The Begiwting Of The Chutch

The GospelDefenderMinistries
QuestionsandAnswers
The Begiwting
I was recently in a Bible study where the
question came up concerning when the
church was started. Some said it was
when Jesusdied. Another person said it
was when He was resurrected from the
dead. An elder said he believed it was
on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2 when
the Apostles were baptized with the
Holy Spirit. Can you help me with this?
Raymond
Brother Raymond:
Thank you for giving me this
opportunity to address your question in
this way. It is not only a very interesting
question but also a very imPortant
question that you have asked. I have no
doubt that others will benefit from your
asking it. Also, may I commend your
Bible study for studying this important
subject? Many Bible studies today are
far from being Bible studies. They are
time-wasting
than
more
little
toward
little
do
"discussions" that
strengtheningthe local body.
As statedby you, your Bible study group
offered three different answers to the
same question. Obviously, all three
And although I
cannot be correct.
understand what led each answer to be
offered, I do not believe that any of them
is the correct answer to this good
question you have asked.
In responding to yolr request I will first
comment upon each of the three
suggestedanswers and then I will give
org
www.gospel-defender.
The Chutch
you what I believe to be the correct
answer to the question that is before us.
Rick:
GospelDefenderMinistries
PostOffrceBox 575
Chillicothe,Ohio 45601{575
Of
Your Bible Study's ProposedAnswer
#1: "When JesusDied"
I am supposing that what was meant by
the person who offered this answer is
that the church's "beginning" was at that
point in time when Jesusshed His blood
on the cross of Calvary. It is true and
without any possible, credible refutation
that it was "u,ith His own blood" that
"fle purchased" "lhe church d'God."
(Acrs 20:28) This truth also is stated
implicitly both in I Corinthians 6:20 and
7:23 where we are told that we, the
church, were "bought" wrththe blood of
Christ. But please take note of this
important point regarding your question.
These three Scriptures tell us the cost or
the price paid for our inclusion in the
church; but, they do not answer the
question before us, viz., at what point in
time did the church have her
"beginning?"
To illustrate my point, consider the
following example. Suppose that you
want to be a member of some civic
oa"
organization. You learn that it costs
number of dollars to become a member
of that organization but the cost is more
than you can afford. Knowing that you
want to be a member of that civic group,
I pay the price for your membership into
it. Though the cost of membership was
paid by me for yow membership in that
organization, my payment does not
reveal to either of us at what point in
time that organization was started.
The GospelDefenderMinistries
QuestionsandAnswers
As a further example of this point
concerning making a distinction between
the cost of our inclusion in the church
and the precise moment when the church
was "begun" also consider the following
illustration. (This illustration may be a
poor one and then again, maybe it is not,
but I think you will see my point.)
Consider the purchase of a house. It is
possible for you to buy a house before it
is in fact erected and ready for
occupancy. (Actually, it is possible for
you to buy a house even before its
construction begins.) Similarly, Jesus
said in Matthev, 16.l8 that He would (at
some point in the future) "build fHis]
c'hurch." At the time He made this
statement(before His going to Calvary),
the church was not built. In fact, there
are several Scriptures in both the Old
Testament and in the four accounts of
the gospel record that prophesy the
establishment of the church before she
was, in fact, actually built. A series of
events transpired before the church
"began," the shedding of His blood at
Calvary being one of those events.
here. But there is one very important
additional observation that I would want
to make. The purpose of the resurrection
of Christ was not to "start" the church;
according to Romans I .1 the purpose of
the resurrection of Christ was to
"[declare Him] lo be the Son qf Gocl,"
i.e., His resurrection proved or
demonstrated that Jesus was truly who
He had claimed to be during His earthly
His
ministry
before
crucifixion.
Certainly I am in no way minimizing the
importance of the resurrection of Christ.
I am simply stating that it was not upon
the event or at the time of His
resurrection that the church had her
"beginning."
Thus, "when Jesusdied" on the cross of
Calvary where He shed His blood is not
the point in time when the church
actually came into existence.
Perhaps one might offer Acls 1.'J as
"proof' of the church's existence after
the resurrection of Christ but before the
events of Acts 2. Luke, the historian
who wrote the book of Acl,s, states that
"/brry duys"
following
His
for
"o/
the things
resurrection Christ spoke
pertaining b the kingdomd God. " This
statement of fact proves nothing as far as
when the Lord's church "began" for
before His resurrection our Lord also
spoke "d the things pertuining to the
kingdom d God." One merely needs to
make a perusal of the gospels, and the
parables in particular, to see that this is
true. (Look at the parables in Matthev,
13 that begin with the words, "The
")
kingdomof hcuvenis like
Your Bible Study's ProposedAnswer
#2: "When He Was ResurrectedFrom
The Dead"
Again, even though I understand the
reason why the person answered the
question that we are considering in this
w&y, I believe this answer too is
incorrect.
All that I have written in responseto the
first proposed answer also is applicable
GospelDefenderMinistries
PostOffrceBox 575
Chillicothe,Ohio 45601-0575
www.gospel-defender.
org
I realize that one could counter argue
that the purpose of the resurrection does
preclude
not
the
simultaneous
"beginning" of the church. With this, I
would agree. However, in light of what
I believe to be the truth regarding the
"beginning,"
I
remain
church's
was
not
at
the
time
of
convinced that it
His resurrectionthat this took place.
The GospelDefenderMinistries
Questionsand Answers
Thus, neither is o'when He was
resurrected from the dead" the point in
time when the church actually came into
existence.
Your Bible Study's ProposedAnswer
#3: On The Day Of PentecostIn Acts 2
When The Apostles Were Baptized With
The Holy Spirit"
Of the three answers offered by your
Bible study gloup this answer is
probably the most commonly believed
and taught. And, at first glance, it may
appear to be the most plausible of any
possible answer that could be given.
Perhaps this is because it is in this
chapter,Acts 2, that the word "church"
is used for the first time in the senseof
her being in actual existence (Acts 2 17)
for as I have stated already, txfiil Act,s2
the church always is spoken of as being
something in prospect, i.e., in the future.
It is not until after Ac't,s2 that the church
is spoken of as being in actual existence.
Therefore, in view of all of this, one
might issume that it was in this chapter
that she had her "beginning."
One
scholar in our Lord's church has written
that it was on this day of Ac'ts 2
Pentecostthat the church was 'ocreated."
I do like the word "created" when
referring to the church's "beginning" but
I believe there is more than one problem
with the idea that it was on the day of
Ac'ts2 that the church had her creation.
If it is true that the church had her
"beginning" on Acts 2 Pentecostthen the
twelve Apostles of JesusChrist were not
members of His church until this day.
This is possible, but does not seemlikely
in my opinion. (And if this is true, they
were not members of His church durins
GospelDefenderMinistries
PostOffice Box 575
Chillicothe,Ohio 4560I -0575
www.gospel-defender.org
the forty day period in which Christ
spoke to them "of the lhings pertaining
to the kingdom o/-God"[Acts l:3J for it
would not be possible for them to be a
member of the church before she
existed.) And, if the apostles were not
members of His church until this day
then they were lost in their sins until this
day for it is not until this day that the
remedy for sins was made known
publicly under inspiration. (Ac't:;2:38)
And, if they were lost in their sins until
this day it must have been on this day
that they were immersed into Christ for
the remission of their sins for this is how
one's sins are forgiven and this is when
one is addedto our Lord's chwch. (Acts
2.38 and :17) It is difficult to believe
that these twelve men were lost men
preaching a message of salvation to
other lost men. (Again, this too is
possiblebut does not seemto be likely.)
The bigger "problem" is this: there is
nothing in Acls 2 that reveals or suggests
that the Apostles were immersed in
water for the remission of their sins on
this day. (And, in fact, there is no record
of any of the Apostles being immersed
in "John's baptism," although, based
upon.lohn l:35 | am inclined to believe
that they were, but, if they were not, that
they were immersed by Christ Himself
which I will address in the next
paragraph.) Our good brother Don
DeWelt taught in his commentary on the
book of lcl.s, pages 28-29, that the
Apostles were the first Christians and the
church was created miraculously (my
description - not his) in them. And, I
agree with that view.
My own, personal "reasoning" for this
"miraculous-creation" view is based
upon the condition in which the human
race was created through Adam and Eve.
Just as the human race was created
The GospelDefenderMinistries
QuestionsandAnswers
initially without sin in Adam and Eve,
the church, in her beginning, was created
initially in the twelve apostleswho, by a
miraculous, sovereign declaration of
God, also were without sin. Unlike all
others who have followed their entrance
into the church, the Apostles' baptism in
water for the forgiveness of their sins
was not necessary. I must emphasize
here that this case of the Apostles not
being immersed in water in the name of
Christ for the remission of their sins is
unique only to them and their peculiar
set of circumstances. Their not being
immersed cannot be used as proof that
no one today must be immersed for
salvation any more than can the old,
worn out, "thief on the cross'oargument.
Although I have tried to refrain from
getting into the issue of "the baptism of
the Apostles" question in answering
your question, I cannot, because it is
germane. I was taught early in my "new
convert days" that Jesus never baptized
anyone during His earthly ministry.
,hthn 1:l-2 was the "proof text" for this
doctrine. "T'here.fbre,u,hen lhe hrd
knev, thul the Phari,;eeshud heurd thut
,Jcsttsntade und buptizetl nutre di,sciples
than.lohn (tfutugh.lcsusI{imself did not
buptiza. but ltis disciples),
The
explanation of this passageI was given
was that "Jesus baptized vicariously
'through' His Apostles." Almost any
commentary that I have read says
basically the samething.
And then we read this in ,lohn 3.22.
" A./ier lhesa things .lesus und llis
disciplcs came inlo the lund d' .luclcu,
und there He remained with them and
baptized." Commentators(and my early
teachers)explained this verse by saying
that this verse does not mean that Jesus
actually baptized anyone because of
GospelDefenderMinistries
PostOffice Box 575
Chillicothe,Ohio 45601-0575
www.gospel-defender.org
what is stated later in John 1:2. But
what if their interpretation of -/ohn 1:2 is
faulty (and I am inclined to believe it
is)? Their faulty interpretation of .Iohn
1:2 would result in a faulty interpretation
or conclusion of what is meant in ,Iohn
3:22. The truth is, this: Someone has
made an arbitrary interpretation in this
matter and it has been repeated by so
many others and for so long that it has
come to be the accepted interpretation.
(This, by the way, is a "danger" that we
must avoid regarding any doctrine we
have been taught.) I must conclude this
discussionthat has side-trackedme from
your question but before I do allow me
also to point out the following relevant
fact. The word translated " bul " in .lohn
1:2 appears 573 times in the New
Testament, 99 of which appear in The
Gospel According To John. According
to reputable Greek lexicographers the
original word may have the meaning of
"except," depending upon the context.
There seems to me to be nothing in the
context of either .lohn 3:22 or .lohn 1:2
that would prohibit the translation of the
original word to be "except." Thus,
John 4:2 would read: " (though .lesus
LIimseff' did nol buplize, except His
disciples) " This is not to say that His
baptism of His disciples would have
been for their remission of sins for that
would not be the result of baptism until
His blood was spilled at Calvary. But
this would explain: (l) that the Apostles
were indeed immersed in water and (2)
that the Apostles received the requisite
they were
baptism upon which
"miraculously" declaredto be the church
as I have already noted.
One commentator who I have grown to
appreciate,respect, and to whom I often
give heed (although he is certainly in
error regarding many matters of
The GospelDefenderMinistries
QuestionsandAnswers
soteriology and ecclesiology as well as a
few other matters) has stated that "This
rite [referring to the baptism in .lohn
3:221, as here performed, may be
regarded as a transition between
Johannine and Christian baptism. In
both, the water points to the need of
spiritual cleansing, brought about by the
blood and Spirit of Christ, the Lamb of
(William Hendriksen, New
God."
Testament Commentary - John, page
146) But then he continues in the next
sentence saying, 'oHowever, by not
baptizing in person but through the
agency of others, Jesus manifests
himself as being greater than John the
Baptist." Mr. Hendriksen may be on to
something here although he reached an
effoneous conclusion. Perhaps - and
note that I do say perhaps - the baptizing
of the Apostles by Christ wursa "unique"
baptism peculiar only to the Apostles
that transcendedJohn's baptism but was
not the baptism that reached the full
efficacy of what is sometimesreferred to
as "Christian baptism." Now, my friend,
I realize that I am doing some
speculating here but I think my
speculation is based on firmer ground
than that which I have been taught and
led to believe in former davs.
Allow me here to make one final
comment concerning the baptism of the
Apostles by Christ. Those who oppose
the idea of Christ baptizing His Apostles
often do so upon the basis of Paul's
statementin I ('orinlhiuns I . l1- 15. " l
lhank Gocl thut I baptizcd none of'you
excepl Crispus and Guius, lest unyone
should sa1t711s1
I hud huptizedin my ov,n
"
name. Some have withheld the hands
of Jesus from immersing His Apostles
thinking that His act of baptizing His
Apostles would have created an air of
superiority among those who thus had
GospelDefenderMinistries
PostOffice Box 575
Chillicothe.
Ohio 456014575
www.gospel-defender.
org
been baptized. Mr. Hendriksen (page
154) statesit in the following way: "No
one must ever be able to boast, '1 was
baptized by the Lord himself in person,
whereas you were baptized by a mere
disciple.' [emphasis his] (Cf. I Cor.
l;17)"
But then he negates his own
argument by saying:
"That Jesus,
nevertheless, approved of baptism and
assumed responsibility for the rite as
administered by his disciples is clear
from the use of the singular of the verb
'to baptize' both here (4:l) and in 3:22.
What they (lns disciples) did, he was in
reality doing (through his agents")
[again, emphasishis]
I have spent no little time in addressing
the issue of the Apostles' baptism in
water precedins the establishment of the
church. But I believe this all has been
necessary to adequately responding to
your question. Further evidence of the
Apostles' unique position at the time of
the establishmentof the church is seenin
the following.
Acl,s 2:11 states that the "about three
lhousunclsouls" who were baptized on
that day "werc udded to them. " Who
are the "them?"
a. Some would be quick to note that the
words, "to thcm," are not in the original
writings. Therefore, as far as they are
concerned, my question is moot.
b. These same people say that the word
"added" simply means that the "about
lhree thousand soul,y" who were
immersed were "added to each other"
(were "added" together?),i.e., "joined
together with each other," forming a
particular goup of people, and in this
case the group being the church. But
isn't their insertion of the words "joined
TheGospelDefenderMinistries
QuestionsandAnswers
together" following the word "added" in
Acls 2:11 an arbitrary insertion, and an
opinionated interpretation at that?
Holding to their view, these interpreters
continue by saying that these people
could not have been added to the church
which did not exist, for there was no
church until this beginnine was made.
c. Then, these same people say that in
Acts 2:17 those who were "added" by
the Lord were added to the "about three
thousund"in Ac'ts2:11.
d. But, they cannot have it both ways:
(l) "Added" in Acts 2:11 meansto be
'Joined together" into a unique group of
people that became the church but (2)
"added" in Acls 2.17 means to be
'Joined to" the almost 3,000 of Acls
2.1 I . There is an inconsistencyhere. it
seemsto me.
e. The principle of addition is the adding
of one number to another number. Thus,
those "aboul lhree lhou,sancl"of Acl.s
2:11 were added to some "other
number." Why not allow this "other
number" to be at least ool2,"the number
of the apostles? (Some have suggested
that even the entire "120" in Act.s I are
to be included in the pronoun "thcm" of
Ac't,s2:11. This is still anotherquestion
with which to deal at another time, i.e.,
whether or not the "120" became
Christians - members of the body of
Christ - in the sirme way in which and at
the same time did the Apostles.
Personally,I do not believe this to be the
case.)
Another fallacy and one that I believe is
the major one of the elder's answer is
this: The purpose of the baptism of the
Holy Spirit on the Apostles was not to
"start" the church. If it were. where is
GospelDefenderMinistries
PostOffficeBox 575
Chillicothe,Ohio 45601-0575
www.gospel-defender.
org
this purpose stated in sacred writ either
implicitly or explicitly? An argument
could be made that the Holy Spirit
baptism the apostles received was to
equip them to do what they subsequently
did, i.e., the working of signs, miracles,
and wonders; another argument could be
made that it wns to give them the
credentials needed to authenticate that
their message was from God and not
themselves; or, as one professor wzls
unique in pointing out, that it was a sign
ofjudgment upon the household of Israel
for their rejection of Jesus being the
Christ. I will leave the reason for the
baptism of the Holy Spirit upon the
Apostles for a later time, but it cannot be
said with any Biblical authority that the
purposeof the baptism of the Holy Spirit
was to "start" the church any more than
the purpose of the baptism of the Holy
Spirit upon the household of Cornelius
was to save them from their sins. It was
that household's obedience to God's
command through Peter to be immersed
in water that did that.
Thus, "on the day of Pentecostin Acts 2
when the Apostles were baptized with
the Holy Spirit" is also not the time
when the church came into existence.
I have spent no little time in refuting the
suggestedanswers given in responseto
the question your Bible study class was
discussing. I believe that much lesser
time and space is necessaryto offer a
more sound and reasonable answer to
your question from the Bible.
First, allow me to ask four questions of
my own. (l) Is it possible for a physical
body to exist without its head? Of
(2)
course the answer is 'ono."
Therefore, would the church (the
spiritual body of Christ) exist before she
TheGospelDefenderMinistries
QuestionsandAnswers
had her head? Of course, the answer is
o'no." (3) Is it possible for a kingdom to
be established without some sort of
monarch, such as a king, reigning over
that kingdom? Again, the answer is
"no." (4) Therefore, would the church
(the earthly kingdom of God) exist
without or before she had her king?
And, again, the answer is "no." Each of
these questions is obviously rhetorical
but I have asked them becauseI believe
the answer to each question is quite
clearly given in the Word of God and
sheds important light upon the correct,
Scriptural answer to your question.
Specifically, the answers to questions 2
and 4 are revealed in the Old Testament
book of DunielIn my book, "The Church," I go into far
more detail than I can here, but on pages
22 - 26 of that work is a full discussion
Duniel
7: I 3- I 1, a prophecy
of
concerning the establishment of the
church.
Forty days following His resurrection,
Christ ascendedinto the heavens. (Acls
l:3.9 - ll) Daniel7:13-ll addresses
both His ascension from earth and His
reception in heaven that followed.
There, in heaven, being brought by an
angelic escort to the "Ancient r2l Days"
(God, the Father) He "was giten
dominion and glory and a kinedom."
The "kingclom" that He was given was a
"kingdom...which shall
rutl
be
destroyed." This "kingdom " which He
was given in Daniel 7 was that same
"kingdom " described in m earlier
prophecy made by Daniel in Daniel
2:11. In this earlier prophecy Daniel
describedthe "kingdom" as "one which
shall not be destroyed." This is the
samething Jesussaid about His kingdom
GospelDefenderMinistries
PostOffice Box 575
Chillicothe,Ohio 4560I -0575
www.gospel-defender.org
in Malthew I6: 18. " ...the gates qf
Hades,shallnot prevail against il."
Because one cannot receive something
that does not exist, I would thus place a
mark on a chronological timeline that
would denote forty days following
Christ's resurrection and ten days before
Acls 2 Pentecostas the point in time that
Christ received His kingdom, the church;
the point in time that Christ was
anointed or crowned as the King of His
kingdom, the churchl ond, thus, the point
in time when the church was created or
established. To put it another way, forty
days after His resurrection, and on the
day of His ascension, the church was
fully constructed or built and came in
existence. This would have been the
same time when the Apostles were
"miraculously"
declared by
the
sovereign monarch, King, of the church
to be the church. It did not matter
whether or not the Apostles understood
or recognized or were aware of this
declaration and this new position in
which they were placed for it to have
happened. The mere declaration of God
madeit so.
When Jesus made His statement in
Mutthew 16.18 that He would "build
fHis] church," the building of her was
not realized in a particular moment of
time but over a process of time - that
time "beginning" in eternity in the mind
of the Godhead and ending or being
completed at the time of Christ's
coronation in heaven. It was at that time
that the Apostles miraculously, by the
act or the declaration of God, becamethe
church and then waited for the " Promise
oJthe Father" (Luke21. 19; Acts l:1)to
come upon them in Jerusalem, the city
from which "repentance ancl remission
Tbe GoopelDeftnder Ministits
QstimsodAnsws
of sins[would] bepreachedin [Christ's]
nameto all nations." (Luke24:47)
My brother,this I believe to be the tn$h
concerning when the church was
established. But, I am preparedto be
instructed in this "way of God more
accurately" and will to the best of my
ability humbly and thankfully accept
your correction.
GospelDef€n&r Minislri€s
PostOffice Box 575
Chillico(he frio 45601{575
www.gospcl{cfuider.org