The main purpose of the gospel records furnishes us with how Jesus overcame temptation and sin to ultimately “save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21).  Besides that, Jesus gives us vignettes of a time afterwards where many people would come to believe and be saved through the words of the Apostles (John 17:20-21).  Yet, even in this it would be the Lord Jesus who would work through his believers (John 10:16).  The principle verse in this regards is Matthew 16:18,

"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

The Lord Jesus reveals that the events in the Acts would be a very personal and intimate expression of his work to build his church.  This word church in the Greek is “ecclesia” meaning, “an assembly of called ones”[1].  This is the first use of the word ecclesia in the New Testament and surprisingly its only other usage in the Gospels is Matthew 18:17.  Based on this scarcity, we would assert that Matthew 18 is Jesus’ core teaching for us concerning how to govern and conduct ourselves in his ecclesia. 

Of course, there are many principles in Jesus’ teachings that apply to ecclesial life but we are grasping to find any direct guidance for ecclesial practice and administration.  The intent of this study is to draw any practical value we can from Matthew 16:18-19 and 18:15-20.  We will see that his teaching is not new but is based on an Old Testament foundation.  These echoes will further elaborate the intent of his instruction.  We will also explore the enigmatic statement that links the two passages together---“Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

The Context of Matthew 18

Matthew 18 is a complete discourse that Jesus gives to his disciples (v. 1).  In the middle of this is the mention of the future ecclesia (v. 17).  Any consideration must take in the overall context of the chapter.  As many commentators draw out, the main thrust of the chapter is the restoration and forgiveness of those offended.

• V. 6 – “whoso shall offend one of these little ones…”
• V. 12 – 14 “the parable of the lost sheep”
• V. 21-22 “Peter’s question about how many times to forgive”
• V. 23-35 “the parable of the unforgiving servant”

The key verse would seem to be verse 11, “For the son of man is come to save that which was lost”.  The implication is that this should be our purpose too. 

That being said, there is also an aspect of “cutting off” those that do offend.  In this context, it would seem that verse 7-9 would apply to the ecclesia,

"Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh! {8} Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. {9} And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire."

Could this also be talk of disfellowship in the body of Christ?  The members and body are the same words used of the ecclesia in 1 Cor. 12; Rom. 12:4-5 and James 3:2, 6.  “Cut off” is the phrase used for excommunication under the law (e.g. Lev. 20:17, 18).  Cutting off members from the ecclesia is sometimes a necessary, if unsavory, task but, as this chapter indicates, the purpose behind it is twofold.  It is for drawing repentance from the offender and secondly for the safety of the little ones---the ecclesia.

Matthew 18:15

It is in this context that Jesus says,

"Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother."

The only motive for this confrontation is love.  If the intent is to seek after that which is lost then it cannot be done out of spite, anger, revenge or malice.  Jesus’ teaching seems to have a direct connection from Lev. 19:17-18,

"Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. {18} Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD."

One of the greatest of commandments “thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” (Matt. 22:39) is built on the principle of reproving the sins of your brother.  The phrase “not suffer sin upon him” is an obscure Hebrew phrase but most modern translations have something like the NET translation, “You must surely reprove your fellow citizen so that you do not incur sin on account of him.”[2]  The implication is that you sin if you do not call out the sin in the manner Jesus prescribes in Matthew 18.  To ignore it is wrong.

The beautiful principles of our Lord Jesus are the best way to deal with transgressions.  This teaching is in Proverbs 10:12,

"Hatred stirreth up strifes: but love covereth all sins." (Peter quotes this in 1 Pet. 4:8)

There is another like it in Prov. 17:9,

"He that covereth a transgression seeketh love; but he that repeateth a matter separateth very friends."

To cover a transgression does not mean to sweep it under the rug and forget about it for the Proverbs state repeatedly that sins have to be openly confessed to be forgiven.  The true meaning of the proverb is in Matthew 18.  This is how love handles transgressions.  Hate would broadcast your brother’s sins to others that do not need to be involved.  Love covers them over.  It is between you, them and God.  The only parties that really need to know.  Many bad feelings and unnecessary hurts are caused when we do not follow this pattern set out by Christ in Matthew 18.  (See also James 5:20).

Matthew 18:16

In the case of a brother’s transgression being real and he is unrelenting to your reproof, Jesus prescribes the next step,

"But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established."

This is a quote taken directly from Deut. 19:15.  That Jesus would lift the words directly out of the Law of Moses is very interesting.  Of course, we know the Law to be just and good with many principles that would later be adopted by the Apostles in Acts.  Jesus directly draws our attention to the context of this passage, Deut. 19:15-20,

"One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. {16} If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong; {17} Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days; {18} And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; {19} Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you. {20} And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you."

Under Jesus’ new direction, the cause is brought before the ecclesia rather than the priests and judges of the day. 

There are unmistakable parallels of Deut. 19:15-21 to personal cases in Deut. 17:2-7 and community relations in Deut. 13:12-18.  The table below shows the key connections while also showing the New Testament passages that also take up these concepts.  It proves that this aspect of the law was a principle that was well established and acted upon in the early ecclesia.

DEUT. 19:15-21

DEUT. 17:2-13

DEUT. 13:6-18

NEW TESTAMENT

if thou shalt hear in the city gates

v. 2, 4, 8

v. 12

2/3 witness

v. 15

v. 6

N/A

Matt. 18:16; 2 Cor. 13:1; 1 Tim. 5:19; Heb. 10:28

brought before judges

v. 17

v. 8-9

diligent search

v. 18

v. 4

v. 14

hands of witness first

v. 7

v. 9

put away the evil

v. 19

v. 7, 12

v. 5

1 Cor. 5:13

learn to fear

v. 20

v. 13

v. 11

1 Tim. 5:20 (cp. Acts 5:5,11; 19:17)

There are some key lessons to learn from these passage:

• The phrase “if thou shalt hear” shows us that problems are to be dealt with only when brought to your attention.  There is to be no seeking out false teachings based upon suspicions.  The person or city does have a responsibility if it is brought to their attention.  It teaches us that problems in fellowship are to be dealt with actively and not passively.
• Any problem that comes to your attention should only be given serious consideration if given by two or three witnesses.  Individual accusations should be suspect of not following the course of Jesus in Matthew 18.

• Those involved in the matter are to make “diligent inquisition”.  They must resist every natural impulse for a quick and hasty decision based on human biases.  Both sides of the case had to be thoroughly investigated.  This was necessary under the law because the final judgment was often death but the cause is just as serious by the ecclesia for it is a matter of life eternal (see Heb. 10:28-29).
• The final purpose is to “put away evil” from among the ecclesia and also as an example for others so that they may “learn and fear”.  There is a fine balance between being lenient and forgiving on one hand and readiness to make an example of blatant sinners so others in the ecclesia learn to fear.   The “fear” spoken of must be the fear of God (e.g. Lev. 19:14, 32; 25:17) as the judgment was God’s (Deut. 1:17).
• The cities of Israel were autonomous in that they judged within their gates (Deut. 17:2) yet this did not absolve them of dealing with problems in other cities (Deut. 13:12; see also Josh. 22:10-34).  So it is in our day.  Ecclesias have autonomy to deal with their own matters yet they also have to be ready to judge serious problems in other ecclesias if they should hear about it.  Practically, this could only mean, as it did in Israel, that one ecclesia deals with another in the local area and not half way around the world.

Matthew 18:17

In the Old Testament those who had a dispute stood before the priests and judges.  Under Jesus’ new commandment, the case would now go to the ecclesia.  It has the final say in matters of fellowship. 

"And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican."

The treatment for someone who rejected the ecclesial ruling was to treat them as a heathen and a publican.  Jesus did not have kind words for heathens (Matt. 6:7) or publicans (Matt. 5:46) yet when they were willing to listen Jesus was there to teach them (Luke 15:1 – see following parable at v. 4ff; 18:13; 19:2).  There is a tendency to treat a disfellowshipped brother or sister as the Pharisees did to publicans and sinners but Jesus’ methods were wholly different.  As the context of Matthew 18 suggests, we should be seeking for every opportunity to bring the lost sheep back into the fold.

Matthew 18:18

The importance of the ecclesial decision comes in the next enigmatic yet powerful verse,

"Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."[3]

Jesus conferred upon Peter the exact same phrase in Matt. 16:19.  So, in the only two places the word ecclesia is used in the Gospels it is married with this saying.  We can conclude then that this was not Peter’s alone but collectively for the whole ecclesia.

In Matthew 16:19, Peter is given the “keys of the kingdom of heaven”.  The keys represent a certain knowledge or power to open and close.  It is an Old Testament allusion to Isaiah 22:22[4],

"And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open."

This is a similar phraseology to “binding” and “loosing”.  The context of Isaiah is about Eliakim, a servant in Hezekiah’s time, who undoubtedly is a Messianic type.  The keys are meant to symbolize somebody who has authority.  In the Old Testament times this would be the priest, judges and elders of the people.  It was something the authorities of Jesus’ time had neglected and abused (Luke 11:52; Matt. 23:13).  These keys were now given to the apostle Peter and the ecclesia.

But what does the phrase really mean?  How does an ecclesia “bind” and “loose”?  Can we do it in this day and age?

The answers to these questions start in John 20:23,

"Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained."

It is hard to escape the similar cadence of words that Jesus uses here.  This was said to his disciples and not just the apostles.  Does the “binding” and “loosing” have something to do with the forgiveness of sins?  We shall see that it does.

Matthew 18:19

The next verse in Matthew 18:19 must be a further elaboration on verse 18 as Jesus says “Again I say to you” and then uses the words “heaven” and “earth” again.

"Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven."

What is it that we are to be asking for?  When Jesus mentions “anything” does he mean “everything” or does it still have to be in accordance with the will of God (John 15:7, 16; James 4:3; 1 John 3:22)?  A similar phrase is said in Matthew 21:22 and the parallel account in Mark 11:24-26 connects it with the forgiveness of sins.

"Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them. {25} And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses. {26} But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses."

This is very interesting as the passage leads us once again to the forgiveness of sins just as we have all ready seen in John 20:23.  Apparently, Peter understood this as he continues in Matthew 18:21ff to ask how many times we should forgive our brother (cp. v. 35 with Mark 11:25-26).

The apostle John ties the same thoughts together in 1 John 5:14-16,

"And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us: {15} And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him.”

This is exactly the same phrasing that Jesus used in Matt. 18:19 and Mark 11:24.  Is it any wonder then that the next verse in 1 John 5:16 sounds exactly like Matthew 18?

“If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it."

The sin unto death is the lawless unrepentant sin (1 John 3:4).  The sin not unto death are confessed sins (1 John 1:9).  The “anything that we shall ask” (Matt. 18:19) then is anything according to the will of God (1 John 5:14) or what he is willing to do.[5]  The “binding” and “loosing” has to do with forgiveness of sins.  Whatsoever we forgive on earth then God will forgive us and, vice versa, whatsoever we do not forgive then God will not forgive us (Matt. 6:14-15).[6]

Matthew 18:20

This section concludes with Jesus saying,

"For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."

The “two or three” must refer back to the two or three witness of verse 16.  This would suggest that the original witnesses are the responsible ones to either judge against or pray for forgiveness of the brother.  Jesus reiterates that as he would build his church (Matt. 16:18) he promises us through judgment or repentance he will be there.

In the case of the Corinthians Paul seems to have a sense of this.  The word “gathered” is sunago (G4863) which is in 1 Cor. 5:3-5.

"For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed, {4} In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, {5} To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus."

This is the passage that Paul pleads with the Corinthians to put away (v. 13) a brother who had committed an egregious sin in marrying his father’s wife.  Paul is saying he is judging as if he were present as a witness along with the presence or power of the Lord Jesus Christ.  This follows with the promise of Jesus that he would be in the “midst of them”.

Of course, Paul was saying this with all the proper motives.  It was so that the offender might be saved “in the day of the Lord Jesus.”  Paul would have been ever looking for some sign of repentance and restoration.  This comes in 2 Corinthians 2:6-8,

“Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted of many. {7} So that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him, and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow. {8} Wherefore I beseech you that ye would confirm your love toward him.”

It is very appropriate that in the following verses Paul uses the language of forgiveness in an echo to the “binding” and “loosing” of Matthew 18.

“To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ;”

A further connection is established in that he forgave it “in the person (or presence) of Christ”.  Thus he always felt in judgment or forgiveness that Christ was in the midst.

Conclusion

In typical fashion, Jesus has given us much teaching in a precise number of verses.  We’ve seen a very wise and practical approach to problems that when following decreases the need to escalate matters out of hand.  Jesus cements that love is the chief motivator for restoration and healing.  Secondly, there has been established a clear Old Testament connection, which has shown an individual and community based application for Matthew 18.  In the Old Testament, it was the priests and elders but now it is the ecclesia which has the final say in determining fellowship.  Finally, the matter of “binding” and “loosing” has been shown to apply to forgiveness and is wholly applicable for our day and age. 

In our day and age, recommendations are a very effective tool for an employer or admission office to assess the qualities of an applicant.  Modern conveniences like the social networking site LinkedIn make commendations a key part of your profile.  They add validity to a person’s trustworthiness and true capabilities.

The concept is not new.  The Greeks and Romans wrote letters of commendation for many practical matters.  Their style was part of the culture of New Testament times and would become part of the fabric of the early ecclesia.  In fact, as we uncover Biblical examples it may surprise the reader as to the frequent use of letters of commendation, especially by the Apostle Paul.

It is important to recognize their use by the early ecclesia for two reasons.  First, in a personal sense, it affects how we perceive ourselves, our humility, and how we put ourselves forward in service.  Secondly, pertaining to the ecclesia, it demonstrates an attitude and carefulness in inter-ecclesial relationships, which we would be wise to follow.

First Century Practice

The elite leaders and socially important people commonly wrote letters of commendation in Greek and Roman times.  There is a vast amount of examples left behind especially by such Roman luminaries as Cicero (106-43 b.c.e.), Pliny (61-120 c.e.), and Fronto (100-166 c.e.).  These letters show a system of patronage for clients that they would wish to promote prominence places and thus establish their own position of authority.  It was an exchange of power between those already in power and thus established the ruling classes of Roman order.

A good example comes from a letter of Pliny to the Emperor Trajan,

"Your generosity to me, Sir, was the occasion of uniting me to Rosianus Geminus, by the strongest ties; for he was my quaestor[1] when I was consul. His behaviour to me during the continuance of our offices was highly respectful, and he has treated me ever since with so peculiar a regard that, besides the many obligations I owe him upon a public account, I am indebted to him for the strongest pledges of private friendship. I entreat you, then, to comply with my request for the advancement of one whom (if my recommendation has any weight) you will even distinguish with your particular favour; and whatever trust you shall repose in him, he will endeavour to show himself still deserving of an higher. But I am the more sparing in my praises of him, being persuaded his integrity, his probity, and his vigilance are well known to you, not only from those high posts which he has exercised in Rome within your immediate inspection, but from his behaviour when he served under you in the army. One thing, however, my affection for him inclines me to think, I have not yet sufficiently done; and therefore, Sir, I repeat my entreaties that you will give me the pleasure, as early as possible, of rejoicing in the advancement of my quaestor, or, in other words, of receiving an addition to my own honours, in the person of my friend."[2]

The letter shows a genuine friendship between Pliny and Geminus, but it was one built on a patron-client relationship.  Pliny was the benefactor for the advancement of Geminus into higher positions in Roman office and society.  Without these types of "connections" nobody could receive advancement.  At the end of the letter, Pliny is quite clear that he is not only looking out for Geminus but for his own welfare and status when he says, "receiving an addition to my own honours."  Thus, these letters were self-serving in solidifying the power of those in authority.

This method of Roman patronage was so well exploited that even Jesus comments on it in Luke 22:25-26,

"And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve."

While the letters of commendation in the New Testament follow the same structure as Roman society, they could not have had more opposite intentions.

New Testament Word Studies

The letters of commendation embedded into the New Testament become apparent after a few word studies.  The main word is "commend" but other words like "send" and "receive" also play an important part in identifying key passages.

Commend

Strong's Concordance yields a variety of Greek words for the subject of commendation. 

• 4921 sunistano – to set together, by implication to introduce (Rom. 16:1; 2 Cor. 3:1; 4:2; 5:12; 6:4 “approving”; 10:12,18; 12:11)
• 1867 epaineo / 1868 epainos – to praise (Luke 16:8 “commended”; 2 Cor. 8:18)
• 3860 paradidomi – to give or deliver over (Acts 14:26 “recommended”; 15:40)
• 3908 paratithemi – to put near, to place with someone, entrust, commit, set before (Acts 14:23; 20:32; “commit” 1 Tim. 1:18 --> 2 Tim. 2:2 "commit")
• 3936 paristemi – to place near, set before, present, stand by, brought before ( 1 Cor. 8:8, “commendeth”, Romans 16:2 “assist”).[3]
• 1381 dokimazo / 1384 dokimos – approval after distinguishing and discerning[4] (1 Cor. 16:3; 1 Tim. 3:10; Rom. 14:18; 2 Cor. 10:18).

Taking all these words together, commendation was the act of setting someone in front of another to introduce and praise them.  In many cases there was an ability or office involved where the person was entrusted with a responsibility.  Care would be exercised that the one being commended would be trustworthy and stable.  This is why the letters of commendation often use the word "approve" (1381 dokimazo / 1384 dokimos).

Send and Receive

The act of commending someone by a letter involved "sending" the person on some sort of errand or mission and expecting the other party to "receive" or welcome that person for the work they were to do.  In a day without telephones and email, the letter would be the key means that a person was genuine and could be trusted.  Not only did it protect against fraud but also insured that the person could not boast of themselves more than they were.

There are two main Greek words used for "send" in the New Testament: pempo and apostello.[5]

• 3992 pempo – to dispatch (Acts 15:22, 25; 1 Cor. 16:3; 2 Cor. 9:3; Eph. 6:22; Col. 4:8; Phil. 2:19, 23, 25, 28; 1 Thess. 3:2; Tit. 3:12).  A number of root words are,
  
  • 375 anapempo (Philemon 1:12),
  • 1599 ekpempo (Acts 13:4),
  • 4842 sunpempo – to send along with (2 Cor. 8:18, 22) and
  • 4311 propempo – to send forward, escort, conduct forth (Acts 15:3).
• 649 apostello – to send forth on service or with a commission (Acts 15:27; 19:22; 2 Cor. 12:17-18; 2 Tim. 4:12).

Similarly, there are two words for "receive": dechomai and lambano.

• 1209 dechomai – accept, receive, take (Matt. 10:39-42; Acts 21:17; 2 Cor. 7:15; Col. 4:10).  Root words include:
  
  • 588 apodechomai – to take fully, i.e. welcome, approve, accept, receive gladly (Acts 15:4; 18:27),
  • 4237 prosdechomai – to admit, accept, allow, by implication to await (Rom. 16:2; Phil 2:29),
  • 1926 epidechomai – to admit, receive (3 John 3:9-10).
• 2983 lambano – to take, to get hold of (2 John 1:10).  Root words are:
  
  • 4355 proslambano (Acts 28:2; Rom. 14:1, 3; 15:7; Phil. 1:15-17),
  • 618 apolambano – to receive in full or as a host (3 John 8)

Jesus emphasizes the concept and importance of these words by repetition in Matthew 10:14-16, 40-41.

"Behold I send you forth (v.10) .... whoseover does not receive you... shake of the dust of your feet (v. 14) ... he that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me reciveth him that sent me."

Form and Structure of Commendation Letters

The structure of a passage also provides clues.  When I was in school, we learned about letter writing and their different forms.  This seemed to be the case in Roman society as well.  All of the letters of commendation from Cicero, Pliny and Fronto had a similar style and structure.  The following summarizes the key points:

1. Identify the one being commended
2. Cite the criteria and credentials for commendation
3. Make a request of the letter’s recipient

This structure will show up repeatedly in the letters of Paul and will help us to recognize his letters of commendation.

The New Testament Examples

At this point, we can come up with a rather long list of actual letters of commendation or ones appended to epistles.

• Paul, Barnabas, Judas and Silas (Acts 15:22, 25-27)
• Phoebe (Rom. 16:1-2)
• Stephanus, Fortunatus and Achaicus (1 Cor. 16:15-18)
• Envoys for poor fund (2 Cor. 8:16-24)
• Tychicus (Eph. 6:21-22)
• Onesimus and Marcus (Col. 4:7-10)
• Timothy (Phil. 2:19-24; 1 Cor. 4:17; 16:10-11; 1 Thess. 3:2)
• Epaphroditus (Phil. 2:25-30)
• Euodia and Syntyche (Phil. 4:2-3)
• Leaders (1 Thess. 5:12-13)
• Philemon (in full)

Moreover, we can also compile a list where we do not have the actual recommendation but we have mention of its practice.

• Paul and Barnabas sent and recommended by the Antioch ecclesia and the Holy Spirit (Acts 13:3-4, 14:26)
• Paul and Barnabas as envoys of the Antioch ecclesia to the Jerusalem conference (Acts 15:2-4)
• Apollos (Acts 18:27)
• Those sent to take the money for the Jerusalem poor fund (1 Cor. 16:3)
• Missionaries (1 John 3)

It may be surprising to find that this subject touches on much of the New Testament.  While we would encourage the reader to look up every example as a worthy exercise, we will only comment on a couple of specific examples.

The Jerusalem Conference

The first example occurs in the incidents surrounding the Jerusalem Conference in Acts 15.  The debate had started in Antioch that "except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved" (v. 1).  The dispute was so great that "they" (v. 2), that is, the Antioch ecclesia, decided to send representatives, Paul and Barnabas, to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem to decide the final resolution.  One of our key words comes in verse 3,

"And being brought on their way by the church..." (KJV)

The Greek word for "brought" here is propempo and all modern translation use the word "sent".  Therefore, Paul and Barnabas did not go of their own accord but were sent by the Antioch ecclesia.  As we have already seen, this word implies a recommendation by the sending party especially when paired with the act of "receiving", which we have in verse 4.

"And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them."

We should not take the manner of this as a casual exchange.  There is an intentional "sending" and "receiving" being done.  There is no mention of a letter but we can assume with some confidence that there was one.  There is no assumption that Paul and Barnabas could be representatives of their own accord.  The Antioch ecclesia[6] granted them that position and the Jerusalem ecclesia welcomed them on that basis.

The order of the words in verse 4 is interesting as they are received first by the church and secondly by the apostles and elders.  It is interesting because the order is reversed in verse 22.

"Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren"

It was only the "apostles and elders" (v. 6) who came together to consider the matter but in the end the decision "pleased" the whole ecclesia.  That is, they were not left out of the decision process and approved to "send" (pempo) their own representatives back to Antioch.  The letter they[7] composed was therefore a declaration of their decision but also a letter of recommendation for those who carried it.

(Act 15:25-27)  "It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send (pempo) chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,  (26)  Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.  (27)  We have sent (apostello) therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth."

Apollos

We are introduced to Apollos in Acts 18:24 where we learn that he is a Jew, mighty in the scriptures and preached the things of the Lord only knowing the baptism of John.  It seems he was a traveller having come from Alexandria in Egypt all the way to Ephesus and had the intent to spread the word in other places.  Once Aquila and Priscilla had instructed him more perfectly in the way of God they encouraged him to go to other areas and preach but not before writing a letter of recommendation.

(Act 18:27)  "And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive (apodechomai) him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace."

One wonders how Apollos would have fared without this letter in hand?  It seems an ecclesia would not receive a travelling stranger without a recommendation even though he might confess to believe the same things.  Aquila and Priscilla followed practical measures that would allow Apollos’ acceptance into fellowship with open arms wherever he went among the established ecclesias.

Phoebe

A great example of a letter of commendation is Romans 16:1-2 where Paul commends Phoebe to the ecclesia in Rome.

"I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea:  (2)  That ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you: for she hath been a succourer of many, and of myself also."

This follows the typical form and structure of the period’s letters of commendation.  It is fair to assume that the Apostle sent Phoebe who personally delivered the whole epistle to the ecclesia in Rome.  This sending and commendation of Phoebe may have been Paul's original task of which he decided to write a lengthy dissertation in front of the letter of commendation. 

She comes highly qualified in glowing terms yet Paul still urges them to "receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints".  The qualifying phrase "in the Lord" (seen also in Phil. 2:29 and Phil. 15-17) indicates that it had to do with welcoming somebody into fellowship.[8]  This was something reserved or worthy of only the saints.

The Jerusalem Poor Fund

Much of the epistles to the Corinthians involve a collection made by the Gentile ecclesias to support the poor brethren suffering through a famine in Jerusalem.  In matters involving money there would have to be an extreme sensitivity that those bearing the funds would be trustworthy and beyond reproach.  Paul left this decision up to the Corinthians.

"And when I come, whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, them will I send to bring your liberality (mg. gift) unto Jerusalem."

It was not enough just to pick some nice brethren to do the job.  Paul expected them to write a letter of recommendation so that he could in all good conscious "send" them for the work.  Paul gives his reasoning for doing this in 2 Cor. 8:20-21 (ESV),

"We take this course so that no one should blame us about this generous gift that is being administered by us, (21) for we aim at what is honorable not only in the Lord's sight but also in the sight of man."

In this context, Paul writes a highly complementary recommendation for those doing the work and is very careful to show that this was not of his initiative but was a recommendation by the ecclesias.  That the ones he was "sending" (v. 18, 22) where "chosen" (v. 19) by the ecclesias and therefore were "messengers (apostles - ones sent) by the church" (v. 23).

Paul's Letter of Commendation to Philemon

While many of the New Testament epistles have embedded letters of commendation (e.g. Timothy and Epaphroditus in Phil. 2:19-30) the epistle to Philemon stands alone as a letter of commendation in whole.  The story goes that Onesimus, a servant of Philemon, runs away and eventually is converted by Paul in Rome.  Paul instructs Onesimus to go back to his master with this letter in hand.  Onesimus as a runaway slave faces certain punishment but Paul uses the method of writing a letter of commendation in standard form and function for Roman society to persuade Philemon not to do this but to receive Onesimus as a brother in the Lord.

While the word "commendation" is not used, the nature of the letter is apparent by the loving terms Paul uses for Onesimus and his use of the key words "send" and "receive".

(Phm 1:12)  "Whom I have sent again: thou therefore receive him, that is, mine own bowels."

(Phm 1:15-17)  "For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldest receive him for ever;  (16) Not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved, specially to me, but how much more unto thee, both in the flesh, and in the Lord?  (17) If thou count me therefore a partner, receive him as myself."

Paul implored Philemon to receive him back.  Not just as a servant in bonds, but much more, as a brother in Christ.  The receiving had to do with fellowship in the Lord.  The special nature of the case has insured its preservation in our Bibles but it makes one wonder how many other letters of recommendation were written among the ecclesias of the time?  There can be no doubt that it was a standard practice.

3 John

The apostle John hints at his use of letters of commendation for travelling brethren (verse 3) that had come back to him with a report of those who were walking in the truth.  With a careful reading of 3 John we can safely assume that John sent these brethren on a mission with a letter of commendation because they would be unknown to the other ecclesias.  The letters would then ensure ample support and help by the local ecclesias for the work they were doing.  John thanks them for their service and generosity in verses 5-6,

(3 Jn 1:5-8)  "Beloved, thou doest faithfully whatsoever thou doest to the brethren, and to strangers;  (6)  Which have borne witness of thy charity before the church: whom if thou bring forward (propempo) on their journey after a godly sort, thou shalt do well:  (7)  Because that for his name's sake they went forth, taking nothing of the Gentiles.  (8)  We therefore ought to receive (apolambano) such, that we might be fellowhelpers to the truth."

The King James translation of verse 5 reads as if there are two classes “the brethren, and to strangers” but it should read more like the ESV, “for these brothers, strangers as they are…”  They might have been strangers at first but as soon as they would have read the letter of commendation, they would have quickly bounded in the truth and been welcomed.

Our keywords "send" and "receive", used in these verses, indicates the practice of commendation.  John encourages the ecclesia to "bring forward" such missionaries, which most modern translation have as the word "send".  For instance the NKJV reads, "If you send them forward on their journey in a manner worthy of God, you will do well."  This is paired, as we have seen now so often, with the aspect of "receiving" in verse 8, which is all centered on the aspect of proper fellowship practice so that we might be "fellowhelpers to the truth."

To not "receive" someone who had been "sent" was a serious matter that spoke not only against the travelling missionaries but also against the one who had sent them in the first place.  This was Diotrephes.

(3 Jn 1:9)  "I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth (epidechomai) us not."

John says at the beginning of verse 9 that he "wrote unto the church."  What letter is John referring to here?  Based on the context, this was most likely the letter of commendation John had sent with the brethren, which Diotrephes had rejected.  We can imply this as well when John says that Diotrophes "receiveth us not" (v. 9) and that "neither doth he himself receive the brethren" (v. 10).

John took the rejection of his commendation very personally when he says Diotrophes “receiveth us not” (v. 9).  This follows the principle, so often in scripture, that he who receives you, receives me and he who rejects the one sent, rejects the one who sent (Matt. 10:40-41; 18:5; Luke 10:16; John 13:20).  Therefore, Diotrephes’ rejection of John's commendation of these travelling brethren was truly a rejection of the apostle John himself.

Practical Implications for Our Day

The apostolic and ecclesial practice of commendation is a guide for our personal and inter-ecclesial conduct.  Personally, it shows forth a spirit of humility and not wanting to boast.  Secondly, it shows an ecclesial carefulness to ensure proper fellowship.

Self-Commendation

Paul had a problem with the Corinthians who were questioning his motives and qualifications.  It upset Paul so much that these brethren and sisters whom he knew so well were treating him as some sort of stranger.  In an exasperated tone he says to them in 2 Corinthians 3:1,

“Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you?”

At once, the practice of letters of commendation jumps out, but in this case, it would be needless for such a letter.  Paul bemoaned the fact that he had to boast about his own qualifications to those who knew him.  Yet throughout the epistle, he battles and succumbs to “commending” himself.

(2 Cor 4:2)  “… by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.”

(2 Cor 5:12)  “For we commend not ourselves again unto you, but give you occasion to glory on our behalf, that ye may have somewhat to answer them which glory in appearance, and not in heart.”

(2 Cor 6:4)  “But in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses…”

(2 Cor 10:12)  “For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.”

(2 Cor 10:17-18)  “But he that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.  (18)  For not he that commendeth himself is approved, but whom the Lord commendeth.”

(2 Cor 12:11)  “I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me: for I ought to have been commended of you: for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing.”

Paul had felt compelled to become foolish in defending himself to the Corinthians.  Having to qualify ourselves should not be a comfortable position for any humble servant of Christ.  Approval of who we are and what we stand for is best coming from others.  Paul always looked for approval from the ecclesia.  This is a model for us to follow, that when we travel and visit other ecclesias we should be taking with us the commendation of our ecclesia.  If we do not have that, then looking to be “received” into fellowship is questionable.

Approval of Men

Certain brethren and sisters may chaff at the thought of seeking approval from men.  There is no doubt that a Pharisaic attitude could arise where we seek the praise of men rather than the praise of God (Matt. 6:1; 23:5; John 12:43; Acts 5:29; 2 Thes. 2:4) but the scriptures are also clear that it is not always a bad thing if the motives are correct.  In fact, it is better for us to seek praise from others rather than ourselves as it says in Proverbs 27:2,

“Let another man praise thee, and not thine own mouth; a stranger, and not thine own lips.”

The spontaneous approval of men that naturally arises out of the recognition of a good character is admirable.  It is said of Jesus[9] “he grew in favour with God and man” (Luke 2:52).  This he did by following the principles in Proverbs 3:3-4,

“Let not mercy and truth forsake thee: bind them about thy neck; write them upon the table of thine heart:  (4)  So shalt thou find favour and good understanding in the sight of God and man.”

Therefore, if we are a brother or sister, known of others to be standing fast in the Lord, then the praise of others is what really matters.   It should not and does not need to come from ourselves.  The approval of men then is not something to disregard for in the right context it is desirable.   Paul shows this to be the case in Romans 14:18,

“For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.” (see also 2 Cor. 8:21; Acts 2:47)

Inter-Ecclesial Fellowship

The responsibility of an ecclesia is to watch over and encourage the spiritual development of its own members.  In a healthy environment, the shepherds of the ecclesia know the attitudes and standing of those in the ecclesia.  They are the ones best fit to provide a true assessment of a brother or sister’s character.  It would seem right then that ecclesias would still seek to affirm and encourage the practice of commendation both of those who are “sent” and “received”.

Similarly, the ecclesia must make decisions on whom to receive into fellowship.  Did any first century ecclesia accept anybody without a letter of recommendation?  Even if the visiting brother commended himself, would fellowship be offered and left to his conscious?  We have no commandment given to the ecclesias but with so many examples given it would seem reasonable that the answer in practice is “no”. 

In terms of fellowship, Bro. Thomas wrote in 1869,

“Declare what you as a body believe to be the apostles doctrines. Invite fellowship on that basis alone. If any take the bread and wine, not being offered by you, they do so on their own responsibility, not yours.”[10]

While this might seem at first to be reasonable, it does not correlate with what we have just seen as the ecclesial practice of recommendation before a person’s reception into fellowship.  Leaving the decision of breaking bread and wine solely in the hands of a visitor is to abdicate a responsibility of the ecclesia. 

From the earliest years of the Christadelphians, there has been recognition of the need to write letters of commendation when transferring membership from one ecclesia to another.  Examples fill the intelligence section of the magazine.  Sometimes the lack of such a letter created problems as is apparent in this notice from 1872,

“Brethren Removing from one place to another .—Such should always provide themselves with a letter of recommendation from the ecclesia with which they have been assembling. There have recently been several instances of awkwardness from want of the necessary introduction.”^[11]

Even in terms of visitation, some ecclesias adopted a rule,

“Chicago , Ill.—Brother W A. Harris says “We have thought it necessary to adopt the rule adopted in England and elsewhere, that when a stranger visits us, he be required to produce a letter of recommendation before we receive him into our fellowship; failing which, we appoint a committee to confer with him as to the identity of his faith and practice with ours.”^[12]

While these brethren state it as a rule they nevertheless are basing it off sound scriptural principles. 

This became the norm throughout the Central Christadelphian brotherhood.  As the number of ecclesias grew, the practice developed into acceptance of anybody in good standing from a Central ecclesia.  The article in The Christadelphian Magazine of 1995 puts it succinctly,

“The fact that fellowship arises from ecclesial membership allows the ecclesial world to be travelled without difficulty. By presenting himself as a member in good standing of a Christadelphian ecclesia in the central fellowship, a brother will be invited without further question to share in the fellowship of the Lord’s table with his brethren and sisters. Any other arrangement would be unworkable, of course. It would be impossible to undertake an enquiry into every visitor’s beliefs on the door-step of the ecclesial hall, but this would prove necessary if there were no safeguard such as is provided by a brother or sister’s membership of an ecclesia. Thus it is the ecclesia, and not the individual, who is the arbiter of his or her fellowship standing, and it is their home ecclesia’s assessment which is taken into account when individual brethren and sisters visit ecclesias where they are not personally known.”^[13]

Conclusion

Influenced by the culture of the times, the first century ecclesia adopted letters of commendation in its own unique way for the protection of fellowship among the ecclesias.  As we have seen, the practice is  woven throughout the fabric of the New Testament.  As modern day ecclesias in the Lord, we would like to say that we emulate similar procedures. 

This is not as a rule but as a wise practical matter.  We have seen the expectation and usage of commendation among ecclesia is the best method we have a preserving the truth in these last days.  True fellowship in the Lord is a serious matter given to the ecclesias to implement. 

Furthermore, we consider ourselves, lest any man should boast of himself.  The practice of commendation mitigates self-commendation and establishes Godly humility.  It makes one realize the acceptance into fellowship is not a right but a privilege.

If we do these things, Lord willing, before the judgment seat we will be given the greatest commendation of all, even to be presented “faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy” (Jude 1:24).

Christadelphians have been using the word “ecclesia” in place of church for a long time and for good reasons. It is a special word with a lot of meaning for us, yet I wonder if it is becoming too commonplace. We get used to a word and it can lose its vitality. How do you look at your ecclesia?

In Hebrews 12:18-24 the writer compares the ecclesia to the children of Israel before mount Sinai.

“For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest, And the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words; which voice they that heard intreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more: (For they could not endure that which was commanded, And if so much as a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned, or thrust through with a dart: And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake:) But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.”

This connection between the “church (ecclesia) in the wilderness” (Acts 7:22) and the “church of the firstborn” is an important one. When Christ first said the word “ecclesia” to Peter and the apostles in Matt. 16:18, “upon this rock I will build my church (ecclesia)” he was not introducing a new word. That word had a history to the Greeks and to the Jews. We will go through that history and then see how Christ built his ecclesia in the Acts of the Apostles. As the gospel was predicated on the Old Testament so would the function and organization of the ecclesia be modelled and take its principles from that which was established on Sinai.

The Greeks

In the fourth century BC, around 330 BC, there was a constitution written most likely by Aristotle for the city of Athens. The heart of it was to formalize the practice of the Greek city ecclesia which had been in place for at least 200 years before. It was the main governing assembly which directed the policy of the city, declared war, elected generals and magistrates, raised funds, and made peace treaties. It would also judge private citizens, and in the case of banishment there had to be at least 6,000 citizens present.

In the wider Greek culture, the word ecclesia meant a duly convened assembly of citizens. Literally, it was the “called out ones” but with a special meaning to be summoned, to convene together, judge and vote on political matters. It was a democracy with the slogan of “freedom and equality” for all its citizens.

Even in New Testament times, this is what the ecclesia was to the Greeks and Romans. Proof of this is seen in Acts 19 where the word ecclesia is translated assembly three times. Demetrius, a craftsmen of idols in Ephesus, upset over his loss of business due to the preaching of Paul, incites an assembly (v.32, ecclesia) to banish Paul and the believers from Ephesus. Demetrius meant this to be an official legal action but it got out of hand as the unruly mob chanted “Great is Diana of the Ephesians” for two hours. Finally, the city clerk calmed the people and chastised Demetrius for not doing this in a “lawful assembly” (v.39, ecclesia) and he dismissed the assembly (v. 41, ecclesia).

The Septuagint (LXX)

Not only did the word ecclesia have a rich history with the Greeks and Romans before the time of Jesus but also with the Jews. The Jews in Alexandria Egypt in the 3^rd century BC translated the Hebrew Bible into the Greek and called it the Septuagint (abbr. LXX). This translation became widely used among the Jews (e.g. Philo and Josephus), some of its manuscripts even being found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.

When Jesus and the Apostles quoted the Old Testament it is plainly evident that they were mostly using the Septuagint version but not all of the time. The most we can draw out of this is that they considered the LXX to be mostly reliable, much like we would use our English translations of the Bible today. It provides us some valuable information on what the Jews considered to be an ecclesia according to the history of Israel. This no doubt provides the background of what Jesus meant when he said, “upon this rock I will build my ecclesia.” This is the first time he used the word and no doubt the Apostles knew the impact of such a word choice as they knew how it was used in the Septuagint.

The word ecclesia is used as a noun seventy-seven times in the Septuagint and seventeen times in other forms not used in the New Testament. One of these other forms is the word ecclesiastes (noun of agency) and ecclesiaston which are found seven times, all in the book of Ecclesiastes (1:1,2,12; 7:27; 12:8,9,10). It is translated as “preacher”, meaning “one who speaks to the ecclesia.”

Deuteronomy 4:10 records for us the very first time the word ecclesia is used as a noun. Quoting from Brenton’s translation of the LXX, verses 9-11 say,

“Take heed to thyself, and keep thy heart diligently: forget not any of the things, which thine eyes have seen, and let them not depart from thine heart all the days of thy life; and thou shalt teach thy sons and thy sons' sons, (10)  even the things that happened in the day in which ye stood before the Lord our God in Choreb in the day of the assembly (ecclesia); for the Lord said to me, Gather (ecclesiazo) the people to me, and let them hear my words, that they may learn to fear me all the days which they live upon the earth, and they shall teach their sons. (11)  And ye drew nigh and stood under the mountain; and the mountain burned with fire up to heaven: there was darkness, blackness, and tempest.”

This then is where the writer to the Hebrews in 12:18-24 drew his reference when he compared the children of Israel at Mount Sinai with the 1^st century ecclesia of the firstborn. This was the birth of the very first ecclesia of God which took place when the nation of Israel was sanctified to receive the word of God. Its purpose was to instill the fear of God, hear his words and pass it on to the next generation.

This phrase “the day of the assembly (ecclesia)”, which does not show up here in the Hebrew text but is found in both Deut. 9:10 and 18:15-16.

“The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; According to all that thou desiredst of the LORD thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly (ecclesia), saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not.” (Deut. 18:15-16)

As further significance to this usage of the word ecclesia in the Old Testament, Stephen quotes Deut. 18:15-16 right before he refers to the “church (ecclesia) in the wilderness” in Acts 7:37-38.

The actual “day of the ecclesia” that Moses relates is recorded in Exodus 19:1 as taking place in the third month. This is significant because the day of Pentecost was in the third month (Heb. Sivan). This initial day for the ecclesia in the wilderness happens on the same day of Pentecost as the New Testament ecclesia (Acts 2:1). The charge given at this time to the children of Israel to be a kingdom of priests (Ex. 19:5-6) is the same given to Christ’s ecclesia (1 Pet. 2:9).

The Hebrew equivalent is the word “qahal” which also means to summon but is most often translated as assembly or congregation. The bulk of the passages where the Septuagint uses the word it refers to the children of Israel being called before God for a special occasion or when a decision that effected the whole ecclesia needed to be made. Barclay in his book on New Testament Words (pg. 68-69) has this to say,

“In the Hebrew sense it, therefore, means God’s people called together by God, in order to listen to or to act for God. In a certain sense the word ‘congregation’ loses a certain amount of the essential meaning. A ‘congregation’ is a company of people ‘who have come together’; a qahal or an ekklesia is a body of people ‘who have been called together’. The two original words, Hebrew and Greek, put all the emphasis on the action of God.”

When Jesus chose this word for the gathering of his believers he had a choice between the word ecclesia or synagogue. The word synagogue is also used extensively throughout the Septuagint for the congregation of Israel. For the Jews of his day though it had come to mean a meeting place (a building) outside of the temple service. A synagogue was a congregation separate from the temple and never meant to replace it. The same could not be said for what Jesus was to build. Jesus was clearly establishing something that would be the true temple of God (John 4:19-24; Eph. 2:20-22; 1 Peter 2:5).

I Will Build My Ecclesia

When we look closer at Matt. 16:18 the involvement of the Lord Jesus in building his ecclesia is evident.

“… thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

The Lord is saying here that he would personally have a hand in building his ecclesia. The starting point, of course, would be his own death and resurrection. After throwing the money changers out of the temple he had this to say to the Jews who were looking for a sign,

“Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body.” (John 2:18-22)

The body of Jesus comes to symbolize the ecclesia (e.g. 1 Cor. 12:12-14; Eph. 1:22-23). There is a wonderful mixing of ideas here between the literal death and resurrection of Jesus and its purpose to destroy a temple made with hands and build a temple (the ecclesia) made without hands where God could dwell (Acts 7:38-50). Later his accusers remembered his words but have these interesting additional words.

“We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.” (Mark 14:58, only included by Mark)

We have then in these three passages the assurance that Jesus would build the temple (aka the ecclesia). The stone which the builders rejected would become the head of the corner (Matt. 21:42; Acts 4:11) and we as lively stones (1 Pet. 2:5) would be built on that foundation, growing into a holy temple in the Lord, a habitation of God through the Spirit (Eph. 2:20-22).

When we come then to the Acts of the Apostles we really see the hand of the Lord Jesus personally at work. In fact, it might have been better to call this book the Acts of Jesus Christ After His Ascension. Notice how Luke carefully words his introduction.

“The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach.” (Acts 1:1)

The “former treatise” is the Gospel of Luke which he refers to as what Jesus “began both to do and teach.” If that was the beginning, then it implies that this sequel would show how Jesus was continuing to both “do and teach” among the Apostles.

• In Acts 2:33 it says “he [Jesus] hath shed forth (or poured out v.17,18) this, which ye now see and hear” referring to the gifts of the Holy Spirit. This is the direct work of Jesus who said “I will send unto you… the Spirit of truth” (John 20:26).
• Acts 2:47 states “the Lord added to the church daily as such as should be saved” (see also 5:14). It is interesting to think if this is God or Jesus being referred to here as “Lord”. In many other passages the Lord is Jesus so it seems likely here and fits with him building his ecclesia.
• Stephen sees the Lord Jesus standing at God’s right hand (Acts 7:56). Normally Jesus would be sitting at God’s right hand but here he stands up, active to bring judgment.
• The Lord Jesus appears to Paul on the road to Damascus saying that Paul’s persecutions of the ecclesia were really persecutions of him (Acts 9:4-5). Paul, relating this incident in Acts 26:16 indicates there would be further appearances of the Lord Jesus to him which happen in Acts 18:9-10 and 23:11 (cp. 2 Tim. 4:17).
• Jesus instructs Annanias (Acts 9:10)

All this shows that the promise of Jesus in Matt. 28:20, “I am with you always, even unto the end of the world” was true. Jesus was always there, active and building his ecclesia.

Has anything changed in this regard, brothers and sisters? Do you imagine a distant Christ in the heavens detached from us? Nothing could be farther from the truth. In the beginning of the book of Revelation Jesus appears, not as an ordinary human being but as the Son of Man symbolized in all his glory. It is an echo to the vision given to Daniel and also to the transfiguration.

Revelation 1:13 says,

"And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle."

This is a vision of the glorified Christ as he says in verse 18,

"I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death."[1]

The thing I want to point out here is that he is in the midst of the seven candlesticks, which represent these seven ecclesias to whom the book of Revelation is being sent.  Not only is he in the midst but he is walking in the midst of them as it says in 2:1,

"Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks;"

Walking in the midst of the ecclesias is very significant.  He is not distant.  As each ecclesia gets listed he says, “I know thy works…”  With the angels at his command, Jesus knows both the good and bad of all these ecclesias.  Jesus’ careful eye is not just limited to seven ecclesias.  Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever. 

Do we imagine him within our midst?  Brothers and sisters, how much better off would we be if we had our eyes open to this reality at all times?  Imagine Jesus Christ in our very midst, among our ecclesias.  Not just as a man but as the glorified Son of Man.  It’s a sobering thought that the book of Revelation gives us. We know that we shall be judged individually but we also get the aspect here that we will be judged collectively as an ecclesia.

The Ecclesia in the Acts

There is then an affinity we share with the early ecclesia in the Acts. The same Lord is over both and we seek to understand how they worked as an ecclesia that we might do the same.

It all started in an upper room with 120 disciples all of “one accord in prayer and supplication” (Acts 1:14). The Greek word “homothumadon” is in meaning “one mind” or of the “same passion”. This unity of mind would typify the ecclesia throughout the Acts (2:1, 46; 4:24; 5:12; 8:6; 15:25; cp. Rom. 15:6 “one mind”)[2] and be an example to us (1 Cor. 1:10).

In order to do this the fledgling but quickly growing ecclesia would rely on four things. They are found in chapter 2:42.

“And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.”

It is probably no accident that these four things have an analogy in the tabernacle. It correlates to the ecclesia in the wilderness.

Doctrine

Lampstand

Fellowship

Mercy seat

Breaking of bread

The table of showbread

Prayers

The altar of incense

Here they are in the temple made with hands, most likely in Solomon’s porch (5:12). It is ironic because they are the new temple in Christ Jesus. They are the spiritual priesthood and these four things they continue steadfastly in are the pillars of the true temple, the ecclesia. If we wanted any further elaboration they seem to be laid out more in the following verses.

1. Verse 43: Apostle’s doctrine – miracles and signs done by apostles
2. Verse 44: Fellowship – all thing in common
3. Verse 46: Breaking bread – breaking bread from house to house
4. Verse 47: Prayer – praising God (see also 12:5)

The first time the word ecclesia is used in the Acts is in chapter 2:47.

“Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.” (Acts 2:47 KJV)

Modern translations do not have the phrase “to the church” which admittedly is not likely to have been in the original. Nevertheless, it does portray the active Lord adding to the ecclesia. The continued growth of the ecclesia is marked in stages that fit the pattern of Jesus’ words in Acts 1:8.

1. Jerusalem
   
   1. 2:47
   2. 4:4 – There is some ambiguity here and differences of opinion but most side with this being the total number of believers at this time rather than 5,000 being converted on this day.
   3. 5:14 – This is the second time the word church is used in Acts (v.11) with very similar wording to 2:43-47.  Solomon’s porch is said to have a capacity for 10,000 people. Their fear (v. 11 cp. 9:31) is analogous to the fear of Israelites before Mt. Sinai.
   4. 6:1,7
2. Samaria (9:31) – The word “edified” means “built up” which is the same word used by Jesus in Matt. 16:18.
3. Syria/Antioch (11:26 “much people”; 12:24)
4. Asia (16:5; 19:20)
5. Rome (28:31)

Each one of these progress reports seems to follow a time of either great persecution or of great inner turmoil in the ecclesia. In Acts 3-4 there is persecution from the Sanhedrin (outside). In Acts 5 there is trouble in the ecclesia with Ananias and Saphira (inside) and then in the same chapter comes more persecution from the high priest (outside). In Acts 6 there is trouble again in the ecclesia with a dispute over the ministration to widows (inside). In Acts 7-12 there is persecution by Saul and then by Herod (outside). In Acts 13-14 there is the first missionary journey which ends in controversy for the ecclesias in Acts 15 over the law of Moses and the Gentile believers (inside). It typifies the saying of Paul, “our flesh had no rest, but we were troubled on every side; without were fightings, within were fears” (2 Cor. 7:5).

It is important to note that the idyllic ecclesia that was born in Acts 2 did not stay that way. It had severe growth pains. Even though they had the leadership of the Apostles they would be challenged as well. God doesn’t always give the easy answers. We have to work it out. Paul says in 1 Cor. 11:18-19,

“For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.”

It’s two of these incidents that we’ll take a closer look at now. Acts 6 and Acts 15 mark two times the ecclesia had to come together and solve a difficult internal issue. Handled incorrectly and it would cause division and hurt. Addressed correctly would bring consensus and joy.

Acts 6

Here’s the growing pains and with it the problem in Acts 6:1,

“And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.”

This is the first real sign of a widespread problem within the ecclesia. You’ll notice the problem wasn’t about doctrine but about fellowship. This was one of those foundation principles of sharing that the ecclesia had established back in Acts 2:44-45. It seems among the welfare fund there had come some respect of persons. The Grecians (Hellenists) were Greek speaking Jews which had more of a Greek culture about them. The Hebrews were native Jews. At risk was a very important commandment of God to take care of the helpless widows among themselves.[3]

This was a new challenge to the Apostles but their answer was not as they looked back to the ecclesia in the wilderness for answers. Moses himself had been burdened with a people who murmured about food. The following table shows the similarities.

Numbers 11

Acts 6

v. 4 - A mixed multitude

v. 1 - A multitude of Grecians and Jews

v. 1, 9 - murmur

v. 1 - murmuring

v. 9 – about daily manna

v. 1 – about daily ministration

v. 11, 14 – Moses unable to bear everything

v. 2 – Apostles unable to leave word to serve tables

v. 16 – Seventy able elders sought out by Moses (Deut. 1:13, notice the qualifications are the same)

v. 3 – Seven able men sought out by the brethren

v. 16 – Seventy to stand before the Lord

v. 6 – Seven are set before the apostles

v. 17, 25 – They are given the spirit

v. 3 – The seven are full of the Holy Spirit and the apostles lay their hands on them.

v. 21 – 600,000 footmen

Was there ~6,000 disciples at this time?

v. 26 – Two stand out, Eldad and Medad

Chapters 7 and 8 – Two stand out, Stephen and Philip

The real closeness of how the Apostles relied on Moses is in Deut. 1:9-17 where Moses reminds the people of the time.

“And I spake unto you at that time, saying, I am not able to bear you myself alone: The LORD your God hath multiplied you, and, behold, ye are this day as the stars of heaven for multitude. (The LORD God of your fathers make you a thousand times so many more as ye are, and bless you, as he hath promised you!) How can I myself alone bear your cumbrance, and your burden, and your strife? Take you wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you. And ye answered me, and said, The thing which thou hast spoken is good for us to do. So I took the chief of your tribes, wise men, and known, and made them heads over you, captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, and captains over fifties, and captains over tens, and officers among your tribes. And I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him. Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God's: and the cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will hear it.”

Now the Apostles faced with a multitude of disciples, all of them gathered to them (v. 2, all 5,000?) tell them to do likewise. They were to seek out among themselves “men of honest report, full of the Holy  Spirit and wisdom.” Notice the apostles didn’t make the choice just like Moses. They wisely expected the ecclesia to do it. They were to be men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom.

Bro. Roberts when writing The Ecclesial Guide drew a lot from the Apostlic record. Consider this passage,

“There must be arrangement, and it must be the work of some in particular. If those appointed to do the work are called arranging brethren, it will be a literal description, and not a name of honour. Names of honour are to be avoided in the probationary stage of the body of Christ. Seven is a convenient and scriptural number for purposes of management. Their function would be to attend to all business matters connected with the operations of the ecclesia. Their qualifications would principally require to be of a practical order. But as the business they would have to do would be business with spiritual objects, arranging brethren ought, above all things, to be men of a truly brotherly spirit, possessing a business turn, but chiefly the brotherly character. It is not sufficient that they have a business turn: they must be brethren first, arranging brethren afterwards. This is the first qualification for all offices, a point liable to be overlooked in young ecclesias. If it be asked, how is a brotherly spirit to be known, the answer is, by the test of the commandments of Christ: are they obeyed? If SO! the man has a brotherly spirit. Are they not observed in the man's conduct? Then he is not a brotherly man, and not suitable for management, however great his practical abilities may be.” (Clause 23)

And so we see in the Acts that these men were to attend to very practical matter but nonetheless very important matters that could divide the ecclesia. So it first and foremost needed men who were of good reputation and wisdom among the ecclesia.

Thus we have in this example some guiding principles for our ecclesias. The Apostles gave themselves to the two other pillars of doctrine and prayer (Acts 2:42) and the ecclesia was actively involved in the decision. The result being that “the saying pleased the whole multitude.” Remember that phrase as we continue our journey.

Acts 8, 10 & 11

It is this final multiplication of disciples that tips Saul to persecute the ecclesia and scatter it (Acts 8:1-4, third time ecclesia is mentioned).  Beside the ecclesia in Jerusalem (8:1) there is now one in Samaria (8:14-17, see also v. 40), at Lydda (9:32), Joppa (9:38) and others (11:19-21). There seems to be this pattern of external persecution followed by internal strife that goes throughout the first part of Acts.  After the conversion of Saul, the ecclesia had rest and multiplied again (Acts 9:31) but internal strife then starts in Acts 10.  We are given a hint of the existence of the circumcision party in Acts 10:23, 45; 11:1-3, 18. There would be a short lived disagreement and reconciliation in Acts 11:2,18 but the problem would resurface in Acts 15.

The real expansion of the gospel starts in Antioch (Acts 11:19-21).  The Jerusalem ecclesia upon hearing of these things (‘when though shalt hear’, Deut. 13:12) sends Barnabas to investigate. What was the purpose of sending Barnabas but to verify for themselves that these were truly brethren? These ecclesias then start a relationship with one another that would be respected and held as dear.

The ecclesia in Antioch though was its own autonomous entity. This can be seen by their gathering together in Acts 13:1-3 and commissioning the missionary journey of Paul and Barnabas. In verse 3, the “they” is the ecclesia. They gave their approval by laying their hands on the Apostles and sending them. We’ve seen this word before.[4] Paul and Barnabas were commended to this work by the Antioch ecclesia and they had a responsibility to them. This is seen in Acts 14:26-27 as they come back,

“And thence sailed to Antioch, from whence they had been recommended to the grace of God for the work which they fulfilled. And when they were come, and had gathered the church together, they rehearsed all that God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles.”

This sets the stage for the next internal conflict for the ecclesias. The last one involved the ecclesia at Jerusalem but this one would involve two ecclesias. The last one was a problem with fellowship but this would be a dispute about doctrine.

Acts 15

Since the initial brewing of trouble in Acts 11, the party of the circumcised had grown. Officially, the Jerusalem ecclesia had sent Barnabas (11:22) but these men (not ‘brethren’) seemed to have no such standing (15:24 “went out” not sent, cp. 1 John 2:19).[5] They taught, “that except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.” This incited a huge disputation between these men on one side, Paul and Barnabas on the other and the ecclesia in the middle. This was a major battle as the word “dissension” is translated “uproar” (Acts 19:40) describing the Ephesian mob who wanted to kill Paul.

What was to be done? “They (the ecclesia at Antioch) determined (or appointed) Paul, Barnabas and certain other to go up to Jerusalem” to settle the matter with the Jerusalem ecclesia. They were commended to be the ecclesial representatives which is seen by the use of the words “send” and “receive”.  The key word “send” in verse 3 is disguised in the KJV,

"And being brought on their way by the church..."

The Greek word for "brought" here is propempo and all modern translations use the word "sent".  Therefore, Paul and Barnabas did not go of their own accord but were sent by the Antioch ecclesia.  As we have already seen, this word implies a recommendation by the sending party especially when paired with the act of "receiving", which we have in verse 4.

"And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them."

We should not take the manner of this as a casual exchange.  There is an intentional "sending" and "receiving" being done.  There is no mention of a letter of commendation but we can assume with some confidence that there was one.  There is no assumption that Paul and Barnabas could be representatives of their own accord.  The Antioch ecclesia granted them that position and the Jerusalem ecclesia welcomed them on that basis.

The order of the words in verse 4 is interesting as they are received first by the church and secondly by the apostles and elders.  It is interesting because the order is reversed in verse 22.

"Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren"

It was only the "apostles and elders" (v. 6) who came together to consider the matter but in the end the decision "pleased" the whole ecclesia.  That is, they were not left out of the decision process and approved to "send" (pempo) their own representatives back to Antioch.  The letter they[6] composed was therefore a declaration of their decision but also a letter of recommendation for those who carried it.

(Act 15:25-27) “It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send (pempo) chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, (26) Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. (27) We have sent (apostello) therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth."

“It Pleased the Whole Multitude”

They had come together and sat through what I believe must have been hours and hours of disputing (15:7) to come to a decision that “pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church” (15:22). This was the same result they had obtained in chapter 6:5, “the saying pleased the whole multitude”. We really have nothing else to compare as an ecclesial example then these two incidents in Acts… or do we?

That saying, “pleased the whole multitude” (6:5) is interesting. There are two times in the Old Testament where the children of Israel are gathered together as an ecclesia, to take part in a decision which would please them. One is during the time of David and the other with Hezekiah. Many times Israel is described as an ecclesia but only twice (that I could find) does it say they were pleased with the decision.

Let’s turn to the first example in 1 Chr. 13:1-5 from the Brenton LXX translation.

“And David took counsel with the captains of thousands and captains of hundreds, even with every commander. (2) And David said to the whole congregation (ecclesia) of Israel, If it seem good to you, and it should be prospered by the Lord our God, let us send to our brethren that are left in all the land of Israel, and let the priests the Levites who are with them in the cities of their possession come, and let them be gathered to us. (3) And let us bring over to us the ark of our God; for men have not enquired at it since the days of Saul. (4) And all the congregation (ecclesia) said that they would do thus; for the saying was right in the eyes of all the people.[7] (5) So David assembled (execclesiasen) all Israel, from the borders of Egypt even to the entering in of Hemath, to bring in the ark of God from the city of Jarim.”

The word “congregation” in verses 2 and 4 in the LXX is ecclesia (Hebrew qahal). It is so interesting at this time that David involves the whole ecclesia of Israel in this decision. He started by saying, “if it seems good to you.” He was asking their approval to do something momentous. Would he have gone through with it if the people did not approve? But they did as the “saying was right in the eyes of all the people.”

There was a problem though. They put the ark on a cart pulled by oxen. When they came to the threshing floor of Chidon, Uzza put forth his hand to steady the ark and the Lord struck him down right there. The thing which they all agreed to do, which seemed so right, went so wrong. They had not done it in the proper way. David acknowledges this later in chapter 15:12-13 when he says to the Levites about to bring up the ark,

“Ye are the chief of the fathers of the Levites: sanctify yourselves, both ye and your brethren, that ye may bring up the ark of the LORD God of Israel unto the place that I have prepared for it. For because ye did it not at the first, the LORD our God made a breach upon us, for that we sought him not after the due order.”

David readily acknowledges his role in the mistake by saying “we sought him not after the due order.” There are times when we as ecclesias can make a mistake collectively. We have to go back to the word and set things right. That is what David did and they were able to bring the ark of God to Jerusalem with joy.

The next example also has an important lesson. It is found in 2 Chr. 30, reading again from the Brenton LXX translation.

“And Ezekias sent to all Israel and Juda, and wrote letters to Ephraim and Manasse, that they should come into the house of the Lord to Jerusalem, to keep the passover to the Lord God of Israel. (2) For the king, and the princes, and all the congregation (ecclesia) in Jerusalem, designed to keep the passover in the second month. (3) For they could not keep it at that time, because a sufficient number of priest had not purified themselves, and the people was not gathered to Jerusalem. (4) And the proposal pleased the king and the congregation (ecclesia).”

Here we have again, the word “congregation” which is ecclesia in the LXX and qahal in the Hebrew. They came together in this order “king, princes and ecclesia” much like in Acts we have “apostles, elders and ecclesia.” Their decision is also made together as something that pleases everyone. So they send out letters to all their brethren. Some mocked but some humbled themselves and came. Isn’t the summation in verse 12 beautiful?

“And the hand of the Lord was present to give them one heart to come, to do according to the commands of the king and of the princes, by the word of the Lord. (13) And a great multitude were gathered to Jerusalem to keep the feast of unleavened bread in the second month, a very great congregation (ecclesia).” (Brenton LXX)

“The hand of the Lord was present to give them one heart”[8] sounds like something from Acts (“of one accord”). Here again we have a picture of the ecclesia, a “very great congregation”, in harmony and joyous celebration but there is a problem. There were many in the ecclesia who were not sanctified to eat the Passover. They did not do it in the proper order according to the word. Did God strike them down like Uzza? No he didn’t and we read why in verses 18-19.

“For a multitude of the people, even many of Ephraim, and Manasseh, Issachar, and Zebulun, had not cleansed themselves, yet did they eat the passover otherwise than it was written. But Hezekiah prayed for them, saying, The good LORD pardon every one that prepareth his heart to seek God, the LORD God of his fathers, though he be not cleansed according to the purification of the sanctuary.”

There are some similarities to what went on during David’s time but there is this striking contrast for a different outcome. Hezekiah knew that they were not following the word of God. He knew what was right. He knew there would be consequences if he didn’t pray. He interceded for this one time and God heard and healed the people. It wouldn’t be that way next year. They would be prepared and sanctified. There are circumstances where we come up short. God knows. If we acknowledge his way, he will guide us to walk with him in light. There are time for exceptions but let them not become the rule.

If that wasn’t enough the ecclesia makes another decision in verse 23,

“And the whole assembly (LXX ecclesia) took counsel to keep other seven days: and they kept other seven days with gladness.”

Oh what an unbelievable joyous time it was for this ecclesia. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if our ecclesias were the same?

Conclusion

The ecclesia is a powerful concept. Let us never make this word commonplace and our association together trivial. If we truly believe the word of Jesus that “I will build my ecclesia” then we stand in his very presence as his workmanship. He walks among the candlesticks and we must never let those lights go out. We must stand by the example of the ecclesia of old, continuing steadfastly in the apostle’s doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread and in prayer. We have our problems just like they did and we have to find that way to be of “one accord”. Our ecclesias must uphold the word of God, acknowledge our faults, pray for forgiveness so that we might rejoice together in what truly is the fellowship of the Lord.