Objective in this lesson (and series): Most of us do not realize that we associate a special definition and concept to the word "church." When we say the words "the church," we assume two things: (1) We are using the word as it was used in the New Testament and (2) Everyone has the same definition of "the church" we have. Both assumptions are incorrect. This lesson begins the understanding that the way the word "church" was used in the first century and the way we use it today are different.
Among religious people who consider themselves Christians, there unquestionably exists a "we understand the concept of the church" mentality. Even many not regarding themselves to be Christians are confident they understand the concept of the church. In the American Bible belt (the south and parts of the southwest), it would be difficult to find one person [man or woman] whose background is in the Bible belt who has no concept of the church. Most people who develop in America's Bible belt [follow a life cycle that goes from childhood experiences to adult roots] are confident they have a sound, correct, genuine concept of the church. That does not mean all those people like the church or want to be a part of it. It means they are convinced they understand what the church is [and is not].
In different regions of our nation, the words "the church" have different meanings and are understood differently. The way people in our Bible belt commonly understand the concept of "the church" stands in contrast to the way people in other regions understand "the church." In the Bible belt, the words "the church" represent a positive concept to most people. In other regions those words may represent a negative concept or no concept at all. In fact, in many other areas, leadership, motivations, and directions within "the church" frequently come from those whose spiritual development is rooted in Bible belt experiences.
To suggest seriously to Christians that we need to let the Bible teach us its concept of the church borders on being a ridiculous suggestion. If any group regards themselves to be experts in understanding that concept, we surely do! When it comes to the concept of the church, we are certain we should be the teachers, not the students! At the risk of being scorned, this series challenges Christians to let the Bible, not heritage, form, shape, and declare God's concept of the church. Let's allow God to shape our concept of what He built upon the foundation of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthian 3:11). Let's allow God to fashion our concept of what Jesus purchased with his own blood (Acts 20:28). Let's not assume. Let's not allow "what we always heard" or "what we were always taught" to form our understandings about the church. Let's study scripture with open minds and hearts as we allow God's word and God's Spirit to lead us. Let's seek an understanding of the concepts concerning the church in the awareness that the more accurately we grasp God's purposes the more certainly we move closer to God's purposes in His will.
The single greatest obstacle preventing Christians learning from scripture about "the church" is found in our attitudes. Christians often resist biblical information about "the church" for one of two reasons. (1) We are confident that we know everything about the correct concept of the church; or, (2) we fear the encouragement to consider biblical information that is new to us. This series does not suggest that our concepts do not come from texts found in scripture. This series challenges us to allow our concepts to include all the information in the Bible. It is an encouragement to be in a learning mode rather than exclusively a defending mode.
May we begin with the realization that things were very different in first century churches. Early Jewish Christians assembled in both synagogues and homes (consider Acts 18:5-11). Early non-Jewish Christians (gentiles) commonly met in the home of one of the Christians (consider Philemon 1:2). The church owned no building or property. The church was not identified by associating it with a religious structure at a street address.
Our first inadequate assumption: "the church" of today already has reproduced in emphasis and practice the emphasis and forms of "the church" in the first century.
"The church" had no name. Those we today would call Christians might at that time be called "the Way" (Acts 9:2, 19:23), disciples (Acts 6:1-7), or saints (Acts 9:13, 32). Collectively they might be referred to as "the church of God" [the church that belongs to God, a term of possession--not a name] (1 Corinthians 1:2 ); "the church of the firstborn" [the church that belongs to the resurrected one, a term of possession--not a name] (Hebrews 12:23); "the churches of Christ" [the churches that belong to Christ, a term of possession--not a name] (Romans 16:16); "the churches of the saints" [the churches that belong to the holy ones, a term of possession--not a name] (1 Corinthians 14:33); the church that is in a city [such as the church of the Thessalonians in God--1 Thessalonians 1:1]; the churches in a Roman province [the churches of Galatia (1 Corinthians 16:1) or Asia (1 Corinthians 16:19]; or frequently simply "the church" or "the churches" (Acts 8:3, etc; Acts 15:41, etc.).
While in the past 60 to 100 years we placed continued emphasis on the name of the church, there is no emphasis on a name in the New Testament. The closest the New Testament comes to "naming" the movement is "the Way." That likely was a designation that identified believers in Jesus Christ from other movements in Judaism. "Naming" is a modern concern and issue, not a first century concern or issue. There were many religions then. The situation was not this: no religious competition. There were many concepts of God (see Acts 17:22-34) and many concepts on how to approach God or the gods. The designations of "the church" in the New Testament are terms of possession, not names.
In the New Testament, the word "Christian" occurs infrequently. It was not the most common word used to denote people who placed their lives in Jesus Christ. It's usage began rather late after Jesus' resurrection. In fact, the first people referred to as Christians were not Jewish Christians (see Acts 11:26). It was a term first used in Antioch, primarily in reference to gentile Christians, not in Jerusalem [where primarily Jewish Christians existed and traced their roots to the church's beginning].
It is of interest to note the designations we most commonly use today (Christian, Christians, church of Christ) were used infrequently in scripture. In the first century Christians were more likely to be referred to as "saints" than "Christians." An individual was more likely to be called a "disciple" or a "believer" than a "Christian." Today we likely would be perplexed if people called us "saints" and perhaps uncomfortable if they called us "disciples." Our words of choice are "Christian" or "Christians."
In the first century world, the basic distinction was simple. There were those people who allowed God to place them in Jesus because they believed that the living God raised Jesus from the dead. There were those people who believed in many gods and fate. There were those people who rejected the existence of any form of deity. And there were those who rejected Jesus and did not believe that God raised him from the dead (see Acts 17:32-34).
In the first century, religious systems were as distinct (and complex) as they are today. Likely a distinct, first century dividing line existed: those who believed Jesus was the resurrected Lord and those who did not believe he was the resurrected Lord.
However, do not oversimplify the situation in that age as far as the church is concerned. There were early, troubling distinctions made in Jerusalem among Jewish Christians that threatened to produce a major division in the church (see Acts 6:1-4). Jews born and reared in Palestine and Jews born and reared outside of Palestine had identifiable differences. Those distinctions became fellowship issues in the Jerusalem Christian community with specific physical expressions. Nor were those distinctions confined to issues among Jewish Christians. While the church in Jerusalem was primarily Jewish (see Acts 21:20,21), there were also congregations composed of people who were not Jews (Romans 16:4). The distinctions and differences among Christians converted from a background in Judaism as compared to those converted from a background in idolatry were enormous.
Many inadequacies in our concepts of "the church" are based on our tendency to oversimplify the first century situation. Distinctions between Jewish Christians who were Hellenistic Jews and Jewish Christians who were Palestinian Jews were real and specific. Distinctions between Jewish Christians converted from devout adherence to Judaism and Christians converted from devout adherence to idolatry were profound and troubling. It is an oversimplification to assume we could visit any first century congregation and see the same forms and procedures in a worship gathering. Romans 14 provides insights into that reality.
Enormous problems existed in the first century church because converts from Judaism were distinctly different from converts from idol worshippers. They ate different foods (compare the Jewish dietary restrictions in Leviticus 11 with Paul's declaration in 1 Timothy 4:1-5), they had different religious practices and traditions, they even followed different calendars. These Christians had so many problems relating to each other that they were certain that "God cannot accept you unless you are like me." Paul urged them to help the weak without judging each other or holding each other in contempt. He declared that even with all their differences, God made each group stand (see Romans 14).
Our concepts of "the church" must not exclude the problems of Acts 6:1-6 [between Jewish Christians who were Hellenistic and Jewish Christians who were Palestinian (or Hebrews)], Acts 15 [between Jewish Christians and Christians who were not Jewish], and the Judiazers in Galatians [Jewish Christians who told new congregations of people who were not Jewish that Paul failed to teach them the full truth]. The fellowship exclusion problems in the first century church were real, specific, and quite troublesome (consider Galatians 2:11-14).
These realities do not consider the enormous social differences often existing in non-Jewish congregations. A person who sold goods only the wealthy bought and a Roman jailer in the same church (Acts 16:14-40)? A "dirt poor" person and the owner of an expensive home in the same church (James 2:1-4)? A slave and his or her owner in the same church--meeting in the owner's home (Philemon)? A Jewish convert who refused to eat anything sacrificed to an idol and a pagan convert who ate anything in the same church (Galatians 2:11-14)? All those situations existed in the first century!
Commonly problems were created by differences in prechristian religious backgrounds and in continuing social differences. Faith in Jesus' death and resurrection did not automatically erase those differences.
When the church assembled in the first century, some spoke in tongues, some interpreted those tongues, some prophesied, some introduced a new song, some received a revelation, and some performed miracles. To them, those experiences were typical events. It is doubtful first century Christians imagined a future time when those events would not be typical in the church. The world of the church in the first century was not a simple world!
Most of us would feel uncomfortable, self-conscious, and out of place in a first century worship assembly. Most of us would spend more time reacting (either internally or by external protest) than we would spend praising God for His gift of Jesus.
Many of today's Christians who are convinced that they accurately and thoroughly understand the concept of the church in the New Testament often fail to realize that even then it was a concept many Christians misunderstand. Much of the material in the New Testament epistles directed first century Christians to a better understanding of who and what they were.
Realize that most of the material written in the New Testament's epistles was written to Christians to address/correct their misconceptions and misimpressions about morality, ethics, and relationships. To be a Christian was to live a life that was in distinct contrast to the lives of most religious and nonreligious people.
Thought and discussion question: why is it easy for a Christian to assume that he or she does not need to examine his or her concept of the church?
The answers will be based on the perspectives of those who share answers. At some point in the discussion, call attention to a core reason for it being simple to adopt misunderstandings. In our frequent conviction that it is "easy" to understand "the church," too many conclude "we know all that is essential or important about the church."
Link to Student Guide
Lesson 1