scope of this article. In the next few episodes, I would like to take a closer look at just one important writing.
In the last episode, we discussed the topic of “money and donations” in first-century churches. The two other topics we want to address in this episode are: baptism and the peaceful church.
Baptism in the 1st century
Who was it that did the baptizing in the first century? Or, to be more precise, who is mentioned in the New Testament? Of course, we read about John the Baptist again and again. But there are others as well:
Now Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that he was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John —
John 4:1 NEÜ
So Jesus baptized? What does the context say?
although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples. So he left Judea and went back once more to Galilee.
Johannes 4:2,3 NEÜ
Well, the founder of this movement did not baptize. But he gave the order (Matthew 28:19). So we learn that Philip baptized (Acts 8:38). What about the apostles? In Acts 10:47,48 it does not sound as if Peter himself baptized. And in Acts 19:3-6, it doesn’t sound like Paul baptized either. Yet he did sometimes, and in this context, he points out a problem that can arise in the Zoom congregation today also:
Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized in my name. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
1 Corinthians 1:13-17 NIV
That is why we so often find the formulation that a person was baptized and not that so-and-so baptized a person.
And that brings us to the last topic for today.
The peaceful congregation
Sometimes the idea of doing it like Christians in the 1st century is also based on the wish that everything will be all right then because you are doing it ‚right‘.
And indeed, one could get this impression when reading the Acts of the Apostles: at the beginning, the early congregation in Jerusalem appears to be in a state of bliss:
They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.
Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts,
All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had.
Acts 1:14; 2:46; 4:32 NIV
That sounds wonderful. Through God’s blessing and the Holy Spirit, everything was fine, wasn’t it?
In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Hellenistic Jews a among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food.
Acts 6:1 NIV
Look, soon there was dissatisfaction. And there are reports of further difficulties – despite the Holy Spirit and the guidance of Christ:
This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them.
After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: … The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul …
They had such a sharp disagreement that they [Pauls and Barnabas] parted company.
When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
Acts 15:2,7,12,39; Galatians 2:11 NIV
In 1 Corinthians 3:3, Paul addresses an issue that surely also existed in other congregations:
You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere humans?
1 Corinthians 3:3 NIV
There are many other texts that address certain problems, but these are enough: maybe we shouldn’t do everythingexactly the same way as the first-century Christians after all…
Before we compare our findings from the text with our situation today, we will first deal with the historical context in the next episode.
In the first two episodes, we began to examine the text of the New Testament in relation to the structure of the congregations. Always with the desire of some in mind: “We are doing exactly what the first-century Christians did”. In doing so, we noticed both similarities and differences between the different congregations in the first part of this series.
As announced, we want to deal with another delicate topic this time: money and donations. Because that is often a delicate topic today, too, and one that people don’t like to talk about. At least people are often less willing to talk about it than to accept donations.
So let’s first take a look at what the New Testament tells us about the ‚congregation in the 1st century‘.
The text of the New Testament
Money and Donations
The beginnings of the congregation in Jerusalem
In the last episode, we learned about the first congregation in Jerusalem from the book of Acts:
All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.
Acts 4:32-35 NIV
At the beginning of the congregation in Jerusalem, according to the account in the Acts of the Apostles, they shared everything and no one regarded anything as their own private property.
Did it stay that way and did the other congregations adopt it?
Other congregations
What else do we know about support from others?
All they asked was that we [Paul and Barnabas] should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along.
Galatians 2:10 NIV
Which ‚poor‘ were they talking about here? And how did it happen? Paul is talking here about a meeting with James, Peter, John and others in Jerusalem. In the Acts of the Apostles we read:
During this time some prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. One of them, named Agabus, stood up and through the Spirit predicted that a severe famine would spread over the entire Roman world. (This happened during the reign of Claudius.) The disciples, as each one was able, decided to provide help for the brothers and sisters living in Judea. This they did, sending their gift to the elders by Barnabas and Saul.
Acts 11:27-30 Schlachter 2000
So the support was organized because of a special situation. Which was not only important because of the famine. As we had already read, the people in Jerusalem had sold their possessions and distributed them at Pentecost because of the special situation. And then they were soon persecuted and scattered. This situation was also the reason for another action:
For Macedonia and Achaia were pleased to make a contribution for the poor among the Lord’s people in Jerusalem.
Romans 15:26 NIV
Now about the collection for the Lord’s people: Do what I told the Galatian churches to do. On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made. Then, when I arrive, I will give letters of introduction to the men you approve and send them with your gift to Jerusalem. If it seems advisable for me to go also, they will accompany me.
1 Corinthians 16:1-4 NIV
For the Corinthians, there were even more instructions regarding these donations in 2 Corinthians 8 and
By the way, did you notice that the donations were always intended for the congregation in Jerusalem or in Judea? So it was about a specific situation that became necessary due to the specific historical development of the congregation in Jerusalem.
They were pleased to do it, and indeed they owe it to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in the Jews‘ spiritual blessings, they owe it to the Jews to share with them their material blessings.
Romans 15:27 NIV
Do you know of a report in the New Testament in which a collection of donations was carried out for a congregation other than the one in Jerusalem and Judea? That is, a fundraiser for the congregation in Rome or Antioch or somewhere else?
I am not talking about direct help for someone in need (James 1:27). That was entirely in line with what Jesus said about gifts for the poor (Mat 6:2-4). But even for that, there was no organized donation facility in the congregation. That was a very personal matter, as Jesus said.
In the New Testament, we only find collections for the congregations in Jerusalem and Judea due to special circumstances.
There is also a special group in connection with donations.
Donations for apostles and overseers?
Acts 20:35 is often used in connection with financial donations, but Paul also addresses another point before that, which is not so often quoted:
“I have not coveted anyone’s silver or gold or clothing [‚desired‘ Schlachter, Züricher]. You yourselves know that these hands of mine have supplied my own needs and the needs of my companions. In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’ ” [It is apparently an oral saying of the Lord that is not contained in the Gospels, but compare Luke 6:38; 11:9; John 13:34. NEÜ]
Acts 20:33-35 NIV, comment from Schlachter and NEÜ versions
Paul did not demand anything, not even from this congregation, which he co-founded. On the contrary, he worked himself in order to give to others in need. Paul is often quoted or taken as an example when it comes to ordering or regulating something. However, this part is rarely or never heard from such people. He also criticized this point in another famous congregation that he had founded. And in a rather ironic way:
Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not the result of my work in the Lord? Even though I may not be an apostle to others, surely I am to you! For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord. This is my defense to those who sit in judgment on me.
If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you? If others have this right of support from you, shouldn’t we have it all the more?But we did not use this right. On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ. Don’t you know that those who serve in the temple get their food from the temple, and that those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel. But I have not used any of these rights. And I am not writing this in the hope that you will do such things for me, for I would rather die than allow anyone to deprive me of this boast.
What then is my reward? Just this: that in preaching the gospel I may offer it free of charge, and so not make full use of my rights as a preacher of the gospel.
1 Corinthians 9:1-3, 11-15, 18 Züricher
Was it a sin for me to lower myself in order to elevate you by preaching the gospel of God to you free of charge? I robbed other churches by receiving support from them so as to serve you. And when I was with you and needed something, I was not a burden to anyone, for the brothers who came from Macedonia supplied what I needed. I have kept myself from being a burden to you in any way, and will continue to do so.
2 Corinthians 11:7-9 NIV
In many translations, the irony in Paul’s words is not really conveyed: “[Oh well, then… I guess] I must have robbed other congregations by accepting their provisions in order to serve you!” (2001 Translation)
But where did Paul get this? “In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.” (1 Corinthians 9:14 NIV) So for one thing, Paul never heard Jesus personally. So it must have been handed down. But you won’t find it that way in the New Testament, only this:
Stay there, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for the worker deserves his wages. Do not move around from house to house.
Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, a drive out demons. Freely you have received; freely give. “Do not get any gold or silver or copper to take with you in your belts— no bag for the journey or extra shirt or sandals or a staff, for the worker is worth his keep.
Luke 10:7; Matthew 10:8-10. Zurich [Strikethrough in the text indicates questionable text.
But that sounds quite different from “Those who preach the gospel should live by the gospel”.
If we compare what Paul said with what we read in Acts 2:41-47, that the congregation had everything in common, and in 4:32-35, that they provided the money for the congregation, we see that things were done differently later on in Ephesus and Corinth. What Paul wrote to the Galatians is more appropriate:
Nevertheless, the one who receives instruction in the word should share all good things with their instructor.
Galatians 6:6 NIV
And the congregation in Philippi supported him – when he was in need:
Yet it was good of you to share in my troubles. Moreover, as you Philippians know, in the early days of your acquaintance with the gospel, when I set out from Macedonia, not one church shared with me in the matter of giving and receiving, except you only; for even when I was in Thessalonica, you sent me aid more than once when I was in need. Not that I desire your gifts; what I desire is that more be credited to your account. I have received full payment and have more than enough. I am amply supplied, now that I have received from Epaphroditus the gifts you sent. They are a fragrant offering, an acceptable sacrifice, pleasing to God.
Philippians 4:14-18 NIV
Paul was well aware of the problem that can arise from supporting overseers and elders. The New Testament points out the danger:
Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, watching over them—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not pursuing dishonest gain, but eager to serve;
1 Peter 5:2 NIV
So even then it was clear that you could make it in religious communities. And over the centuries you can see time and again how easy it is to get money out of people for the salvation of their souls. Or for the ’support of such valuable, hard-working (circuit) overseers‘.
Paul does say that, like others, he could in principle expect to be supported for his work. But he accepted it only in need.
He emphasizes that he has worked himself: for his needs and even for others in need.
In the next part, we will take a look at the baptism and the peaceful community.
After dealing with the beginnings of the church in Jerusalem in the first part, we now want to take a closer look at its further development.
Congregations in apostolic times
The term apostle refers to three different groups of people, see the video “Should we call ourselves apostles?”. Were the original 12 apostles only in the Jerusalem congregation or also elsewhere?
One of the earliest additional congregations was in Antioch:
Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” So after they had fasted and prayed, theyplaced their hands on them and sent them off. The two of them, sent on their way by the Holy Spirit, went down to Seleucia and sailed from there to Cyprus.
Acts 13:1-4 NEÜ
Here, some of the men in the congregation are referred to as prophets and teachers, but not as elders. And none of the 12 apostles are there. When there were differences of opinion, when men from Jerusalem came to Antioch, we learn about a change in the structure of the congregation in Jerusalem:
This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question.
Acts 15:2 NEÜ
So it is mentioned here that there were already men in Jerusalem who were called elders. If this was around the year 48, then almost two decades had passed and the 12 apostles had also traveled to other cities. In this respect, others in the congregation in Jerusalem had to take responsibility, but were not referred to as apostles.
In the early congregation in Antioch, there were prophets and teachers, but in Jerusalem there were apostles and elders.
In Antioch, they prayed and fasted before an important decision and the Holy Spirit spoke.
At least we learn from Acts 20:17 that there were later ‚elders‘ in Ephesus:
From Miletus, Paul sent to Ephesus for the elders of the church.
Apostelgeschichte 20:17 NIV
So here we have the term πρεσβυτέρους (presbyterous) again, meaning ‚elders‚. But this is not a new term for a position in the congregation of disciples; it is used 66 times in the New Testament.
It is only in Acts 20 that we learn anything more about our topic.
Overseers and Deacons
Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church [the congregation of God [other manuscripts: the congregation of the Lord]] of God, a which he bought with his own blood.
Acts 20:28 NIV, comment from Elberfelder
So there were episkopos, or overseers, who had been appointed by the Holy Spirit. Unfortunately, we are not told how this came about. But as for who was meant by this:
From Miletus, Paul sent to Ephesus for the elders of the church [congregation].
Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church [the congregation of God [other manuscripts: the congregation of the Lord]] of God, a which he bought with his own blood.
Acts 20:17, 28 NIV, comment from Elberfelder
Here he refers to the πρεσβυτέρους (presbyterous) as ‚elders‚ who had been appointed by the Holy Spirit as ἐπισκόπους (episkopous) ‚overseers‚. This term occurs a total of five times in the New Testament:
Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, a which he bought with his own blood.
Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, To all God’s holy people in Christ Jesus at Philippi, together with the overseers and deacons: …
Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, …
Since an overseer manages God’s household, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain.
For “you were like sheep going astray,” but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.
Acts 20:28; Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:7; 1 Peter 2:25 NIV
The last use in 1 Peter 2:25, however, does not speak of an overseer in the congregation, but of Jesus Christ Himself. And already on the basis of the connection between ‚overseer‘ and ’shepherd‘ in this verse and Acts 20:28, it is clear that it is not about the supervision of the flock, but the responsibility for the flock. HELPS Word-Studies comments:
„Though in some contexts 1985 (epískopos) has been regarded traditionally as a position of authority, in reality the focus is upon the responsibility for caring for others“ (L & N, 1, 35.40).
HELPS Word-studies zu episkopos, Strong’s 1985
This word is used in 1 Timothy 3:1 (i.e. in the direct context) and is directly related to the word epískopos:
The word is trustworthy [or faithful]: when someone aspires to the office of overseer [ἐπισκοπῆς (episkopēs); episkopé a visit, a supervision], he desires a good work.
And they shall cast you out, and your children within you, and shall not leave in you one stone upon another; because you knew not the time of your visitation [episkopé, a visitation, a supervision].
For it is written in the book of Psalms, “Let his dwelling place be desolate, so that no one will dwell in it,” and, “Let another take over his duty of oversight [episkopé, a visiting, a supervision]!”
And conduct yourselves well among the Gentiles, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may, by your good works which they observe, glorify God in the day of visitation. [episkopé a visit, an oversight]
1 Timothy 3:1; Luke 19:44; Acts 1:20; 1 Peter 2:12 Elberfelder
Now ‚visitation‘ sounds even worse than ‚overseer‘ (In German the work ‚Heimsuchung‘ is used, which has a real negative connotation). But it is only used once in relation to elders. Twice it refers to a time when God is looking closely. And then it is used as a reason why a new, 12th apostle is being chosen.
In Philippians 1:1, we had found not only ‚overseers‘ but also ‚deacons‚ (or servants) διακόνοις (diakonois). This word is used 29 times in the New Testament and in a very general sense for all disciples and in Romans 13 even for the state authorities! At that time, it was not yet a term for a specific office in the congregation, but a generally used word was employed. However, those who were ‚deacons‘ for the congregation in a special way were to fulfill certain requirements:
In the same way, deacons are to be worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain.
A deacon must be faithful to his wife and must manage his children and his household well. …
1 Timothy 3:8, 12 NIV
We therefore note:
In the congregations, there were πρεσβυτέρους (presbyterous) ‚elders‘ who served as ἐπισκόπους (episkopous) ‚overseers‘. And there were still ‚deacons‘ διακόνοις (diakonois).
How were they appointed? In Acts 20:28, Paul says that they “had been appointed by the Holy Spirit.” How? According to Acts 6:6, the apostles laid their hands on deacons. In 2 Timothy 1:6, Paul says to Timothy, “Wherefore I put thee in remembrance of the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands.” However, according to 1 Timothy 4:14, the elders did this: “Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.”
In the 1st century, elders and deacons were appointed by the laying on of hands by the 12 apostles, other apostles or the elders.
The apostles also laid their hands on other believers:
When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to Samaria. When they arrived, they prayed for the new believers there that they might receive the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.
Acts 8:14-17 NIV
In the first century, the disciples in Samaria received the Holy Spirit after the apostles Peter and John laid their hands on them.
We can see from the book of Acts that there was no such thing as ‚the one congregation‘ in the first century. Due to developments and needs, the structure of the first Jerusalem congregation changed to that of the later congregations in the area of the Gentiles.
We have already learned some interesting aspects about the first-century churches. Before we get to the historical context, however, we should take a closer look at other important topics in the next two parts: money, donations, baptisms, and the peaceful church.
“We are doing exactly what the first-century Christians did” is a common but rather general claim that we hear time and again when it comes to the formation of house churches, Bible study groups, or even communities that meet via the internet. In the following, I will simply call the latter a ‚Zoom congregation‘.1 But what exactly is meant by this claim? As we shall see, the challenges and full implications of this statement only become apparent when it is analyzed in more detail or applied in everyday life. Or, for example, when the community in the case of a Zoom congregation continues to grow.
I would like to emphasize one thing right at the beginning: Under no circumstances should the impression be created that it is ‚wrong‘ for believers to meet and exchange ideas using modern means of communication. Often there is no other way due to distance or health reasons. It is more like a visit of other believers at their home.
But what happens when more and more people are involved? When the size of a congregation is reached or exceeded? When talks are given to hundreds of people? When the organization is extended to meetings in other languages? Then it becomes challenging in many ways when you think you can do it ‚exactly as the first century Christians did‘. And that’s what this series is about.
It is very interesting to see what the text of the New Testament really says about this. We will start with this in this series. After that, we will take a closer look at the historical context. And finally, we will consider the consequences of actually implementing what we have learned: “We do it exactly like the first-century Christians”.
So let’s take a closer look at the first-century church. What does the New Testament text say about it?
The text of the New Testament
The congregation at the time of Jesus
Shouldn’t we first ask what Jesus himself has to say on the subject? What did Jesus say about how his followers should meet and organize themselves? Well, this:
„“
Jesus Christ to the organization of the congregation of his disciples
Or to put it another way: during Jesus‘ ministry, there was no congregation in the sense that we understand it today. We have no record at all of what Jesus himself said on the subject. Even though many followed him. And he also chose 12 apostles. And then he also chose 70 others and sent them out. And women accompanied him on his travels.
What Jesus did assure his disciples of, however, was this:
For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.
Matthew 18:20 ESV
The Gospel of Matthew concludes with these words:
When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
Matthew 28:17-20 NIV
Of course, this was a surprising and extremely big task. But didn’t anyone ask, “And how should we do that, Lord? How should we organize the baptisms and teachings?” Perhaps they simply trusted that Jesus would be with them and explain it later. As He had always done before.
However, the closing in Mark sounds different:
Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen. He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
Mark 16:14-16 NIV
That sounds more as if they are supposed to preach and the rest takes care of itself. As if there were no reason to think about congregations. However, this is the long ending, which, like the short ending that also exists, is probably not authentic.
In Luke, we only find this:
He told them, “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
Luke 24:46, 47 NIV
And in the Gospel of John, we find no instructions at all for the conclusion. But perhaps there were more instructions later from the ‚helper‘ or the Holy Spirit?
The Jerusalem Congregation (Beginnings)
Since we didn’t find anything on the subject in the Gospels, it seems obvious to look at the Acts of the Apostles. In the Acts of the Apostles, Luke reports on what happened after Jesus‘ resurrection and shortly before his ascension:
Then they gathered around him and asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”
Acts 1:6-8 NIV
So still no further instructions. Did you notice what they were to receive through the Holy Spirit? ‚Power‘. It does not say anything about special abilities to understand the scriptures ‚correctly‘. But that is just a side note. What did the disciples do?
When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.
In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) …
Acts 1:13-15 NIV
Then Pentecost came in 33 A.D.:
When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place
Apg 2:1 NIV
And then something extraordinary happened: the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. At that time, many “God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven” (Acts 2:5 NIV) were in Jerusalem. They had only just received instructions to preach, and then this happened:
Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day. They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.
Acts 2:41-47 NIV
It is mentioned twice that they all came together, and that there were about 120 of them, which is quite a number for an upper room. They were in the temple, meeting in their homes for the Lord’s Supper and for meals and prayers together. And now with 30 times as many people! And there were more and more. And still no instructions on how to hold meetings! Interestingly, the synagogues are not mentioned here. But we can already record what they did:
According to the Acts of the Apostles, the Jerusalem congregation met in the temple and in homes. The synagogues are not mentioned.
In their homes, they (1) devoted themselves to the apostles‘ teaching; (2) they broke bread together; (3) they prayed together; (4) they ate together; (5) they shared everything in common.
“Everything was done with great joy and sincere warmth.”
In Acts 4, we find another interesting clue:
All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power theapostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.
Acts 4:32-35 NIV
We note:
So the 12 apostles played a crucial role.
„All the believers were one in heart and mind.“
„No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had.“
However, it was not long before problems arose:
At that time, when the number of disciples was constantly growing, there was also discontent in the congregation. The Hellenists [Greek-speaking Jews who were born outside Israel and only moved to Jerusalem in old age] complained about the Hebrews [Jews born in Israel who spoke Hebrew or Aramaic] because their widows were overlooked in the daily care.
Acts 6:1 NEÜ
So there were problems despite the outpouring of the Holy Spirit! Despite the ‚manifest guidance of the Spirit‘? What should one do? There were still no instructions from Jesus. Did the Holy Spirit take care of that in this case?
So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, “It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. Brothers and sisters, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.” This proposal pleased the whole group. They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit; also Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas from Antioch, a convert to Judaism. They presented these men to the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them.
Acts 6:2-6 NEÜ
The 12 apostles led the congregation in Jerusalem.
Later, 7 men (no women) were selected for other tasks.
With growth came problems and discontent.
By the way: Did you notice that it was she who called the whole gathering of disciples together? So, with 120 in the upper room, no problem. But we had read about 3000 and even more… And what about ‚guidance by the Holy Spirit‘ here? Read again and think about it.
We read further in the Acts of the Apostles that James, a brother of Jesus, and other elders were later in the Jerusalem congregation: “On the next day Paul went in with us to James; and all the elders were present.” (Acts 21:18)
Shortly after the first congregation was established in Jerusalem, perhaps as early as 34, Stephen was stoned, a wave of persecution began, and the Jerusalem congregation changed:
Now those who had been scattered by the persecution that broke out when Stephen was killed traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus and Antioch, spreading the word only among Jews.
Acts 11:19 NIV
Not long after, there was the stoning of Stephen, the persecution of the congregation in Jerusalem, and many were scattered and went far away.
What effect did this have? What do we learn about the churches in apostolic times? We will look at this in the next episode.
I do not receive any compensation from Zoom for using the term. It is just one of the well-known and frequently used tools for such online meetings. ↩︎
The New Testament contains a number of terms that are still used in denominations or movements today. However, very few people are aware of their meaning or use in the text. Did the disciples of Jesus in the first century use these terms in the same way? I have already touched on three terms:
Thoughts on Signs and Wonders: Part 2: What’s An Apostle?
By Dr. Michael S. Heiser
The title of this post probably makes it clear that by “signs and wonders” I’m sort of picking off various topics that have something to do with sign gifts. Yes, it’s a bit random in terms of approach, but I’m setting the stage for future blogging. It will make sense down the road.
As to our subject, this may seem like a silly question, but it isn’t. There’s considerable contemporary talk about whether there are modern-day apostles or whether it’s even advisable to use the word. Personally, with respect to the latter question, I don’t think it’s advisable due to the confusion it creates (or could create). Why I say that will become clear in this post. In regard to the former question, we actually could use it today if (a) we had our definitions straight – i.e., aligned with Scripture – and (b) enough people were biblically literate so as to parse accurately what is being claimed and what isn’t. Given the challenge of the first and the unlikelihood of the second, I think it’s best to avoid the term.
Why do I sound so pessimistic? Well, the next time someone calls themselves an apostle, ask what they mean—in particular, ask them which kind of apostle they’re claiming to be.
Yes, you read that correctly. There’s more than one kind of apostle in the New Testament.
A simple search of the Greek lemma translated “apostle” (ἀπόστολος / apostolos) is a good place to start. If you do that, some things will become clear – and some things will start to rock your world. You’ll discover that there’s variety as to what the term means in context. Let’s take a look at the data.
The original 12
This is the easy category. Several passages provide us a list of the 12 disciples of Jesus and attribute the word “apostle” to them: Matt 10:2; Mark 3:14; Luke 6:13. The 12 are referenced as ”apostles” outside the gospels, too (Rev 21:14).
The group is unique in that these 12 were called directly by Jesus, traveled with him, and were taught directly by him. They were set apart from others who might have followed Jesus around, listening to him, by virtue of their calling, and by virtue of the fact they were explicitly referred to as “the twelve”—and there was no ambiguity as to who “the twelve” were (e.g., Matt 26:20; Mark 3:16; 6:7; 11:11; 14:17; Luke 22:3; John 6:67).
When the number fell from 12 to 11 because of Judas’ betrayal and death, the original disciples / apostles felt compelled to restore the number to 12 (Acts 1:15-26). This is likely due to the parallelism with the 12 tribes (cf. Rev 21:12, 14). The criteria for inclusion in the 12 are worth noting. According to Acts 1:21-22, candidates: (a) had accompanied the other 11 since the time of Jesus’ baptism, and (b) had been a witness to the resurrected Christ before his ascension.
Clearly, no one calling themselves an apostle today or claiming an apostolic ministry today fits this description.
At least one role of the original 12 is also of interest due to its uniqueness. The original 12 apostles ministered in the original Jerusalem church, which was Jewish in ethnic orientation. The incident involving Paul and Barnabas (the “Jerusalem Council”) shows that they held authority over the ministry of Paul and Barnabas outside Jerusalem (Acts 15:2, 6, 22-23). The original 12 were considered the keepers of right doctrine. Questions had arisen in the wake of Peter’s vision and ministry to the Gentile, Cornelius (Acts 10) and Paul’s ministry to Gentiles thereafter. Part of the rationale for their doctrinal oversight derived from the fact that they had been eyewitnesses and first-person hearers of what Jesus taught. Again, without those credentials, this role would not be expected–there would be no reason to presume that authority.
After the Jerusalem council, Paul went on to start many churches whose congregations were mixed (inclusive of Jew and Gentile). There is no hint that the original 12 had any sort of ruling authority over those churches. Even Paul couldn’t actually claim that, as he appointed leaders in those churches. For sure if doctrinal problems arose, Paul would take steps to correct that (and Paul’s own authority for having that status had been validated by the original 12 at the Jerusalem council).
Consequently, there is little merit to the idea that someone could claim “apostle status” today and wield authority over other churches. The question would be as follows: If you were not at the level of the original 12, on what basis would you assume their mantle–their authority? I see no coherent, scriptural argument for that. That idea comes with conflating the term “apostle” in other passages with the 12, which (as we will see) the New Testament explicitly refuses to do, and even denies.
The “other apostles” outside the original 12 who had seen the risen Christ
The key passage here is 1 Corinthians 15:1-9
1 Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, 2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.
3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
1 Corinthians 15:1-9
There are several very interesting items in this passage. Some of them might even surprise readers. The wording is curious in places. Let’s take the passage apart by noting the interesting phrases:
First, the risen Christ “appeared to Cephas (Peter), then to the twelve” – This makes it sound like Peter was distinct from the 12, or not part of the 12. But we know those notions are incorrect from numerous statements in the New Testament. The statement seems to be a reference to Luke 24:34, where the two men on the road to Emmaus return to Jerusalem after their own encounter with the risen Jesus and proclaim to the eleven apostles [curious in itself since Peter would be among the eleven to whom they were excitedly speaking]: “The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!” They then proceed to tell of their encounter.1 Keeping in mind Judas was absent, the wording “appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve” seems incongruous. Shouldn’t the wording have been “”appeared to Cephas, then to the ELEVEN” (even including Peter)? In my view, the likely reference of the wording in 1 Cor 15:5 is that Paul refers to the relative order of things: the risen Jesus appeared to Peter, and then later to the REST of the apostles. I think “the twelve” here is meant to restrict the wording to “the original apostles.” The number “12” telegraphs that.
Per the discussion above, we have a discrete group of apostles corresponding to the original disciples (the Eleven, Peter inclusive). But now look at what follows: Jesus appeared to “more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.” Here we have a group of “apostles” who are NOT the original 12 — and neither is Paul included in their number, for Paul distinguishes himself in the next line: “Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.”
Paul’s wording raises a question: was he including himself in with “all the apostles” or did he view himself as a lesser apostle — but still an apostle — with respect to those other apostles? So do we now have two groups or three? In order to consider this, we need to consider some other passages, such as 1 Cor 9:5:
5 Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? 6 Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living?
1 Cor 9:5
Paul here makes it clear (again) that there were the original 12 apostles and apostles who were not the original 12. The “brothers of the Lord” (plural) line is interesting, because of what Paul writes in Gal 1:19: “But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.” This means that James, one of the biological brothers of Jesus, was considered an apostle — but he was not one of the original 12, nor would he have met the criteria of Acts 1:21-22 for filling Judas’ vacancy, for he had not “accompanied the other 11 since the time of Jesus’ baptism.” Taking this to 1 Cor 15:5, it would seem that Jesus’ other brothers (or maybe just James and Jude) were called apostles. So there is a clear second group by virtue of this association. Joining the Lord’s brothers in this second group were “all the apostles” mentioned in 1 Cor 15:7. It also seems to me these passages reinforce the idea this second group was connected to the Jerusalem church.
But did Paul consider himself (and others who ministered with him) a third group with lesser status? That is possible. The inclusion of James (who was not one of the original 12) with these other apostles suggests (but does not prove) that this second group had spent time with Jesus prior to the crucifixion and resurrection. James’ inclusion, as well as the chronology of Acts, also suggests that these other apostles were headquartered in Jerusalem. Paul had not spent time with Jesus before the cross, nor was his ministry part of the Jerusalem church. He was an outsider, being called to preach to the Gentiles. Paul also puts himself down (is it merely self-deprecating rhetoric?) as the “least of the apostles” in his wording. Lastly, as we will see in a moment, Paul refers to other ministry partners — including Gentiles — as apostles.
Given the data, my thought is that what we have here is three groups, but the two groups outside the 12 were the same in purpose and status. What I mean is that the two groups who were not the 12 did not have the status of the 12, but they mutually had the endorsement of the 12. The original 12 certainly endorsed the ministry of James and other apostles who worked in the church at Jerusalem. And we know from Acts 15 that they (along with James) endorsed the work of Paul to the Gentiles. They considered him an apostle.
Paul’s wording in 1 Cor 9:5-6 also makes it clear that he considered himself — and Barnabas — an apostle. That is, he was placing himself and his partner into the “apostle equation” with respect to marriage and consideration of ministry support. Barnabas is actually referred to as an apostle in Acts 14:4. The text describes how the people at Iconium hearing the gospel either sided with the Jews or “the apostles” — i.e., Paul and Barnabas, who were preaching to them, and who were the objects of the Jews’ opposition. Acts 14:4 makes this identification sure by explicitly calling Barnabas (and Paul) an apostle: “But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, they tore their garments and rushed out into the crowd. . . .”
This episode helps us understand why people outside the original 12 and the Jerusalem church could rightly be called apostles. In Acts 13:2-3 Paul and Barnabas had been commissioned and sent by the Holy Spirit to preach to the Gentiles. That calling touched off Paul’s missionary journey, the first of several. Paul and Barnabas were apostles — essentially what we would call missionaries today. “Apostle” is a noun (apostolos) whose related verb form (apostellō) means “to send.”2 The noun apostolos (“apostle”) “refers to persons who are dispatched for a specific purpose. . . . messengers, envoys.”3 Paul was also accompanied on missionary work by Silas (also known as Silvanus). We see this in 1 Thess 2:6 where Paul, speaking of himself, Timothy, and Silvanus (cf. 1 Thess 1:1) says: “Nor did we seek glory from people, whether from you or from others, though we could have made demands as apostles of Christ.” According to the book of Acts, it was Silas who, worked with Paul and Timothy at Thessalonica (Acts 15:40; Acts 17). This is why scholars consider Silas and Silvanus to be names for the same person:
“Silas, Silvanus (sī´luhs, sil-vay«nuhs), generally regarded as alternate names for the same person, a leader in the early church and an associate of Paul. The Letters of Paul and 1 Peter refer to him as Silvanus (a Latinization), but Acts prefers Silas (either a Semitic or a shortened Greek form).”4
False Apostles
This last category is as straightforward as the first. There were those people in the early church who took the label “apostle” but who were falseteachers, spreading a different gospel and otherwise leading believers astray (2 Cor 11:5, 13; 12:11). In 2 Corinthians 11 Paul refers to these individuals as pseudapostolos (pseudo-apostles; i.e., false apostles). He referred to them earlier (sarcastically) as “super apostles” (hyperlian apostolōn). They were pretenders:
For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.
2 Co 11:13–14
Other Thoughts
It is important to note here that, while Paul had encountered the risen Christ, as did other apostles who were not in the original 12, there are no scriptural data that suggest Timothy, Barnabas, or Silas ever encountered the risen Christ. As such, this is clear proof that encountering Jesus did not qualify someone to be an apostle. One could be called an apostle without that event. Why? Because of what these apostles actually were: To use the more familiar term, they were missionaries. They planted churches, taught believers, and exercised leadership and oversight of those churches (not just any churches). Then they repeated the process after appointing leaders in those churches (1 Tim 3, Titus 1). And note that those appointed leaders had different titles than “apostles” — because they weren’t sent anywhere.
The “missionary” meaning of “apostle” would have been true for other “apostles” that are so-called in the New Testament that, we presume, in light of Paul’s familiarity with them and their work: Junia / Julia and Adronicus (Rom 16:7), Epaphroditus (Phil 2:25), and others, possibly including Titus (2 Cor 8:23?). Given the terminology, we can presume that this individuals had been sent to either start a church or help a church. As such, they did leadership tasks: teaching, preaching, evangelism, discipleship, etc. That’s what church leaders did and do.
Another realization is that, if an apostle had any authority at all, it was over a church under their immediate care. There is no evidence that apostles could claim authority over churches they had not started, or in which they had not exercised leadership ministry. The only conceivable authority at that level was the original 12, who were (obviously) in the Jerusalem church and whom (also obviously) had higher status as original disciples of Jesus. There is no evidence that others appointed by the original 12 in Jerusalem had authority over churches started by Paul. One cannot appeal to the Jerusalem council for that idea since the original 12 apostles who were still alive were in that church. They had that authority. It is possible James did as well since he was the blood brother of Jesus. What they thought would naturally have carried tremendous authority. But after those individuals — whose status was unique due to knowing the pre-crucifixion Jesus — everyone else’s authority was of a different nature.
An oft-neglected observation reinforces this “non-authority” idea. The churches in the book of Revelation were not started by the original 12. We aren’t told in Scripture who started those churches. The apostle John was chosen by Jesus to write to those churches, but the authority basis for what he wrote to them was the risen Jesus. Unlike Paul’s language to churches he started, John never asserts any authority over these churches, not does he appeal to Jerusalem’s apostles or anyone else for their governance. The authority is the Lord’s and no one else’s.
Lastly, there’s no sense at all in the New Testament usage of the term that suggests an apostle is someone who merely exercises authoritative oversight — and does little in the way of evangelism, discipleship, teaching, etc. Apostles weren’t executive VPs. They weren’t distant sages that observed the boots on the ground work of ministry from afar. They did the work of the ministry, showing others how to fulfill the Great Commission by example.
These few thoughts are important note in light of modern apostolic claims to regional authority. That idea is absent in the New Testament. One cannot appeal to Ephesians 4 in this regard and, in light of the preceding discussion, it should be clear why:
11 And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, 14 so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. 15 Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, 16 from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.
Ephesians 4:11-16
The text says God’s plan was to give the fledgling church “apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers.” That he did. He gave the original Jerusalem church apostles. He called Paul as the apostle to the Gentiles. Others apostles (missionaries – we’re talking about planting churches here in Gentile territory) were commissioned (sent) to help Paul (Barnabas, Silas, etc.).
Here’s my point: it’s one thing for believers today to use the term “apostle” from this passage when they mean missionaries who plant churches or who planted their church. They have rightful authority in those places. But it is quite another to lift this term from Eph 4:11 and claim authority over churches in a city, county, state, or larger region. Every office in Eph 4:11ff. can (and did) function on a local church level. There is no warrant to read anything else into the passage. Paul began the chapter addressing the Ephesian believers (“you”; Eph 4:1). We have no warrant to say Paul started referring to the universal church at v. 11 and beyond, as though Jesus was appointing regional or worldwide apostles over collective groups of local churches. Ephesians 4 has each local church in view and its own leadership. It is not focused on appointing a small, elite group for exercising authority over many churches. And it certainly doesn’t suggest apostolic succession (as though “apostles” outside the 12 inherit the office from the 12). It’s incoherent to presume that everything else in the epistle that Paul wants readers to believe first had a religious oligarchy in mind and then, secondarily, individual local churches. Ephesians 4:11-16 is written to a local church and is for local churches everywhere as local churches.
So, when you meet someone whose title is “apostle” you might ask them what they mean. If they are leaders in a local church they started or with whom they were sent to labor, the title isn’t unwarranted. That said, in our day and age the title can cause confusion due to misunderstanding or abuse. We need therefore need to be cautious with its use.
Bock notes that this passage has drawn attention because of John 20. He writes, “Upon arriving in Jerusalem, they find the Eleven gathered together (ἀθροίζω, athroizō). . . . The reference to the Eleven, a collective term for the remaining apostles, raises the issue of Luke’s relationship to John 20:19–29. If all Eleven were at the gathering noted by Luke, then why was Thomas not convinced until a week later (John 20:24–29)? John implies that Thomas is not at the first gathering. The now-exposed Judas is absent for reasons that Acts 1:15–26 will make clear.” Darrell L. Bock, Luke: 9:51–24:53 (vol. 2; Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1996), 1921. ↩︎
William Arndt, Frederick W. Danker, and Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (=BDAG; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 120. ↩︎
In May 2023, I published an article and a video in German on the subject of „Should we call ourselves Christians or anointed ones?“ In it, I showed using the Bible that the disciples of Jesus were first called Christians by others and only later adopted this designation for themselves. We find in the Bible mostly other designations like ‚the way‘ or ‚the disciples‘ and above all brothers. And even if these received the Holy Spirit, they never called themselves ‚anointed ones‘ in the New Testament. Probably out of respect for the Christ, the Messiah – The Anointed One.
In some comments it was said that if the Bible speaks of an anointing, then the persons are just that: Anointed ones. Of course, everyone can hold this according to his conscience as he wants. But those who wrote and later copied the writings of the New Testament did not do it. At least not in the writings that have come down to us.
In this context, I also noticed that some naturally call Jesus their brother. But should we call Jesus our brother? And conversely, should we call ourselves ‚brothers of Christ‘ and be addressed as such?
„So Christian, now hold on! That’s what the Bible says.“ It’s good that you don’t just believe everything! So we look now in the Bible. After all, our attitude should not be based on feelings, a tradition, our reasoning or our desire, but on the Bible. At least, if we consider the Bible as the basis of our faith.
All right, so let’s read Matthew 12:48-50:
He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”
Matthew 12:48-50 NIV
„So everything is clear with that. Jesus is talking about his spiritual brothers.“ Well, does it really say that Jesus is our brother? First of all, the context. Verse 47 says, „Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”“ So in Jesus‘ statement he is referring to his physical relatives, namely mother and brothers, and then relates that to those who are spiritually related to him by their actions accordingly. But, strictly speaking, it cannot be said that this text shows that we are brothers of Jesus. For sisters are also mentioned. That would still work. But, are we then also Jesus‘ mother? Hardly. Who could claim to be Jesus‘ spiritual mother? So this only works if you take the text quite literally, ignore the comparison and ignore a part of the text at the same time.
Well, then there is Jesus‘ parable about the sheep and the goats:
And the King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of Mine, you did for Me.’
Matthew 25:40 BSB
In the parable, Jesus actually speaks of the brothers of the king, who, according to verse 31, is the ‚Son of Man‘. So there would be a connection, if we interpret it that way, that Jesus will be ‚the Son of Man‘. However, in verse 45 they are only called ‚one of the least of these‘. Unfortunately, this parable is not mentioned in the other synoptic gospels of Luke and Mark. And the Gospel of Matthew is the most poorly preserved. I know some people don’t like to hear that. But it is so. In any case, we find it only in Matthew and not elsewhere. That already weakens this argument. But let’s remember this text.
But there is still this text:
Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”
John 20:17 ESV
Okay. That is a direct reference. But now I am quite critical and note that this was written very late around 100 AD. And the synoptic gospels don’t say anything about it at all. But let’s also remember this text. Now we already have two.
What is interesting, however, is what Jesus himself says:
“But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers.
Matthew 23:8 NIV
Jesus is not saying here that we are all brothers. He is their teacher. „But all of you are brothers.“
Didn’t the apostles consider him a brother and address him as such? How did the apostles address Jesus?
Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, …
Matthew 18:21 KJB
Did this change after Jesus‘ resurrection?
Then the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, “It is the Lord!” As soon as Simon Peter heard him say, “It is the Lord,” …
John 21:7 NIV
So, when they had come together, they began asking Him, saying, “Lord, is it at this time that You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?”
Acts 1:6 NASB
I searched for verses in which Jesus is addressed as Lord. In the gospels alone there are about 50 verses. That he is addressed or called brother, I did not find.
Jesus‘ statement after the foot washing sums it up:
“You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am.
John 13:13 NIV
And what does Jesus call his disciple?
No longer do I call you servants, for a servant does not understand what his master is doing. But I have called you friends, because everything I have learned from My Father I have made known to you.
John 15:15 BSB
Wouldn’t that have been the opportunity to call them his brothers? In particular, where Jesus after his resurrection according to John 20:17 instructs Mary to go to ‚his brothers‘. There, however, also his bodily brothers could be meant. But they are probably not, because the next verse, verse 18, speaks of the disciples. But it remains somehow strange that this designation does not appear in the first 19 chapters of John’s Gospel, not even there, where one should expect it, and then only once towards Mary.
But perhaps this is a turning point. How do the disciples talk about Jesus later?
So Ananias departed and entered the house. And laying his hands on him he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you came has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.”
Acts 9:17 ESV
I appeal to you, brothers, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to strive together with me in your prayers to God on my behalf, …
Romans 15:30 ESV
Wouldn’t that have been a good opportunity to say: But I exhort you, brothers, through our brother Jesus Christ … But it doesn’t say so in the Bible. But again: Lord Jesus Christ.
Or even especially when closing a letter, it would have been a nice closing formula:
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, brothers. Amen.
Galatians 6:18 ESV
Again, the „Lord Jesus Christ“ in contrast to the brothers. And this is found many times in the New Testament even outside the Gospels. Paul says:
I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, …
1 Corinthians 1:10 ESV
I face death every day—yes, just as surely as I boast about you in Christ Jesus our Lord.
1 Corinthians 15:31 NIV
Often a thought is introduced like this:
Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, …
2 Thessalonians 3:6 ESV
Revelation 12:10 is also interesting
And I heard a loud voice in heaven saying: “Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of His Christ. For the accuser of our brothers has been thrown down—he who accuses them day and night before ourGod.
Revelation 12:10 Elberfelder
Also here it could have been spoken of the brothers of Christ: ‚of His Christ …; of his brothers …‘. But they is ‚our brothers‘, as the loud voice in heaven says. Does this include the Christ? Perhaps. But who else? God is also mentioned, but God’s brothers they are probably not …
There are very few passages in the New Testament that speak of brothers:
For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one source. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brothers, saying, “I will tell of your name to my brothers; in the midst of the congregation I will sing your praise.”
Hebrews 2:11,12 ESV
That makes everything clear, doesn’t it? Well, here Psalm 22:23 is quoted according to the Septuagint. Let’s read on in context:
For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham. Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.
Hebrews 2:16,17 ESV
Oh. That is a reference to ‚brothers‘ of Christ, who are the Jewish offspring or descendants of Abraham. Which also fits to the quoted Psalm 22. It is true that this is often used to refer to the ’spiritual brothers of Christ‘. But it does not correspond to the statement of the text.
In fact, there is no verse in the New Testament that speaks of a spiritual brother of Christ or the spiritual ‚brothers of Christ‘ in these exact words. Yet in well over one hundred places he is called Lord. You might not have expected that. Jesus‘ brothers are spoken of only a few times, and those are His physical relatives (e.g., John 7:1-10) or Israelites (Hebrews 2:11-17). Now probably the background of the title of this article is beginning to become clear: Should we then call ourselves brothers of Christ? Well, in the New Testament text we do not find that as a designation for his followers. And according to the text, they did not address him as a brother either.
The term ‚brothers of Christ‚ or ‚brother of Christ‚ is not found in the New Testament text!
What we find is this phrase:
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, To the saints and faithful brothers in Christ at Colossae:
Colossians 1:1,2 BSB
Greet all the saints in Christ Jesus. The brothers who are with me send you greetings.
Philippians 4:21 BSB
However, this is a very different thought and emphasizes the fellowship of brothers and sister because they are all joined to Christ. That is why the GOD’S WORD Translation translates Colossians 1:2 this way:
To God’s holy and faithful people, our brothers and sisters who are united with Christ in the city of Colossae. Good will and peace from God our Father are yours!
Colossians 1:2 GOD’S WORD translation
So let’s keep this result in mind:
The term ‚brothers of Christ‘, or ‚brothers of Christ‘ is not found in the New Testament text. What we find is brothers in Christ.
Jehovah’s Witnesses in particular should now be surprised. Why? This is explained by the result of a search in the Watchtower Society’s online library for the term ‚brothers of Christ‘:
‚Brothers of Christ‘ or ‚Christ’s brothers‘ is nowhere found in the text of the Jehovah’s Witnesses Bible (New World Translation).
In the publications of Jehovah’s Witnesses, on the other hand, one finds ‚brothers of Christ‘ 69 times, ‚Christ’s brothers‘ 166 times, brothers and Christ in the same paragraph 2020 times, brothers and Jesus in the same paragraph 2785 times and „spiritual brothers“ 745 times.
This proves once again how important it is to the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses to distinguish between the privileged class of the ‚anointed ones‘ (see the article Should we be called Christians or Anointed? ), referred to thousands of times as ‚Christ’s brothers‘ and the ‚other sheep‘. Thus, in the April 2020 Watchtower, Study Article 17 I Have Called You Friends, paragraph 12 emphasizes that the ‚friends of Jesus‘ must keep this in mind: „Jesus views what we do for his anointed brothers as if we were doing it for him.“ The vast majority of Jehovah’s Witnesses are named only ‚friends of Jesus‘ and not ‚brothers of Jesus‘, which is justified in this article with the leading text John 15:15 – although Jesus did say this to whom? Exactly, the apostles! Who are constantly called ‚brothers of Christ‘ in the Watchtower! Has nobody noticed this logical mistake?
In the Watchtower 2012 3/15 p. 20 paragraph 2 the importance of these ‚brothers of Christ‘ for the vast majority of Jehovah’s Witnesses is also made quite clear:
The other sheep should never forget that their salvationdepends on their active support of Christ’s anointed “brothers” still on earth. (Matt. 25:34-40)
Watchtower 2012 3/15 p. 20 paragraph 2
Why ever in this Watchtower here the word „brothers“ was put in quotation marks – maybe someone had noticed while writing or correcting that in the given verses in Matthew 25 Jesus is not mentioned in connection with the brothers. This makes the quotation quite short and probably consists only of the word „brothers“. This reference to Matthew 25:34-40 is, incidentally, the only one besides Hebrews 2:11,12 when reference is made to the ‚brothers of Christ‘. We notice, on the other hand, that in this sentence in the Watchtower, where authority is to be emphasized, both titles are combined at once: The anointed ones and the brothers of Christ. Both honorific titles, which are never used by the disciples for themselves in the New Testament.
Back to the Bible itself. The situation is quite paradoxical. Jesus is called the Son of God, for example here:
And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”
Mark 1:11 NIV
Jesus‘ disciples are also often called sons or children of God:
For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.
Romans 8:14 ESV
But to all who did receive Him, to those who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God …
John 1:12 BSB
The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, …
Romans 8:16 ESV
But the disciples of Jesus never address the Son of God, Jesus Christ, the Messiah, the Anointed One, as a brother in their writings. There are only three passages where a reference is found at all: Matthew 25 is a parable of Jesus and it speaks of the brothers of the Son of Man in one place. Hebrews 2, where the context shows that by ‚brethren’brothers‘ are meant the Jews as descendants of Abraham. And John 21:17, where Jesus uses the term brothers toward Mary. In contrast, Jesus is referred to as Lord in well over 100 passages. That is strange, isn’t it? Why is he not referred to as the brother of his disciples?
Do you believe that the Bible is inspired by God? Then God has arranged for the books of the New Testament that have come down to us to address Jesus Christ not as brother but as Teacher or Lord. If that is what God intended, should we just address Jesus Christ as our brother? Or refer to ourselves as his brother or brothers?
Am I just being picky now? Well, even in this case, you must decide according to your conscience. However, we should be aware that we are then doing something that has no direct biblical basis. And the apostles and disciples preferred to address Jesus as Lord rather than brother in the New Testament writings. And if we believe in verbal inspiration, God did not want Jesus to be addressed that way. Could it be that we are putting something into the Bible out of a desire or unconscious reasons (eisegesis) instead of letting the Bible itself speak (exegesis)? At the very least, we should be aware that we do not find any example in the New Testament text where Jesus is addressed as a brother.
But what reason could there be that, although Jesus is called the Son of God and His disciples are called sons or children of God, Jesus is not addressed by them in the New Testament as a brother, but as Lord (kyrios)?
Maybe you know a good rationale. I would be happy to hear it. Personally, I assume that they also did this out of respect and genuine humility. Let’s take Jesus‘ brothers and sisters in the flesh. Imagine being with Jesus‘ disciples and then one of the brothers or sisters in flesh or Mary, the mother, comes along. And they would discreetly, but repeatedly, say, „So Jesus, my son, said …“ Or „But my brother Jesus taught …“. Even if true, we would still ask ourselves, „It’s obvious. Why does she or he keep mentioning it? But only to stand out. Just to emphasize one’s own importance through this kinship.“ Well, that’s pure speculation. But it might explain why we don’t find that in the text that has come down to us. Can you imagine a Paul who, with all his self-confidence, called himself the lowest of the apostles, ‚one abnormally born‘ (1 Cor 15:8), but then would have introduced himself as a ’spiritual brother of Christ‘ and bragged about it? Ok, now and then he said that he received the gospel directly from Jesus and appeared quite self-confident. But to advertise himself as a ‚brother of Christ‘? No way.
In contrast to this, I remember – and we have also read this in some quotations in this article – with what self-confidence members of the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses call themselves ‚anointed ones‘ and demand obedience as ‚brothers of Christ‘. I remember how in the broadcasting of Jehovah’s Witnesses Gerrit Lösch, as a member of the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses, raved about how they are becoming more and more glorious from glory to glory. Or as others explained, what an important role they will play in Armageddon and for the life of all. And what a joy it will be to do that – which includes destroying billions of people according to the teachings of the Governing Body at Armageddon. And that in all this they have eclipsed ‚The Anointed One‘, Jesus, the Head of the Assembly, who was set above all.
What example do you want to follow?
“You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am.
Should we call ourselves Christians or be called so? You may think one answer is quite obvious. But there are some good reasons to think about it.
To explain one of the reasons, now is probably the right time to explain that I now feel like a Muslim.
With many readers I can imagine now everything from astonishment to horror. But I only wanted to say that I feel like such a person: „Submission to the will of God“ (see Wikipedia article). However, when people in Christianized Western countries hear that someone is a Muslium, they automatically associate a number of things with it. A term is quickly associated with a kind of ‚pigeonhole‘.
We must therefore not forget that billions of people think of religion when they hear the words Christian or Christian and then think of crusades against Muslims, the Inquisition, religious wars in Europe, colonialism, the outbreak of two world wars and the Trinity. The term ‚Christian‘ buys the whole package, so to speak.
Another extreme would be to feel bad just because of the name ‚Christian‘: After all, who among us has been on one of the Crusades? And most of us might not even have been born at the time of the world wars. And not everyone believes in a church definition of the Trinity.
I think one thing has become clear, though: If you call yourself a Christian, it would be good to know what that means and what the origin of the designation ‚Christian‘ is. What is the historical and, above all, biblical basis for this designation? As we will see, this is even more true of the term ‚anointed‘.
The first clue
The first time the term ‚Christians‘ appears is in Acts 11:26.
„and when he found him, he brought him back to Antioch. So for a full year they met together with the church and taught large numbers of people. The disciples were first called Christians at Antioch.“
(Acts 11:26 NIV)
This seems to answer the question. But at least one could ask who had called the disciples ‚Christians‘. Because according to this translation the formulation is in the passive voice: Not they gave themselves the name, but others called them so. And what did they want to express with this name? What does ‚Christians‘ mean in the original text?
However, this text becomes even more exciting when someone reads the translation of Jehovah’s Witnesses:
„and, after he found him, he brought him to Antioch. It thus came about that for a whole year they gathered together with them in the congregation and taught quite a crowd, and it was first in Antioch that the disciples were by divine providence called* Christians.*“
„After he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year they assembled with them in the congregation and taught quite a crowd, and it was first in Antioch that the disciples were by divine providence called Christians.“
(NWT 1984, NWT 2013)
The reference to ‚divine providence‚ does not appear in most of the 40 or so translations I have checked, except: The New World Translation, the 2001 Translation, and Young’s Literal Translation, Berean Literal Bible. Is there a reason for Jehovah’s Witnesses to speak of divine providence here? There is a rationale because of the Greek word used. We will come to that. In fact, however, this wording was also chosen and used as a justification that Jehovah in the 20th century also by ‚divine providence‘ then chose the name Jehovah’s Witnesses for ‚his people‘. For more on this, see the forum article „Acts 11:26 Called Christians by ‚Divine Providence‘? (in German)“.
But in the spirit of exegesis or the Lutheran sola scriptura („through Scripture alone“), let the Bible speak for itself.
Exegesis
The meaning of the word ‚called‘ χρηματίσαι (chrēmatisai)
Strong’s lexicon gives this meaning for χρηματίσαι (chrēmatisai):
(originally: I transact business), (a) act. of God: I warn; pass: I am warned by God (probably in response to an inquiry as to one’s duty), (b) (I take a name from my public business, hence) I receive a name, am publicly called.
From chrema; to utter an oracle (compare the original sense of chraomai), i.e. Divinely intimate; by implication, (compare the secular sense of chreia) to constitute a firm for business, i.e. (generally) bear as a title — be called, be admonished (warned) of God, reveal, speak.
Thayer’s Greek Lexicon beschreibt diese drei Arten der Verwendung:
1. to transact business, especially to manage public affairs; to advise or consult with one about public affairs; to make answer to those who ask advice, present inquiries or requests,“ etc.; used of judges, magistrates, rulers, kings. Hence, in some later Greek writings
2. to give a response to those consulting an oracle (Diodorus 3, 6; 15, 10; Plutarch, mor., p. 435 c. (i. e. de defect. oracc. 46); several times in Lucian); hence, used of God in Josephus, Antiquities 5, 1, 14; 10, 1, 3; 11, 8, 4; universally, (dropping all reference to a previous consultation), to give a divine command or admonition, to teach from heaven ((Jeremiah 32:16 ())): with a dative of the person Job 40:3; passive followed by an infinitive (A. V. revealed etc.), Luke 2:26 (χρηματίζειν λόγους πρός τινα, Jeremiah 37:2 ()); passive, to be divinely commanded, admonished, instructed (R. V. warned of God), Matthew 2:12, 22; Acts 10:22; Hebrews 8:5; Hebrews 11:7 (this passive use is hardly found elsewhere except in Josephus, Antiquities 3, 8, 8; (11, 8, 4); cf. Buttmann, § 134, 4; (Winers Grammar, § 39, 1 a.)); to be the mouthpiece of divine revelations, to promulge the commands of God, (τίνι, Jeremiah 33:2 (); Jeremiah 36:23 (): of Moses, Hebrews 12:25 (R. V. warned).
3. to assume or take to oneself a name from one’s public business (Polybius, Diodorus, Plutarch, others); universally, to receive a name or title, be called: Acts 11:26; Romans 7:3 (Josephus, Antiquities (8, 6, 2); 13, 11, 3; b. j. 2, 18, 7; (c. Apion. 2, 3, 1; Philo, quod deus immut. § 25 at the end; leg. ad Gaium § 43); Ἀντίοχον τόν Ἐπιφανῆ χρηματίζοντα, Diodorus in Müller’s fragment vol. ii, p. 17, no. 21:4; Ἰάκωβον τόν χρηματισαντα ἀδελφόν τοῦ κυρίου, Acta Philippi at the beginning, p. 75; Tdf. edition; Ἰακώβου … ὅν καί ἀδελφόν τοῦ Χριστοῦ χρηματίσαι οἱ Θειοι λόγοι περιέχουσιν, Eus. h. e. 7, 19; (cf. Sophocles‘ Lexicon, under the word, 2)).
Thayer’s Greek Lexicon
Interestingly, then, there are two foci here: A public designation or a response from God.
The use of the word ‚called‘ χρηματίσαι (chrēmatisai).
Having looked at the meaning of the word in other literature as well, it is important to look at its use in the Bible itself.
The word used in Acts 11:26, is used 9 times in the Bible. Here is the overview. The translation of χρηματίσαι (chrēmatisai) is given in bold in each case. After that in brackets [] the rendering in the Polyglot Interlinear edition.
„And having been warned [having been divinely warned] in a dream not to go back to Herod, they returned to their country by another route.“ (Matthew 2:12 NIV)
„Having been warned [having been divinely warned] in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee“ (Matthew 2:22 NIV)
„It had been revealed [divinely revealed] to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not die before he had seen the Lord’s Messiah.“ (Luke 2:26 NIV)
„The men replied, “We have come from Cornelius the centurion. He is a righteous and God-fearing man, who is respected by all the Jewish people. A holy angel told him [was divinely instructed] to ask you to come to his house so that he could hear what you have to say.” (Acts 10:22 NIV)
„ So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called [were called] Christians first at Antioch.“ (Acts 11:26 NIV)
„So then, if she has sexual relations with another man while her husband is still alive, sheis called [she will be called] an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress if she marries another man.“ (Romans 7:3 NIV)
„They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned [was divinely instructed] when he was about to build the tabernacle: “See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.” (Hebrews 8:5 NIV
„By faith Noah, when warned [having been divinely instructed] about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family. By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that is in keeping with faith.“ (Hebrews 11:7 NIV)
„See to it that you do not refuse him who speaks. If they did not escape when they refused him who warned [divinely instructing [them]] them on earth, how much less will we, if we turn away from him who warns us from heaven?“ (Hebrews 12:25 NIV)
Of the 8 other uses of the word, Romans 7:3 does not speak of divine providence; in the other 7, divine intervention is found, but always in the direct context. However, this is not the case in Acts 11:26. In addition, it was always about a divine instruction, not a naming. But this translation ’named‘ is used in Romans 7:3, where no divine influence is evident.
Dr. Michael Heiser pointed out in a podcast that in Greek in the sentence „In Antioch the disciples were called Christians for the first time“ there is a grammatical peculiarity which makes the translation difficult. Therefore, most translate with the passive voice. Greek experts discuss this, and it could possibly also be translated as, „In Antioch the disciples called themselves Christians for the first time.“ What does this show us?
The translation of the two thousand years old languages the Bible is difficult and sometimes there are uncertainties.
The disciples of Jesus, who until then were considered a branch of the Jewish religion, became so numerous that they were distinguished from the other Jews.
Since we cannot determine the exact meaning with certainty, we turn to the term ‚Christians‘ itself. If God had indeed caused this designation, the name itself would have to have a special meaning.
The meaning of the word ‚Christians‘ Χριστιανούς (Christianous)
Let’s start with the explanation in Strong’s lexicon of Χριστιανούς:
Christian. From Christos; a Christian, i.e. Follower of Christ — Christian.
Strong’s Greek 5546
And still Thayer’s lexicon:
Χριστιανός (cf. Lightfoot on Philip., p. 16 note), Χριστιανου, ὁ (Χριστός), a Christian, a follower of Christ: Acts 11:26; Acts 26:28; 1 Peter 4:16. The name was first given to the worshippers of Jesus by the Gentiles, but from the second century (Justin Martyr (e. g. Apology 1, 4, p. 55 a.; dialog contra Trypho, § 35; cf. ‚Teaching etc. 12, 4 [ET])) onward accepted by them as a title of honor. CL Lipsius, Ueber Ursprung u. ältesten Gebrauch des Christennamens. 4to, pp. 20, Jen. 1873. (CL Sophocles‘ Lexicon, under the word, 2; Farrar in Alex.’s Kitto, under the word; on the ‚Titles of Believers in the N. T.‘ see Westcott, Epistles of St. John, p. 125f; cf. Dict. of Chris. Antiqq., under the word ‚Faithful‘.)
Thayer’s Greek Lexicon
So, according to the lexicons, the meaning of the designation in Acts 11:26 is a ‚follower of Christ‘. And this designation was given to them by the Gentiles.
Can that really be so? That would be something like ‚Nazarenes‘!
So once again exegesis – or according to Luther sola scriptura …
The use of the word ‚Christians‘ Χριστιανούς (Christianous)
So the meaning of the word for ‚Christians‘ doesn’t necessarily sound like a special divine prediction. But if it is a term used by God for Jesus‘ followers, then we should find it frequently in the Bible, right? How often does ‚Christians‘ Χριστιανούς (Christianous) occur in the Christian writings of the Bible? Don’t read on right away. What would you say? Well, here is the result:
The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch. Then Agrippa said to Paul, “Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?“ [Or „You will soon persuade me to play the Christian.” New American Bible] However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name.
(Acts 11:26; Acts 26:28; 1 Pe 4:16 NIV)
These are actually all the passages! Including Acts 11:26, there are only 3 passages in the entire Bible! Do any of the apostles or other authors of the epistles use it to refer to other disciples of Jesus? No. Quite the opposite. In Acts 26:28 Agrippa uses this designation rather derisively. And how is it used in the 1st Epistle of Peter?
If you are insulted because of the name of Christ, you are blessed, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you. If you suffer, it should not be as a murderer or thief or any other kind of criminal, or even as a meddler. However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name. For it is time for judgment to begin with God’s household; and if it begins with us, what will the outcome be for those who do not obey the gospel of God?
(1 Pe 4:15-17 NIV)
In the context of the term ‚Christian‘, therefore, judgment is spoken of here. And the suffering as a criminal is contrasted with the suffering as a Christian, or in vers 14 in the name of Christ. In both Acts 26:28 and 1 Pe 4:16, ‚Christian‘ is an official designation of Gentiles, perhaps even a designation of a group to be judged.
And just to make it perfectly clear once again:
How many times did Jesus address his followers as ‚Christians‘? 0 times. How often did Paul address others as ‚Christians‘ in his letters? 0 times. How often did Peter and others address their spiritual brothers and sisters as ‚Christians‘ in their letters? 0 times. How often is the term used at all in Christian scriptures? 3 times.
Only many decades after Jesus‘ death the followers of Jesus adopted this name – according to the report of the early ‚church fathers‘. In the English Wikipedia one finds still further explanations about it:
Kenneth Samuel Wuest holds that all three original New Testament verses‘ usages reflect a derisive element in the term Christian to refer to followers of Christ who did not acknowledge the emperor of Rome. The city of Antioch, where someone gave them the name Christians, had a reputation for coming up with such nicknames. However Peter’s apparent endorsement of the term led to its being preferred over „Nazarenes“ and the term Christianoi from 1 Peter becomes the standard term in the Early Church Fathers from Ignatius and Polycarp onwards.
The earliest occurrences of the term in non-Christian literature include Josephus, referring to „the tribe of Christians, so named from him;“ Pliny the Younger in correspondence with Trajan; and Tacitus, writing near the end of the 1st century. In the Annals he relates that „by vulgar appellation [they were] commonly called Christians“ and identifies Christians as Nero’s scapegoats for the Great Fire of Rome.
According to Acts 11:26, the name „Christians“ (literally „Christianer“) appears in Antioch on the Orontes, where Paul worked for a year on his first missionary journey. The use of this name shows that the followers of Jesus here were no longer considered part of the Jewish community, but a new grouping that included Gentiles.
In the New Testament, the term occurs only three times. In Acts 26:28 it is used by King Agrippa. This indicates that it was not originally a self-designation of the Jesus people, but only became so in the course of time. However, this seems to have happened relatively quickly. In any case, 1 Peter 4:16 says that being called a „Christian“ was enough to be ostracized and persecuted.
„Marginalized and persecuted“ … so this is what the term ‚Christian‘ was used for ….
Is the meaning of ‚Christians‘ Χριστιανούς (Christianous) anointed?
Some may think that ‚Christians‘ would be a perfectly appropriate term, since it would mean ‚anointed ones‘.
Jehovah’s Witnesses in particular often use the term ‚anointed Christians‘ to distinguish a small group from the ‚other sheep‘ – that is, the vast majority of other Witnesses. In fact, their president, J.F. Rutherford, introduced this distinction in the 1930s to create a class of ministers. (See Eric Wilson’s video: Identifying True Worship, Part 8: Jehovah’s Witnesses‘ Teaching on the ‚Other Sheep‘) The Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses, which has complete authority over doctrinal matters and which everyone must follow unconditionally, is therefore naturally composed only of men who consider themselves ‚anointed Christians‘.
But what exactly does this expression mean in Greek?
The Greek word Χριστιανός (Christianos), meaning „follower of Christ“, comes from Χριστός (Christos), meaning „anointed one“ with an adjectival ending borrowed from Latin to denote adhering to, or even belonging to, as in slave ownership. In the Greek Septuagint, christos was used to translate the Hebrew מָשִׁיחַ (Mašíaḥ, messiah), meaning „[one who is] anointed“. In other European languages, equivalent words to Christian are likewise derived from the Greek, such as Chrétien in French and Cristiano in Spanish.
S. 147 p. 147, „All these Greek terms, formed with the Latin suffix -ianus, exactly as the Latin words of the same derivation, express the idea that the men or things referred to, belong to the person to whose name the suffix is added.“ S. 145, „In Latin this suffix produced proper names of the type Marcianusand, on the other hand, derivatives from the name of a person, which referred to his belongings, like fundus Narcissianus, or, by extension, to his adherents, Ciceroniani.“
Bickerman, Elias J. (April 1949). „The Name of Christians“. The Harvard Theological Review. 42 (2): 109–124
But are not the disciples of Christ called anointed ones? No. There are only these two texts:
For no matter how many promises God has made, they are “Yes” in Christ. And so through him the “Amen” is spoken by us to the glory of God. Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He anointed us, set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.
(2 Cor 1:20-22 NIV)
The verb translated as ‚anointed us‘ occurs only 5 times in the Bible, according to Strong’s, and is applied to Jesus 4 of those times.
As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him.
(1 John 2:27 NIV)
This text also does not speak of ‚anointed ones‘ but that they would be anointed.
How often is the term ‚anointed‘ (plural) used in the Christian scriptures for the followers of Jesus? The answer is: not at all! I only noticed this when I looked for it in translations. This should also give us food for thought.
Here is another quote from the 2001Translation:
Early Christians never called themselves ‘the Anointed’
The Jewish-Era scriptures used the words for anointed many times when referring to prophets, kings, and priests. However, in the Christian scriptures, the same term is used almost exclusively in reference to Jesus. There are no Bible references to Christians ever calling themselves the Anointed. Rather, it seems like the term is reserved for Jesus alone.
There are only two verses that refer to Christians as being ‘anointed’: 2 Corinthians 1:21-22 and 1 John 2:27. These only mention that the early Christians were anointed in passing. It is probably because they are to rule as ‘kings and priests’ (Revelation 1:6). There was indeed evidence that they were anointed. This first happened in Acts 2:1-3 when ‘tongues of fire’ appeared over them. From then on, many of the early Christians could perform miracles or had other special abilities. So they truly were anointed – having a physical sign from God that they were chosen.
Yet despite all of this, they did not use the term ‘anointed’ as a special title for themselves in some attempt to claim a more special relationship with God. Simple humility no doubt led them to leave the term anointed only for their Lord Jesus.
For false messiahs [ψευδόχριστοι (pseudochristoi)false anointed ones] and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.
(Mat 24:24 NIV)
As an aside, even in the New World translation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, ‚anointed‘ or ‚anointed Christians‘ never appears in the biblical text, but ‚anointed Christians‘ appears almost twenty times in the study notes. I never noticed this over the decades. Not until now, when I took a closer look at this topic.
It makes a difference whether you are something, call yourself that, or let others call you that. Jesus warned his followers:
“But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers.
(Matthäus 23:8 NIV)
Since the Bible never uses the term ‚anointed‘ for the disciples, one could formulate:
You, however, should never let yourselves be called anointed ones, for only one is The Anointed One, and you are all brothers.
Loosely based on Matthew 23:8
Is this an exaggeration? Well, the ‚anointed ones‘ of the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses have recently said in an official video that ‚their [the ‚anointed ones‘] voice is like that of Jesus Christ [The Anointed One]‘ and they must be obeyed in the same way (video). But according to Jesus‘ words, His disciples should all see themselves as brothers and sisters.
Other terms in the first century
Jesus repeatedly spoke of His disciples ‚all being brothers‘ (Matthew 23:8). Therefore, it is fitting to use the terms brother and sister. Or as it was still done in former times: The brethren …
In the Gospels they are often called ‚disciples‘ μαθηταὶ (mathētai) (Matthew 12:1,2 …). Strong’s Greek 3101 states, „A learner, disciple, pupil. From manthano; a learner, i.e. Pupil.“ This reminds us that it is not a matter of ‚having found the truth‘ as Jehovah’s Witnesses use it. But that we are always on the search for truth.
In fact, however, there was a name for the group of disciples before the Gentiles called them ‚Christians‘:
Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the disciples of the Lord. He approached the high priest and requested letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any men or women belonging to the Way, he could bring them as prisoners to Jerusalem.
(Acts 9:1,2 BSB)
‚Followers of the Way‘. A fitting term, when Jesus said about himself:
Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
(John 14:6 BSB)
And possibly it also has a reference to this prophecy:
And there will be a highway called the Way of Holiness. The unclean will not travel it— only those who walk in the Way— and fools will not stray onto it.
(Isaiah 35:8 BSB)
Sometimes the report emphasizes another idea:
But Ananias answered, “Lord, many people have told me about this man and all the harm he has done to Your saints in Jerusalem.. … As Peter traveled throughout the area, he went to visit the saints in Lydda
(Apg 9:13, 32 BSB)
The word translated ’saint‘ is ἁγίους (hagious) meaning „set apart by (or for) God, holy. Of hagos; holy.“ (Strong’s Greek 40). This term is used many dozens of times. And it is for the whole congregation, not just a few special individuals who were ‚canonized‘. But that is also another subject.
Well, should we (let ourselves) be called Christians now or not? At least we know more now:
Jesus repeatedly said about them that they are all brothers and sisters.
They were first called ‚disciples‘ μαθηταὶ (mathētai).
These people were also called ‚the way‘.
And as saints.
‚Christians‘ they were called only much later probably by others. The use by pagans in is documented in the Bible and other writings. In the Christian writings it occurs only 3 times, but never as a form of address to other believers. It is only attested in the 2nd century by the writings of the Church Fathers.
But that was almost 2000 years ago and therefore the meaning of the term is perhaps more important.
The term ‚Christians‘ Χριστιανούς (Christianous) from Acts 11:26 means ‚followers of Christ‘ and not ‚anointed ones‘.
In the Christian scriptures, believing Christians are never referred to as ‚anointed ones‘. Only Jesus is called the Messiah, the Christos, that is, the Anointed One.
The term ‚anointed Christ‘ used by Jehovah’s Witnesses does not stand for ‚anointed ones,‘ but contains a designation that first-century believers never gave themselves out of humility toward The Anointed One.
So, now you can decide for yourself to the best of your knowledge.
Hinweis zur Verwendung von Cookies
Wir verwenden Cookies auf unserer Website, um dir die bestmögliche Erfahrung zu bieten, indem wir uns deine Vorlieben und wiederholten Besuche merken. Wenn du auf "Alle akzeptieren" klickst, erklärst du dich mit der Verwendung ALLER Cookies einverstanden. Du kannst aber auch die "Cookie-Einstellungen" besuchen, um eine kontrollierte Zustimmung zu geben.
Diese Website verwendet Cookies, um deine Erfahrung zu verbessern, während du durch die Website navigierst. Davon werden die Cookies, die als notwendig eingestuft werden, in deinem Browser gespeichert, da sie für die grundlegenden Funktionen der Website unerlässlich sind. Wir verwenden auch Cookies von Drittanbietern, die uns helfen zu analysieren und zu verstehen, wie du diese Website nutzt. Diese Cookies werden nur mit deiner Zustimmung in deinem Browser gespeichert. Du hast auch die Möglichkeit, diese Cookies abzulehnen. Die Ablehnung einiger dieser Cookies kann jedoch dein Surferlebnis beeinträchtigen.
Notwendige Cookies sind absolut notwendig, damit die Website ordnungsgemäß funktioniert. Diese Cookies gewährleisten grundlegende Funktionen und Sicherheitsmerkmale der Website, und zwar anonym.
Cookie
Dauer
Beschreibung
cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics
11 months
Dieses Cookie wird vom GDPR Cookie Consent Plugin gesetzt. Das Cookie wird verwendet, um die Zustimmung der Nutzer für die Cookies in der Kategorie "Analytics" zu speichern.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional
11 months
Das Cookie wird durch die GDPR-Cookie-Zustimmung gesetzt, um die Zustimmung der Nutzer für die Cookies in der Kategorie "Funktional" aufzuzeichnen.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary
11 months
Dieses Cookie wird vom GDPR Cookie Consent Plugin gesetzt. Das Cookie wird verwendet, um die Zustimmung des Nutzers für die Cookies der Kategorie "Notwendig" zu speichern.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-others
11 months
Dieses Cookie wird vom GDPR Cookie Consent Plugin gesetzt. Das Cookie wird verwendet, um die Zustimmung des Nutzers für die Cookies in der Kategorie "Andere" zu speichern.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance
11 months
Dieses Cookie wird vom GDPR Cookie Consent Plugin gesetzt. Das Cookie wird verwendet, um die Zustimmung der Nutzer für die Cookies in der Kategorie "Leistung" zu speichern.
viewed_cookie_policy
11 months
Das Cookie wird vom GDPR Cookie Consent Plugin gesetzt und wird verwendet, um zu speichern, ob der/die Nutzer/in der Verwendung von Cookies zugestimmt hat oder nicht. Es speichert keine persönlichen Daten.
Funktionale Cookies helfen dabei, bestimmte Funktionen auszuführen, wie z. B. das Teilen von Inhalten der Website auf Social-Media-Plattformen, das Sammeln von Feedbacks und andere Funktionen von Drittanbietern.
Performance-Cookies werden verwendet, um die wichtigsten Leistungsindizes der Website zu verstehen und zu analysieren, was dazu beiträgt, den Besucherinnen und Besuchern ein besseres Nutzererlebnis zu bieten.
Analytische Cookies werden verwendet, um zu verstehen, wie Besucher mit der Website interagieren. Diese Cookies helfen dabei, Informationen über die Anzahl der Besucher, die Absprungrate, die Herkunft der Besucher usw. zu ermitteln.
Werbe-Cookies werden verwendet, um Besuchern relevante Werbung und Marketingkampagnen zu zeigen. Diese Cookies verfolgen die Besucher/innen auf verschiedenen Websites und sammeln Informationen, um maßgeschneiderte Werbung anzubieten.
Du muss angemeldet sein, um einen Kommentar zu veröffentlichen.