Particulars
of Christianity:
312
The Church Ethic
Survey of Post-Ascension
Church Gatherings
Introduction
& 3 Models of Church Gatherings and Leadership
Examining the Models
Examining the Models
Conclusions and Study Expectations
Examining Church Gatherings
in the Gospels
The First Supper, Jesus'
Specific Instructions, Conclusions
Survey of Post-Ascension
Church Gatherings
Apostolic and Eldership
Functions in Acts and the Epistles
1 Corinthians 1-10 &
Introduction to 1 Corinthians 11-14
1 Corinthians 11-13
1 Corinthians 14
1 Timothy 2:12, Conclusions
on Women in Church Gatherings
Conclusions: 1 Corinthians
14, Church Gatherings & Leadership
Survey
of Post-Ascension Church Gatherings: Early Meetings in the
Book of Acts
Having
completed our survey of the gospels, we now proceed to investigate
the issue of church gatherings and leadership in the rest
of the New Testament starting in the Book of Acts. And we
will get a look at how the disciples implemented the “on-the-job
training, which they had received from Jesus.
After
Jesus’ ascension in Acts 1, we have the first instance of
a gathering of Jesus’ followers without Jesus being physically
present. Verse 13 indicates that they were gathered in an
upper room. What is interesting to note is that both Mark
14:15 and Luke 22:12 note that the Last Supper took place
in an upper room. In fact, both passages state that the upper
room was large.
Mark 14:14 And wheresoever he shall go
in, say ye to the goodman of the house, The Master saith,
Where is the guestchamber, where
I shall eat the passover with my disciples? 15 And he
will shew you a large upper room furnished and prepared: there make ready for
us.
Luke 22:11 And ye shall say unto the goodman
of the house, The Master saith unto thee, Where is the guestchamber,
where I shall eat the passover with my disciples?
12 And he shall shew
you a large upper room furnished: there make ready.
Here
in Acts 1, Jesus’ disciples are gathered together in a room
large enough to accommodate all 120 of them. It is entirely
possible that the disciples were, in fact, staying and meeting
in that same upper room where they had shared their last Passover
meal with Jesus. If this is true, it may constitute some peripheral
confirmation that the disciples understood that the Last Supper
had prescriptive significance for ongoing church gatherings.
With
that in mind, we will now continue with our examination of
the first post-ascension gathering of Jesus’ disciples. It
is recorded for us in Acts 1:12-26.
Acts 1:12 Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day’s
journey. 13 And when they were come in, they went up into
an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John,
and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew,
James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas
the brother of James. 14 These
all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication,
with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with
his brethren. 15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said,
(the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)
16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs
have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of
David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them
that took Jesus. 17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained
part of this ministry. 18 Now this man purchased a field with
the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder
in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. 19 And it was
known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper
tongue, Aceldama, that is
to say, The field of blood. 20 For it is written in the book
of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man
dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take. 21 Wherefore
of these men which have companied with us all the time that
the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 Beginning from
the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken
up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of
his resurrection. 23 And they appointed two, Joseph called
Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. 24 And they
prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of
all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,
25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship,
from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to
his own place. 26 And they gave forth their lots; and the
lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven
apostles.
In
verses 13-14 of Acts 1 we are informed that Peter, James,
John, Andrew, Philip, Thomas, Bartholomew, Matthew, James
(son of Alphaeus), Simon, and Judas (James’ brother) were
together. With them were Jesus’ women followers, Jesus’ mother,
and Jesus’ brothers. What follows in verse 15-26 is the only
description we have of what occurred as these followers gathered
together. Verse 15 informs us that there were about 120 people
gathered there. This is the first post-ascension church gathering
without Jesus. We can compare what we see here with the gatherings
during Jesus’ ministry to determine whether this gathering
exhibits some change of format.
We
know from verse 14 that the gathering included prayer. Verse
15 then begins to describe the rest of what happened in that
upper room. First we see Peter stand up to speak to the 120
people gathered there. As the passage continues, Peter continues
to speak for 7 of the remaining 11 verses. In these verses,
Peter uses scripture to instruct those gathered that they
should find someone to take Judas Iscariot’s place. We notice
that Peter is uninterrupted and that his speaking comprises
the bulk of the interaction. After he finishes his statement
we see that they select two candidates, pray, cast lots, and
then appoint Matthias as Judas’ replacement.
Now,
we can take notes about what is clear in this passage. Here,
we have one man, Peter, being portrayed by Luke as dominating
and directing the gathering. We also see that Peter is instructing
them out of the scripture. In fact, it seems very much like
Peter (and those with him) are simply following the pattern
they had experienced and had been trained with during their
time with Jesus. Some participation by others can be seen
in response to Peter’s instruction. This participation can
be seen in the selection of Joseph and Matthias and in the
prayer, both of which involved more people than just Peter.
Surely, some discussion followed. The group’s response is
not featured in the text. However, those things that are recorded
in the text do not deviate from what we’ve seen in pre-ascension
gatherings: one person dominating and directing the meeting
through teaching and instruction while the rest of those present
are also allowed to interrupt and respond.
This
first meeting of the church after Jesus’ ascension is consistent
with the Elder-Leadership model for church gatherings. However,
Acts 1 does not describe all who are present as equally participating
or contributing to the gathering. Instead Peter dominates
the meeting with teaching. Consequently, Acts 1 does not fit
the Viola model. In addition, Acts 1 does not fit the Pseudo-traditional
model because there is participation by others in response
to Peter’s instruction and also because there is no musical
worship. It also important to note that in Acts 1 the decision
making authority does not lie solely with one man, such as
can be seen in the Psuedo-traditional model in which the head
pastor has the final word on all decisions. Instead, we see
the involvement of at least all twelve apostles in the decision
to appoint a successor for Judas. The collective nature of
this decision is seen most prominently in verse 23, which
begins with the phrase “And they appointed two.”
But
perhaps the reason that the church gathering of Acts 1 does
not exhibit a departure from earlier gatherings is that, although
Jesus has ascended, the day of Pentecost had not yet arrived
and the disciples have not yet received the Holy Spirit. Maybe
this would explain why we don’t see either the Viola model
or the Pseudo-traditional model (with its lengthy musical
segment) in Acts 1. And perhaps a change of meeting format
will occur as a result of Pentecost in Acts 2. But then again,
we must consider that maybe what we see here in Acts 1 is
not merely an interim solution that is only intended to suffice
temporarily between Jesus’ departure and the coming of the
Holy Spirit. We must at least consider the possibility that
the reason this gathering seems to follow the model exemplified
by Christ in the gospels is because Peter and the other disciples
understood that they were supposed to maintain that speaker-dominant,
audience-interaction model, which they experienced with Christ
before his ascension.
Supporting
this consideration are several statements that Jesus makes
to his disciples prior to his ascension into heaven.
John 20:21 Then said Jesus to them again,
Peace be unto you: as
my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. 22
And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and
saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: 23 Whose soever
sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose
soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake
unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and
in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching
them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:
and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of
the world. Amen.
From
these short passages at the end of Matthew and John’s gospels
we can see that Jesus indicated to his disciples that he was
sending them just as he had been sent by the Father and that
they should teach all men all what he had commanded them.
In fact, the Greek verb that is translated as “sent” in John
20:21 is “apostello” (Strong’s number 649) from which we get
the noun “apostle,” which is from the Greek word “apostolos”
(Strong’s number 652.) Hebrews 3:1 even calls Jesus “the Apostle”
using the same Greek word that is applied in the New Testament
to the apostles.
Hebrews 3: 1 Wherefore, holy brethren,
partakers of the heavenly calling, consider
the Apostle (652) and High Priest of our profession, Christ
Jesus;
Though
it is inconclusive, it is reasonable to consider that the
disciples understood Jesus’ remarks here to indicate that
their being sent as he had been sent and their teaching others
as he had taught them included them conducting gatherings
of his followers in the same speaker-dominant manner that
he had used. Coupling Matthew 28 and John 20 with Acts 1’s
description of the first post-ascension gathering of Jesus’
followers provides further warrant for this conclusion. It
certainly seems more than plausible that Peter’s conduct here
may have been based on his understanding of Jesus’ commands
from John 20 and Matthew 28 in just this way.
However,
we still cannot determine with certainty if John 20, Matthew
28, and what we see here in Acts 1 provide prescriptions for
how church gatherings were to be conducted later. But we must
be clear that in Acts 1 we still do not see a description
involving equal participation by all present, a large segment
musical worship, or short segments of skits, songs, poems,
etc. So, if we make determinations simply from what the passage
provides, we see that Acts 1 cannot be used as support or
evidence of a departure from the speaker-dominant model established
by Christ during His ministry. With that said we move on to
Acts 2 and the day of Pentecost to see if we can detect any
change in church gatherings thereafter.
Acts
2 begins by informing us that the 120 disciples were still
gathered together in the upper room.
Acts 2:1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one
accord in one place. 2 And suddenly there came a sound from
heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the
house where they were sitting. 3 And there appeared unto them
cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
4 And they were all
filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other
tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
In
verse 2, we are immediately informed of the coming of the
Holy Spirit upon all present in the form of tongues of fire
resting on each of them. They then begin to speak in tongues
as the Spirit enabled them. Now, since the Viola model for
church gatherings centers on mutual ministry and equal contribution
by all, particularly as enabled by the Holy Spirit, some might
suggest that in Acts 2 the disciples ministered to themselves
by speaking in tongues prior to their engaging those gathered
outside for the feast day. But such a notion is not drawn
from the text. Instead it is obvious that Luke intended his
audience to understand verse 4 as being explained by the verses
that follow it. Verse 6 explains what happened quite well.
Acts 2:5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem
Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. 6
Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were
confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his
own language. 7 And they were all amazed and marvelled,
saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak
Galilaeans? 8 And how
hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in
Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus,
and Asia, 10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt,
and in the parts of Libya
about Cyrene, and strangers
of Rome, Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretes and Arabians,
we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of
God. 12 And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying
one to another, What meaneth this?
When
the multitudes heard the loud sound (like a rushing wind)
caused by the coming of the Holy Spirit, they came near and
heard the disciples, empowered by the Holy Spirit, speaking
in their own native languages. In fact, it is implicit from
the text of Acts 1:8 as well as Luke 24:49 that the empowerment
of the disciples by the Holy Spirit to speak in tongues, as
we see here in Acts 2 on the day of Pentecost, was explicitly
for the purpose of communicating with the unbelievers who
had come to Jerusalem for the feast. It would be an entirely
outside notion to suggest that the Holy Spirit empowered the
disciples to speak in tongues in order to minister to each
other in the upper room.
Acts 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and
ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem,
and in all Judaea, and in Samaria,
and unto the uttermost
part of the earth.
Luke 24:46 And said unto them, Thus it
is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise
from the dead the third day: 47 And
that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in
his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
48 And ye are witnesses of these things. 49 And, behold, I
send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued
with power from on high.
So,
it seems that what we have described here in Acts 2 is largely
a record of the disciples ministering to the crowds on Pentecost.
As we continue we see the familiar pattern re-emerge. In verses
14-40 of the chapter we again see Peter following in the model
of what he had witnessed Jesus himself do and what Jesus had
thereby trained him to do. In Acts 1 we saw Peter acting as
Christ did when gathered together with the disciples. Now
we see Peter acting as Christ did when evangelizing the crowds.
It seems very clear that Peter had somehow come to understand
that they were supposed to carry on the model of Christ’s
pre-ascension interaction with them and the crowds even after
Christ had ascended into heaven and the Holy Spirit had come
upon them.
However,
most of the people in the crowd were non-believers, though
some of them are converted after Peter concludes his speaking.
So, we must remain clear. Acts 2:5-40 is very much an instance
of a public evangelism and not a description of a church gathering.
While Acts 2 provides further indication that Peter and the
disciples understood that they were supposed to continue Jesus’
speaker-dominant model of interaction after Jesus had ascended,
this passage has not yet given us any direct indication pertaining
to church gatherings specifically. For that we must keep reading
in Acts 2.
In
Acts 2:41 we see that as a result of Peter’s sermon about
three thousand people repented and came to believe in Christ.
Acts 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day
there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
As
we continue through the remaining verses of Acts 2 Luke informs
us of the daily practices of the early church.
Acts 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship,
and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. 43 And fear
came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done
by the apostles. 44 And all that believed were together, and
had all things common; 45 And sold their possessions and goods,
and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
46 And they, continuing daily with one accord
in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did
eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, 47 Praising
God, and having favour with all the people. And
the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.
What
we learn from Acts 2:42-47 is helpful and informative for
our study. What we see here in this passage tells us about
the manner of the church’s gathering together after Pentecost.
And what do we find? Well, first we see that verse 42 and
verse 46 indicate that they were getting together for the
breaking of bread. This is important for several reasons.
First, the breaking of bread is a clear indication that what
is being described here in verses 42-47 is a genuine church
gathering. Second, because the breaking of bread is synonymous
with the communion meal, we can confirm that post-Pentecost
church gatherings took Jesus’ instructions at the Last Supper
to be prescriptive for future church gatherings, including
the continuation of a full meal for communion.
But we can also directly compare this gathering in Acts 2
to the Last Supper. We already know from the gospel that the
Last Supper involved several portions. These included the
communal meal, prayer, and a long segment where Jesus taught
the disciples. Similarly, when we read here in Acts 2:42 that
the early church gathered together to eat the communal meal,
to pray, and that the apostle’s taught them, we are right
to begin to draw some connections. What we have here then
from Luke’s description in Acts 2:41-47 is strong corroboration
that post-Pentecost church gatherings followed the format
of the Last Supper involving at least a full meal, prayer,
and a large teaching segment.
And
what can we conclude about the teaching portion of these post-Pentecost
meetings? Well, we have some further indication that teaching
was not equally provided by all persons present. Verse 42
clearly indicates that the church continued in the apostle’s
doctrine. But that doctrine, or teaching, did not belong to
or originate with the apostles. It belonged to and originated
with Jesus Christ. The doctrine was merely taught to the church
by the apostles. After all that is what Christ sent them to
do, to teach his teachings to others. As we have seen, the
word “apostle” (Strong’s number 652, “apostolos” comes from
the same Greek verb for “sent” that Jesus uses in John 20:21
(Strong’s number 649, “apostello.”) Apostle simply means “sent
one. And, as we have seen, John 20:21 applies this term to
Jesus himself. So, Acts 2:42 simply records the disciples
fulfilling Jesus commands to them. In essence, the ones he
sent to teach are now teaching the people Jesus’ teachings.
(Here again are these passages shown side by side.)
John 20:21 Then said Jesus to them again,
Peace be unto you: as
my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. 22
And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and
saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: 23 Whose soever
sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose
soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake
unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and
in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching
them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:
and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of
the world. Amen.
Acts 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship,
and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
Furthermore,
we have already seen two instances of these “sent ones” teaching
those gathered earlier in Acts. In chapter 1, we have the
apostle, the “sent one,” Peter instructing the 120 disciples
out of the scripture as they gathered together in the upper
room. And in Acts 2, we again have the apostle Peter teaching
the crowds. So, when we see Acts 2:42 say that the church
“continued in the apostle’s teaching” we have a good reason
to conclude that the church wasn’t teaching itself in an equal
participation format, but we must understand that the apostles
were the ones teaching the rest of the church just as Jesus
had had done and just as he had commanded them to do.
In
his book, Reimagining
Church, Frank Viola concurs that the apostles dominated
their meetings.
There
are two chief characteristics of the apostolic meeting.
One is that an apostolic worker does most of the ministry. – Frank
Viola, Reimagining
Church,
Chapter 2, Reimagining the Church Meeting, pages 49-51
If
this is the case, and we will see more evidence that it is
as we continue in Acts, then we must conclude that even after
Pentecost, the apostles continued to uphold a model of church
gatherings, which was not equal participation by all. And,
we will have to conclude that the format of church gatherings
upheld by apostles after Pentecost was based upon a model
in which the meetings were dominated by particular leaders
teaching the rest of the assembly. And we have seen good reason
to conclude that the apostles continued this teacher-dominant
model as a fulfillment of Jesus’ instructions to them. This
means that the apostles must have understood Jesus’ to have
intended this model to be continued in church practice after
Jesus’ ascension and after Pentecost. And, if this is the
case, we would expect that the format of church gatherings
will not be altered as we proceed through our survey. As we
do, we will pay attention to see if this expectation is confirmed
or overturned.
As
we turn to Acts chapter 3 we find the account of Peter and
John healing the lame man at the Temple.
After the healing, from chapter 3:11 through the beginning
of chapter 4 we see Peter following Jesus’ familiar pattern
of interacting with the crowds. Peter dominates the gathered
crowd and teaches them from God’s word about Jesus Christ.
In chapter 4, we see that Peter and John are arrested by the
religious leadership. Peter and John’s interaction with these
men bears striking similarity to Jesus’ own confrontations
with them prior to his death, resurrection, and ascension.
Neither
of these instances from chapter 3 or chapter 4 involves a
gathering of Jesus’ disciples. However, they do inform us
that the apostles seemed very much to have put into practice
the model they had learned from Jesus for interacting with
gathered crowds and with groups of religious opposition. This
being the case we might further expect that their interaction
at church gatherings will also mimic the pattern they had
experienced with Jesus. And indeed, what we have seen so far
in Acts 1 and 2 does seem to fit with this expectation.
The
remaining portion of Acts 4 transitions into Acts 5. Here
Luke describes how Peter and John returned to the believers
and explained what had happened in chapters 3 and earlier
in chapter 4. As a result, all those who had gathered together
joined in prayer and thanksgiving to God. Then a second event
similar to the day of Pentecost took place as the house where
they are gathered was shaken, they were all filled with the
Holy Spirit, and they were enabled to speak the word with
boldness. Now this enabling to speak the word of God boldly
was not toward one another. Instead, the reason they were
enabled to speak with boldness is provided clearly in the
text’s description of their prayer. In verse 29, they ask
for boldness to preach the word in contrast to the threatening
words of the Jewish religious leaders. What specifically had
the religious authorities threatened? Verse 17 records the
words of the Jewish leadership, saying, “let us straitly threaten
them, that they speak henceforth to no man in this name.”
Since the apostles were told not to preach Jesus’ name anymore,
we can conclude that the boldness they received to “speak
God’s word” was not to one another in the form of mutual ministry
at church gatherings. Instead, it was boldness to preach Jesus
to the crowds, which the Jewish leadership had told them not
to do.
Though
we certainly have another instance of a church gathering here
in Acts 4, we aren’t given much information about the format
of that meeting other than that they joined together in prayer
and were filled with the Holy Spirit. We might also note that
the meeting began with Peter and John’s proclamation of the
events the day before. So what we do know from this passage
still fits with the Elder-Leadership model and does not lend
support to the Pseudo-traditional or Viola models. Here we
most likely have Peter (and perhaps to some extent John) explaining
what had happened to those gathered. Then we have a corporate
prayer. The only thing we don’t see is any mention of a communion
meal taking place on this occasion.
As
we proceed to the end of chapter 4 into chapter 5 we find
Luke explaining how the early church lived in community with
one another and shared their material possessions with one
another so that there was no lack among them. Chapter 5 opens
with the account of Ananias and Sapphira. It is followed by
the apostles healing many people, the apostles subsequently
being arrested by the religious leadership for this, their
release from prison by the angel of the Lord, their preaching
and teaching in the Temple, religious leadership’s outrage at the
apostles, Gamaliel’s wise words, and the beating and release
of the apostles. The final verse of chapter 5 is somewhat
informative for the purpose of our study.
Acts 5:42 And daily in the temple, and
in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus
Christ.
Here
in verse 42, Luke explains to us the regular habits of the
apostles. They went to the Temple
each day and taught the people proclaiming Jesus Christ. And,
more importantly we learn that the apostles taught in each
house every day. Now, as people living in modern society,
the significance of their teaching in each house may not be
apparent to us at first glance because we are accustomed to
church gatherings taking place within large church buildings.
However, as Luke has already explained to us early in Acts,
the location of the early church gatherings at this period
was in their homes.
The
Last Supper was in the upper room of someone’s home.
Mark 14:14 And wheresoever he shall go
in, say ye to the goodman of the house, The Master saith,
Where is the guestchamber, where
I shall eat the passover with my disciples? 15 And he
will shew you a large upper room furnished and prepared: there make ready for
us.
Luke 22:11 And ye shall say unto the goodman
of the house, The Master saith unto thee, Where is the guestchamber,
where I shall eat the passover with my disciples?
12 And he shall shew
you a large upper room furnished: there make ready.
The
first post-ascension church meeting in Acts 1 and the gathering
on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2 also took place in the upper
room of someone’s home (perhaps even the same room as the
Last Supper.)
Acts 1:13 And when they were come in,
they went up into an upper room, where
abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip,
and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son
of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother
of James.
Acts 2:1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord
in one place. 2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven
as of a rushing mighty wind, and
it filled all the house where they were sitting.
Later
in Acts 2, we see the church continuing to meet in their homes
as the number of believers grew.
Acts 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship,
and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. 43 And fear
came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done
by the apostles. 44 And all that believed were together, and
had all things common; 45 And sold their possessions and goods,
and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
46 And they, continuing daily with one accord
in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did
eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,
In
fact, the homes of the believing community remained the only
(or at least the pre-dominant) place in which early church
gatherings were held throughout the first century period (and
well on into the second and third centuries.)
Acts 20:20 And how I kept back
nothing that was profitable unto you, but have shewed
you, and have taught you publickly, and from house
to house.
Romans 16:5 Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Salute
my wellbeloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia
unto Christ.
1 Corinthians 16:19 The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila
and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with
the church that is in their house.
Colossians 4:15 Salute the brethren which
are in Laodicea,
and Nymphas, and the
church which is in his house.
Philemon 1:2 And to our beloved
Apphia, and Archippus our fellowsoldier, and
to the church in thy house:
So,
when we see again in Acts 5:42 (as well as Acts 2:42 and Acts
20:20) that the apostles were teaching the people each day
in their homes, this informs us that the manner of their meetings
was one in which the apostles taught them the word of God.
It was not one where everyone (including the apostles) participated
and spoke equally. Rather, even after Pentecost the role of
speaking and teaching at the meetings continues to be limited
in number and not something shared equally by all present.
However,
it also seems that the number of persons who lead during the
meetings was not limited solely to one person. As we have
already seen, the evidence shows that the apostles shared
this role with one another. It is true that the apostles’
preaching and teaching together often involved one of them
taking a more dominant role. (Peter and John at the Temple
in Acts 3 is one example of this trend. We will see other
examples of this later as we continue our study through the
rest of the New Testament.) However, just because one apostle
dominates on a particular occasion that fact alone does not
equivalent to the singular, head-pastor structure offered
by the Psuedo-traditional model. In a shared leadership model,
we would not expect all the leaders to speak simultaneously
or that they would never “yield the floor” to one another.
(Moreover, for Protestants and evangelicals, superimposing
a single-leader model onto the apostles themselves would result
inadvertently in backdoor admission of Roman Catholic papal
claims.) In addition, shared participation by the apostles
is also not equivalent to shared participation by all present.
If the shared participation is limited exclusively to apostles
this constitutes some manner of hierarchical leadership as
well as specialized (rather than equal) function. In other
words, shared participation by the apostles is not supportive
of the Viola model.
Acts
6 provides further insight into the differentiated roles that
were held in the New Testament church and practiced during
their daily gatherings.
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. 2 Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them,
and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of
God, and serve tables. 3 Wherefore, brethren, look ye
out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy
Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.
4 But we will give
ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the
word.
As
the number of believers grew it became more difficult to ensure
that everyone’s needs were being met from the sharing of possessions.
In response to this need, the apostles take action. Their
decision is that it is not appropriate for them to take time
away from their teaching of the word of God in order to serve
in the daily distribution of material needs. They then appoint
seven other men to be responsible for this important task.
However, we must take note of two relevant facts from this
event. First, just like Acts 1 when the apostles collectively
decided which two candidates to consider for Judas’ replacement,
here we see the apostles’ collectively making a decision.
The decision-making authority was shared equally by these
twelve men, not by a single man. Second, we must take note
that the apostles understood and upheld that it was their
duty to minister the word.
This
differentiation of duties, which associated the teaching of
the word with the apostles and assigned the distribution service
to others, is informative. In this distinction we see that
the church meetings were characterized by the teaching role
being conducted by certain persons and not others. Moreover,
we see that this format was specifically upheld by the apostles
after Pentecost. While other persons had different roles,
not all persons present participated and functioned equally
in the ministry and teaching of the word. Instead, the apostles
alone continue to exhibit leadership through teaching at the
church meetings. That is to say, the apostles had a special
function at the church meetings, which distinguished them
from everyone else.
One
more point that might be relevant is how the apostles’ response
to this situation relates to the instructions Jesus gave after
washing his disciples’ feet in John 13:1-17. In that passage,
Jesus provided an example that those who lead should serve
others. Similarly, Jesus taught in Matthew 10:44 that those
who would be the greatest must be the servant of all while
at the same time saying that he himself came not be served,
but to serve. Likewise, we saw that in Matthew 20, Mark 10,
and Luke 22 Jesus instructed the apostles not to employ the
Gentile manner of leadership. What is obvious from Acts 6:2
is that the disciples did not understand Jesus’ teachings
in these passages to require real, physical service, as embodied
here in physical service of “waiting on tables.” Or to put
it another way, the apostles did not understand Jesus’ teaching
about service and leadership to prohibit delegating more menial
tasks to others while reserving for themselves those tasks,
which required greater expertise and leadership experience.
Nor did the apostles understand Jesus’ teaching in such passages
as forbidding them to operate with hierarchical and specialized
function. The disciples apparently kept the model offered
by Jesus’ own service, which as we saw was teaching-dominant.
Consequently, from this passage in Acts 6, we see additional
confirmation that Viola’s denial of any hierarchical or specialized
function is not consistent with the information presented
in the New Testament.
Survey
of Post-Ascension Church Gatherings: The Church Under Apostolic
Leadership
At
this point in our study and in our survey it is important
to note that we have potentially crossed an important threshold
regarding our main hypothesis. As we surveyed the gospels
we saw that Jesus dominated the gatherings of his disciples
through teaching and we also saw that at those pre-ascension
gatherings the speaking was not equally shared by all who
were present. However, during that early portion of our survey,
we did not know whether the manner in which Jesus’ conducted
such gatherings would be continued or was intended to continue
after Jesus’ ascension into heaven. However, we have now progressed
far enough past Jesus’ ascension and the day of Pentecost
to make a more conclusive determination.
What
we have seen fits with the projection we made at the end of
our survey of the gospels. Earlier in Acts we noticed that
the apostles certainly seemed to feel that Jesus had intended
for them to carry on his model of teacher-dominance and not
equal-participation at their meetings. There has been no notable
or detectable departure from the model we saw established
by Christ in the gospels. Christ’s example in the gospels
established a model in which one person dominated the meetings
as the speaker and teacher and in which there was also open,
yet lesser participation from others present. It is also worth
noting that we have seen a notable amount of correlation between
the format of gatherings for public evangelism and the format
of gatherings between Jesus’ followers. Both exhibited these
two features of speaker-dominance and interruptive audience
interaction with that speaker.
But
even though we have seen this model exemplified by Christ
prior to the ascension and continued by his apostles in the
early decades of the churches life, at this point we still
do not know whether this model was supposed to continue in
church gatherings when the apostles were not present. It is
possible that the apostles established some other format for
church meetings when they were not present. They could even
have established a meeting where everyone shared and spoke
equally. But with strong conviction at this point we can confirm
that when the apostles themselves were present church meetings
were characterized by a speaker-dominant teaching model with
open, but not equal participation by the rest of those present.
To determine if this model was intended to continue or did
continue in church gatherings in which the apostles were not
present, we will have to wait until we cover such situations
later in the New Testament narrative.
Likewise,
in concluding that the apostles themselves practiced and conducted
speaker or teacher-dominant church gatherings, it should be
noted that we have not said anything which Frank Viola disagrees
with. As indicated earlier, in his books Viola repeatedly
points out that the meetings the apostles conducted were characterized
by the apostles dominating the meetings and instructing the
rest of those who had gathered.
There
are two chief characteristics of the apostolic meeting. One
is that an apostolic worker does most of the ministry. –
Frank Viola, Reimagining Church,
Chapter 2, Reimagining the Church Meeting, pages 49-51
In
the following quote, notice that even though Viola clearly
states that there was no hierarchy among local elders and
that local elders were equal to one another, Viola does not
believe that the local elders were equal to the apostles.
Among
the flock were the elders (shepherds or overseers). These
men all had equal standing. There was no hierarchy among them.
Also present were extra-local workers who planted churches.
These were called “sent ones” or apostles. But they did not
take up residency in the churches for which they cared. –
Frank Viola, Pagan Christianity, Chapter 5, The Pastor:
Obstacle to Every-Member Functioning, page 110
In
the following quote Viola explains why he is careful not to
include the apostles in the “equal standing” and non-hierarchical
status of the elders. According to Viola, the apostles had
a unique role.
Church
leadership began to formalize at about the time of the death
of the itinerant apostolic workers (church planters).
In the late first and early second centuries, local presbyters
began to emerge as the resident “successors” to the unique
leadership role played by the apostolic workers. This
gave rise to a single leading figure in each church. Without
the influence of the extra-local workers who had been mentored
by the New Testament apostles, the church began to drift toward
the organizational patterns of her surrounding culture. –
Frank Viola, Pagan Christianity, Chapter 5, The Pastor: Obstacle to Every-Member
Functioning, page 110
In
describing the apostles as having a “unique role,” by contrasting
this “unique role” to the role of elders who were all equal
with one another, and by describing local elders who took
on the apostolic role as deviating from the New Testament
model, Viola affirms that in his view the apostles had a specialized
function in church gatherings and a special place in church
leadership. That means Viola acknowledges that Jesus did not
actually abolish all hierarchy from the church. Rather, he
established a hierarchy in the church, at least in the role
of the apostles.
There
are four points that we should note here about Viola’s view
of the apostles. As already mentioned, the first point is
that Viola himself recognizes that the apostles held a unique
role in New Testament leadership and that this unique role
involved their dominating the ministry of the church meetings.
The
second point that we want to discuss about Viola’s view of
the apostles is his identification of apostles as itinerant
church planters. In these quotes Viola portrays the apostles
as “leaving the churches on their own,” “not taking up residency
in the churches for which they cared,” and only “revisiting
that church after a period of time.”
There
are two chief characteristics of the apostolic meeting. One
is that an apostolic worker does most of the ministry. The
other is that such meetings are never permanent. They are
temporary and have a long-range goal. Namely, to equip
a local body of believers to function under the headship of
Jesus Christ without the presence of a human head (Eph. 4:11-16;
1 Corinthians 14:26). For this reason, an apostle always ends up leaving the church on its own. – Frank Viola,
Reimagining
Church,
Chapter 2, Reimagining the Church Meeting, pages 49-51
Among
the flock were the elders (shepherds or overseers). These
men all had equal standing. There was no hierarchy among them.
Also present were extra-local workers who
planted churches. These were called “sent ones” or apostles.
But they did not take up residency in the churches for which
they cared. – Frank Viola, Pagan Christianity, Chapter 5, The Pastor:
Obstacle to Every-Member Functioning, page 110
Church
leadership began to formalize at about the time of the death
of the itinerant apostolic
workers (church planters). In the late first and early second
centuries, local presbyters began to emerge as the resident
“successors” to the unique leadership role played by the apostolic
workers. This gave rise to a single leading figure in
each church. Without the influence of the extra-local workers
who had been mentored by the New Testament apostles, the church
began to drift toward the organizational patterns of her surrounding
culture. – Frank Viola, Pagan Christianity, Chapter 5, The Pastor:
Obstacle to Every-Member Functioning, page 110
After
beginning a church, the apostolic workers (church planters) of the first century would revisit
that body after a period of time. – Frank Viola, Pagan Christianity, Chapter 5, The Pastor:
Obstacle to Every-Member Functioning, pages 123-124
Are
Viola’s descriptions of the apostles accurate portrayals of
the New Testament record? Not at all. Consider that Paul,
who definitely fit the description of an itinerant church
planter, himself took up long periods of residence in several
of the church communities that he started. For instance, Paul
and Barnabas stayed in Antioch
for over a year (Acts 11:26.) Likewise, Paul lived in Corinth for a year and a half (Acts 18:11.)
He stayed in Ephesus
for three years (Acts 19:8-10 and Acts 20:31-35.) And Paul
spent the last two years of the Book of Acts’ chronology in
Rome
(Acts 28:30-31.) Paul’s actual stay in Rome
continued through the end of his life several years later.
So, is it accurate to say that Paul never took up residency
in the churches that he cared for? Is it valid to conclude
that Paul was an “extra-local” worker for those three years
in Ephesus, or for that year
and a half in Corinth, or for
that year in Antioch, or for
those years in Rome?
Likewise,
consider the other apostles. It may be fair to describe Paul
or Barnabas as itinerant church planters because they planted
many new church communities on their missionary travels. But
what about the other apostles?
As
far as the New Testament record is concerned Peter, John,
John’s brother James, and Jesus’ half-brother James all stayed
in Jerusalem for fifteen years or more after Jesus’ ascension
(Acts 15:22-23, Galatians 1:17-19, and Galatians 2:1, 9.)
The same is true of the other apostles who remained in Jerusalem after the persecution that arose at the martyrdom
of Stephen (Acts 8:14) at least through the council of Jerusalem (Acts 15.) Later in their lives Peter and John went on to
Rome and Ephesus
respectively, but they remained there long term. We also know
that earlier on Peter visited Samaria,
Caesarea, and Antioch briefly (Acts 8:14, Acts 10:24, and
Galatians 2:11.) Likewise, John went with Peter to Samaria
(Acts 8:14) and spent some time in Patmos
(Revelation 1:9.) And 1 Corinthians 9:5 may indicate that
the apostles did at times visit the other churches, but nonetheless
these men lived most of their lives in or near Jerusalem.
They lived in the church community that they cared for there.
From the scriptural depiction it seems that Paul and Barnabas
were exceptions to the rule and in general apostles were not
itinerant church planters.
In
fact, the New Testament provides little to no indication that
any of the other apostles planted many churches elsewhere.
Instead, the planting of church communities is largely attributed
to Paul, Barnabas, those who traveled with them, Philip the
evangelist, and other believers who weren’t apostles (Acts
8:5, 8:39-40, and 11:19.)
Because
of these New Testament facts it is difficult to agree with
Viola’s identification of apostles as synonymous with itinerant
church planters who never lived in the churches they cared
for, but left them on their own. Certainly, to the church
in Jerusalem,
the apostles were permanent, local workers. As we have seen,
Peter identifies himself as an elder in 1 Peter 5:1. Did the
church in Antioch think Paul was just an outsider during the
year and a half he spent living with them and teaching them
(Acts 11:26)? Did the community of Christians in Corinth think Paul was an extra-local worker
when he stayed and taught them for a year and a half (Acts
18:11)? Did the believers in Ephesus think Paul was an extra-local
worker when he stayed and lived with them for three years
teaching them (Acts 19:8-10, Acts 20:31-35)? What about those
in Rome
with whom Paul spent the remaining years of his life (Acts
28:30-31)? Did Paul leave the Roman church on its own? Clearly,
Viola’s concept of the apostles is incompatible with these
simple and obvious New Testament facts about Paul and the
other apostles.
The
third point is that it is Viola’s definition of apostles simply
as itinerant church planters which allows him to apply the
apostolic role to church planters of today, including himself.
But is it valid for modern Christian church planters to claim
the title and role of an apostle? As we have just seen, one
reason that this is not valid is because the terms “apostle”
and “church planter” are not synonymous in New Testament usage.
Most of the apostles remained in, lead, and taught the Jerusalem church for most of their lives while
church planting was carried out by others.
Another
reason that modern church planters cannot validly claim the
title or role of apostle is because that term is restricted
in the New Testament to particular persons who were personally
sent out by Jesus Christ to testify and teach. The word apostle
is the Greek noun “apostolos” (Strong’s number 652) means
“sent one.” It comes from the Greek verb “apostello” (Strong’s
number 649), which means “send, send forth.” This term is
given to the twelve apostles when Jesus first sends them out
in Matthew 10 and Luke 9.
Matthew 10:1 And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean
spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness
and all manner of disease. 2 Now
the names of the twelve apostles (652) are these; The
first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother;
James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; 3 Philip,
and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the
son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus;
4 Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed
him. 5 These twelve Jesus sent forth (649), and commanded them, saying, Go
not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city
of the Samaritans enter ye not: 6 But go rather to the lost
sheep of the house of Israel. 7 And
as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.
8 Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the
dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely
give.
Luke 9:1 Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases.
2 And he sent (649)
them to preach the kingdom
of God, and to heal
the sick. 3 And he said unto them, Take nothing for your
journey, neither staves, nor scrip, neither bread, neither
money; neither have two coats apiece. 4 And whatsoever house
ye enter into, there abide, and thence depart. 5 And whosoever
will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off
the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them.
6 And they departed, and went through the towns, preaching
the gospel, and healing every where. 7 Now Herod the tetrarch
heard of all that was done by him: and he was perplexed, because
that it was said of some, that John was risen from the dead;
8 And of some, that Elias had appeared; and of others, that
one of the old prophets was risen again. 9 And Herod said,
John have I beheadded: but who is this, of whom I hear such
things? And he desired to see him. 10 And the apostles (652), when they were returned,
told him all that they had done. And he took them, and went
aside privately into a desert place belonging to the city
called Bethsaida.
The
same is true of Paul and Barnabas who were commissioned personally
at the direction of the Holy Spirit in Acts 13.
Acts 13:1 Now there were in the church
that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas,
and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and
Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch,
and Saul. 2 As they
ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate
me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called
them. 3 And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid
their hands on them, they sent them away. 4
So they, being sent
forth (649) by the Holy Ghost, departed unto Seleucia;
and from thence they sailed to Cyprus.
So,
as a result of being sent forth by the Holy Spirit, Paul and
Barnabas are called apostles or “sent ones” along with the
other “sent ones” that Jesus had sent forth.
Acts 14:14 Which when the apostles (652), Barnabas and Paul, heard of,
they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying
out,
Furthermore,
all of those persons who are called apostles in the New Testament
were able to validate their claim to that role through signs
and wonders that were given to them (Matthew 10:2, 8 and Luke
9:2.)
Acts 2:43 And fear came upon every soul:
and many wonders and
signs were done by the apostles.
Acts 5:12 And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among
the people; (and they were all with one accord in Solomon’s
porch.
Acts 15:12 Then all the multitude kept
silence, and gave audience to Barnabas
and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought
among the Gentiles by them.
2 Corinthians 12:12 Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought
among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty
deeds.
Since,
the title and role of apostle is not accurately identified
with church planting and since the apostles were those personally
sent by the commissioning of Jesus Christ (and the Holy Spirit)
and enabled to perform miraculous signs and wonders, it is
not fair to call modern Christian church planters “apostles”
as Viola’s model for church leadership requires.
In
his book Reimagining Church, Viola rightly points out that elders
did not appoint themselves in the New Testament.
(…In
addition, elders never
appointed themselves. – 1 Thess. 2:7-12. Afterward, the
oversight shifted to the hands of the elders.) – Frank Viola,
Reimagining Church,
Chapter 9, Reimagining Oversight, page 176
However,
neither did apostles appoint themselves. And yet, Viola’s
church model requires unique leadership positions whose dominant
role is justified through an invalid identification of such
person as apostles. It is intriguing that while Viola seeks
to deprive local elders of the ability to dominate their church
gatherings, Viola retains that dominance with regard to modern
church-planters, such as himself (as seen already in the quotes
above). Given Viola’s denial of such dominance where local
elders are concerned, obviously some justification is needed
for the uniquely dominant leadership role these church-planters
have over the rest of the church in Viola’s model. Viola attempts
to provide that justification by connecting modern church
planters to the apostolic leadership. However, no such validation
can be made. As we have seen apostles in the New Testament
weren’t typical or exclusively church planters, nor were they
typically itinerant visitors to local church communities.
Likewise, apostles were personally appointed and commissioned
by Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit and their commissions were
confirmed through the ability to perform miraculous signs.
Because of these facts, it is not possible for people who
were never appointed personally by Jesus Christ or the Holy
Spirit and who cannot perform miraculous signs to claim a
uniquely apostolic leadership role merely on the basis that
they themselves plant churches. Since a valid approach to
the church leadership is absolutely vital to Viola’s view
of local church structure and gatherings, without such a valid
approach Viola’s model is obviously in serious jeopardy.
It
becomes apparent that in Viola’s model, retaining the speaker-dominant
function with regard to church-planters is merely self-serving
just as much as his faulty connection between the apostles
and church-planters is merely self-serving. Arguably the only
reason that Viola tries to identify modern church-planters
with apostles while distancing local elders from the apostles
is because doing so allows him to simultaneously replace local
church hierarchy with a demand for equal participation and
mutual ministry while at the same time retaining apostolic
hierarchy for church-planters.
The
fourth point that we should make about Viola’s view of the
apostles’ leadership role is how he contrasts it with the
role of the elders. In the quote above, Viola is explaining
what he views as a deviation in the model of church leadership
that occurred at the time of the death of the apostles. As
Viola sees it, the deviation or error isn’t in recognizing
that the apostles themselves had a special function in church
gatherings. Nor was the error in viewing the apostles as occupying
a special place in church leadership. Instead, for Viola,
the deviation was that after the deaths of the apostles the
local elders began to see themselves as the “successors” to
the apostles. As such, in their church meetings these elders
took upon themselves the unique role, which should have only
been reserved for the apostles.
In
Viola’s mind, the local church elders mistakenly abandoned
the equal-participation, equal-function model that God intended
for regular church meetings and replaced it with the special-function
and teacher-dominance of the apostolic meetings. For Viola,
the elders took this incorrect course when they themselves
acted as the “successors” to the apostolic role.
Even
if Viola is correct that the elders erred in continuing the
apostolic meeting format, is he correct to conclude that their
doing so constitutes a “drift toward the organizational patterns
of [the church’s] surrounding culture”? Wouldn’t continuing
the format of apostolic meetings instead be continuing the
organizational structure that Jesus established when He placed
the apostles in a special position of leadership and when
He gave them a special function in the church meetings? Even
if the elders were in error to continue the apostolic model
after the apostles had died, this error would not be a “drift
toward the organizational patterns of the surrounding culture.”
It would be a mistaken continuation of the organizational
pattern that God himself had set up in the church.
Whichever
is the case, a key question has emerged at this point in our
study that will decide the matter of church gatherings and
leadership and finally determine which model is the biblically
intended model that was supposed to continue after the deaths
of the apostles. That question is: were the elders to conduct
church gatherings in the same way the apostles had done? Or,
as Frank Viola argues, were church gatherings with the elders
to have an entirely different format than the “apostolic meeting
format” conducted by Jesus and his apostles in the gospels
and the book of Acts?
More
specifically, were the church gatherings under the elders
to continue the same teacher-dominant format that characterized
the gatherings of Jesus and the apostles? Or were church gatherings
under the elders to exhibit an entirely new form of church
gathering characterized by equal participation, equal function,
and equal contribution from everyone present? Or, more succinctly,
did the apostles intend for the local elders to be their successors
in inheriting their special function and special position
in the church community?
Lastly,
as we also continue to assess the viability of the Pseudo-traditional
model we might wonder if we will see church meetings begin
to involve abbreviated communion meals, large segments of
musical worship, and uninterruptible speaking by one person.
As we proceed into the next segment of church history in the
Book of Acts, we will look for answers to these questions.
Survey
of Post-Ascension Church
Gatherings: The Church Grows Beyond Jerusalem
The
rest of Acts 6 and all of Acts 7 recount the story of Stephen,
one of the men selected to serve as a deacon (in the daily
distribution) earlier in Acts 6. In these chapters Stephen
is confronted by some of the religious leadership. He boldly
preaches the word to those gathered at the scene and then
is stoned to death.
Chapter
8 tells of Paul’s persecution of the church which began at
the death of Stephen. This is followed by several accounts
of Philip’s work of evangelism in Samaria
(particularly the Ethiopian eunuch), Azotus, and Caesarea.
Acts 9 picks up the account of Paul and records his conversion.
Then we are told of Paul’s time in Damascus
where he preaches Jesus in the synagogues. Paul then goes
to Jerusalem and, through Barnabas, meets the apostles.
Chapter 9 concludes with the account of Peter in Joppa raising
Tabitha from the dead. Acts 10 records Peter and the first
Gentile conversions which took place at the house of Cornelius
in Caesarea.
From
these chapters no new information is presented about church
meetings. And we still have not been given any information
concerning what structure church meetings had when the apostles
were not present. As we proceed into chapter 11 we will move
towards material that is relevant to this question as the
apostles themselves remain in Jerusalem
while the gospel spreads further and further beyond Jerusalem.
The
first portion of Acts 11 records Peter’s return to Jerusalem and his subsequent explanation of the conversion
of the Gentiles at Cornelius’ house to people in the Jerusalem church who objected to the idea. The
text records in verse 19 that at this point the word had only
been proclaimed to Jews. With the conversion of Cornelius’
household things began to change. We also learn that believers
from Jerusalem had scattered
to other regions after Stephen’s death and we learn about
the persecution that then ensued in Jerusalem
(Acts 11:19.)
Through
this historic development, questions can now be asked regarding
the conduct and format of the church’s meetings in locations
where the apostles were not present. The immediate passage
does not tell us much. However, what we do know is that these
believers now began to share with Gentiles, many of whom accepted
and believed in Christ. News of this reached the church in
Jerusalem who decided to send
Barnabas to the believers in Antioch.
(In contrast to the Pseudo-traditional model, it is noteworthy
that Acts 11:22 once again indicates that decision-making
authority was shared by many rather than being held by a single
man.) Barnabas took Paul with him and the two men met with
the church in Antioch
for an entire year.
Because
of these developments, Acts 8-11 represents the beginning
of a pivotal period in the early church history, a period
in which church communities began to exist in areas outside
of Jerusalem. We have already seen the establishment
of several of these communities. At this point, we now find
communities of believers in Samaria
(Acts 8), Damascus (Acts 9), Joppa (Acts 9), Caesarea (Acts 10), as
well as Phenice, Cyprus,
and Antioch
(Acts 11). As we study the chapters that follow we will look
for information on the format of the church gatherings that
were held by these communities of faith which existed outside
of Jerusalem.
Acts
12, however, returns to events in Jerusalem, where Herod killed the apostle James
and put Peter in prison. The chapter describes Peter’s miraculous
release by the angel of the Lord and ends with Herod’s death.
In between we have the brief mention of Peter’s visit to the
house of Mary, the mother of John Mark, immediately after
leaving the prison. Verse 12 informs us that the believers
were gathered together in the home but the text provides us
with very few details. We know that there were believers there
at the house. We know that they were praying together. However,
beyond these facts, we aren’t given any information about
the nature of the church gatherings. We don’t know if they
had a communion meal. We don’t know if someone taught for
a while from the word. We don’t know if they all participated
equally with short teachings, skits, poems, songs, prayers,
words of encouragement, etc. We simply don’t have any information
about what went on or how the meeting was conducted. As such,
the lack of information makes it clear that Luke did not intend
this account to inform us about church gatherings.
The
beginning of Acts 13 marks the onset of Paul and Barnabas’
first missionary journey at the prompting of the Holy Spirit
through the prophets at Antioch.
According to verse 5 and verses 14-15, we learn that it was
their custom to go to the synagogues on the Sabbath and proclaim
the word of Jesus Christ. Verse 42 informs us that after the
Jews had left the synagogue the Gentiles came and asked that
Paul and Barnabas return the following Sabbath and preach
the same words to them. In this passage, we can also notice
that though both Paul and Barnabas are said to preach in the
synagogues in verse 5 and 15, it is Paul who takes the lead
and speaks, not both of them. This is similar to what we saw
with Peter and John at the Temple
or before the Jewish religious leaders earlier in Acts 3 and
4. And this is consistent with what the Elder-Leadership Model
expects: multiple, equal leaders all capable of speaking,
yielding the lead to one another on various occasions.
We
might also note that Acts 13:43 indicates that some Jewish
and Gentile persons were persuaded by Paul and Barnabas’ words.
Notice again that though Paul is recorded as presenting the
message in the synagogue, both he and Barnabas are described
here as persuading these converts. Likewise, verses 46-48
do not indicate which of them spoke. So, here again we are
seeing a model in which either of them could lead the presentation,
but one did the bulk of the speaking. When Paul and Barnabas
arrive in Lycaonia in Acts 14:12, we see similarly that Paul
is the chief speaker although undoubtedly Barnabas could and
perhaps did also speak given that at times Luke attributes certain statements and generally
spreading the word indiscriminately to both men. Once again,
what we should note here is that this interplay and openness
for a few men to share the speaking role is completely consistent
with what we would expect based upon the Elder-Leadership
model.
Verses
21-22 of chapter 14 indicate something else that is relevant
to our study. With these passages of Acts we re-encounter
our critical question. At this point, Luke has informed us
that there were disciples in various cities (Acts 14:21--22).
And Luke also tells us in verses 26-28 that Paul and Barnabas
did not remain with these new disciples but returned to Antioch where they stayed.
Therefore, there would be disciples in different localities
without an apostle there among them to lead and conduct their
church gatherings. So, what instructions would the apostles
give to the Christians in these cities for how to conduct
their gatherings without an apostle present to lead and teach
them?
In
a moment, we will actually delve into the scriptural record
in order to answer this question. But first, let’s begin with
an interesting question. Since Viola has suggested that the
apostle's time with Jesus was their "on-the-job"
training for how to conduct church gatherings, is it not equally
reasonable to suggest that the local churches' time with the
apostles was their "on-the-job" training for how
to conduct church gatherings when the apostles were not present?
Yet where do we see any indication that local churches experienced
from the apostles a format of equal participation and mutual
expression during church gatherings? So far, never. On the
contrary, since the record in Acts (at least up to this point)
is virtually a monolithic testimony that the apostles conducted
speaker-dominant format for local church gatherings, it would
appear that local churches were trained "on-the-job"
to practice that same speaker-dominant structure in both leadership
and church gatherings. We will continue to keep the issue
of “on-the-job” training in mind as we move forward, but for
now we return to the issue of specific instructions rather
than experiential training. Again we ask the question: what
instructions did the apostles give to local churches for how
to conduct their gatherings without an apostle present to
lead and teach them?
Acts
14:23 provides the first hint of an answer.
Acts 14:22 Confirming the souls of the
disciples, and exhorting them to continue
in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation
enter into the kingdom of God.
23 And when they had
ordained (5500) them elders (4245) in every church, and
had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord,
on whom they believed.
Here
in Acts 14:23 we see that Paul and Barnabas appointed or ordained
men to act as elders in these churches. This is the first
instance we have recorded for us of the appointment of Christian
elders in the New Testament. Prior to this we had apostles
sent out by Jesus Christ. We had deacons appointed in Acts
6 to help with the distribution of food and meeting of the
material needs of the community. And we have the mention of
elders in Jerusalem who received the financial gift from Antioch that was delivered
by Paul and Barnabas (Acts 11:29-30). But we were not informed
about the appointment of elders or given any information about
them until Acts 14:23.
We
might also note that both here in Acts 14:24 and in Acts 11:29-30
there are multiple elders present in a given location, not
just a single elder in each church community. This affirms
the Viola model and the Elder-Leadership model and their assertion
that church leadership in local church communities would be
shared by a group of leaders rather than held by a single,
head pastor as prescribed in the Pseudo-traditional model.
The
existence of elders deserves further investigation and is
of critical importance to one of the central remaining questions
of this study – how were church gatherings conducted without
an apostle present? What is significant and informative from
this passage in Acts 14 is that Luke is covering the emergence
of the very situation that we are in today, namely, churches
meeting without the presence of an apostle to lead the meetings
with teaching.
And
we see that neither Luke nor apparently Paul and Barnabas
provided any additional instructions to the elders they were
ordaining in these cities concerning how their church gatherings
should be conducted. This is somewhat telling because, as
we have said, this is the first instance where we see the
first elders ordained in locations where apostles were not
present. As such, if church gatherings without apostles present
were to have an entirely different format than apostolic meetings,
we would expect that this would be an appropriate place to
inform the elders (and us) about that new and different format.
Let’s
sharpen the point with a short review. In the Book of Acts,
Luke is chronicling for us the history and early development
of the spread of the Christian church. Initially the gospel
was proclaimed in Jerusalem only. The apostles
and all the believers remained there until after the persecution
which arose from Stephen’s martyrdom. After Stephen’s death,
however, some believers left Jerusalem
and in doing so spread the gospel to other areas. At this
point, Philip also spread the gospel to other areas, evangelizing
by the power of the Holy Spirit. All the while the apostles
continued to live in Jerusalem. The result is that by Acts 13-14
we have pockets and groups of Christians living in different
areas who would have no apostle living among them to lead
their gatherings. Previously we have become accustomed to
the apostles leading the church gatherings. But what would
church communities do without an apostle present? How would
their meetings be conducted?
It
is at just this point that Luke informs us that as they left
these new believers in their own cities, the apostles Paul
and Barnabas ordained elders in each of the churches. The
entire missionary journey took no longer than two years (46-48
AD). Prior to this we have no record of any believers in these
specific cities that they visited on this journey. In fact,
the nature and logic of Luke’s chronology indicates that this
is the first time the gospel was spread to these towns. So
within a short space of time, Paul and Barnabas visited each
city, made converts there, spent a short amount of time with
them, then departed for the next destination, and finally
they returned to the same places on their way back to Antioch.
The result would be that these pockets of disciples would
be without an apostle to conduct and lead their gatherings.
So, what do we see Paul and Barnabas do? What is their solution
to the absence of an apostle and the impact such an absence
would have on church gatherings? Is it to instruct the local
churches in a brand new format that differed greatly from
the apostolic meetings and introduced equal participation
and contribution? No, in relation to the absence of apostles
to conduct local church gatherings, the only action described
by Acts is that the apostles ordained elders in each of the
churches. So while these churches would not have apostles,
each church would have elders.
And
it is apparent from the text that Luke is intentionally connecting
the impending absence of the apostles to the appointing of
elders in each church. What we can be fairly certain about
is that the elders where appointed in order to meet the need
created by the apostles absence. It is not explicitly stated
how the elders would fill this need. Instead, Luke simply
presents it as if the mere appointment of elders would sufficiently
account for the absence of apostles in the church gatherings
without any new instructions about a new format for those
gatherings.
At
this point, it would be quite reasonable to interpret the
lack of additional or new instructions being given to the
elders about church gatherings as support for the conclusion
that the elders were simply to continue the apostolic model
for church meetings. After all, it could very well be the
case that these elders had received the same “on-the-job”
training from the apostles Paul and Barnabas during their
ministry to them as the apostles had received from Jesus during
His ministry. If this is the case, no further or new instructions
for church meetings would be necessary because the elders
would simply conduct the meetings just as the apostles had
done. The contrary conclusion, that these new elders were
supposed to adopt an entirely different kind of format for
church gatherings, despite the total lack of any information
to that effect, would be a highly dubious and unreasonable
proposition.
In
fact, Viola even acknowledges that Paul trained people after
Jesus’ model of “on-the-job” training.
This
is a very big topic. But, in short, the way that Jesus Christ trained Christian workers was
to live with them for a period of years. It was “on the job”
training. He mentored His disciples at close range. They also
lived in community together. Jesus did the work, they watched,
and then they went on a trial mission which He critiqued.
He sent them out, and they carried on the work themselves.
Paul of Tarsus followed the same pattern, training Christian
workers in the city of Ephesus. They were part of the community in Ephesus, they watched Paul,
and eventually, they were sent out to do the work. – Frank
Viola, Pagan Christianity, Chapter 10, Education:
Swelling of the Cranium, page 218
Jesus
provided the initial model for this “on-the-job” training
when He mentored the Twelve. Paul duplicated it when he trained
young Gentile workers in Ephesus. – Frank Viola, Pagan Christianity, Chapter 12, A Second
Glance at the Savior: Jesus, the Revolutionary, page 249
We
must be careful though. What Viola means in these passages
is that Paul trained up other “church planters” to follow
in the apostolic model. He does not mean that Paul trained
up local elders to follow in the apostolic model. But given
what we have seen so far, how could Viola (or anyone who affirms
that Paul trained up men to follow in the apostolic model
of church leadership) not also recognize that we have as just
as much indication that Paul provided “on-the-job” training
to elders to follow the same apostolic model?
To
be fair, Acts 14:23 is not itself absolutely conclusive on
this point. It is nonetheless circumstantial support for the
continuation of apostolic style meetings by the elders. If
the elders weren’t to continue the apostolic format, we must
wonder when we are finally going to get information on how
non-apostolic meetings were to be conducting differently from
apostolic meeting. At this point, in the absence of such information,
we are forced to assume that the elders must have continued
their meetings using the apostolic model that they had learned
during their experience of the apostles’ ministry among them.
We
will continue to examine how elders in the churches may relate
to the absence of the apostles and the conducting of church
gatherings as we gather more material on this subject in the
New Testament. For now we will return to Acts and pick up
with Acts 15, which is a record of a church gathering in Jerusalem.
In
Acts 15:1-6, Luke informs us that men form Judaea went to
Antioch
and began to teach that they must be circumcised according
to the Law of Moses in order to be saved. Paul and Barnabas,
who were present in Antioch, strongly disagreed with them on this
matter. As a result they decided to go to Jerusalem
and consult with the apostles and elders in Jerusalem.
We
might note again that Luke again indicates that there are
elders in the church at Jerusalem.
We might also ask why there are elders in Jerusalem
if the apostles are present there. Does the presence of elders
alongside apostles conflict with our assessment from Acts
14:23 that Paul and Barnabas appointed elders to fill the
need created by the absence of apostles? Not at all.
We
know from earlier in Acts that the Jerusalem church had grown quite large in number.
Early accounts indicated that thousands and thousands were
added and more every day. The Christian community was apparently
so large that in Acts 6 the apostles were having difficulty
managing it by themselves and appointed deacons to help with
the daily distribution.
We
must keep in mind that there were a very small number of apostles.
Jesus appointed only twelve (and Judas was dead.) Matthias
was chosen to replace Judas in Acts 1. Paul and Barnabas were
sent by the Holy Spirit to the Gentiles in Acts 13, but they
were in Antioch.
(There were perhaps a few others who were considered apostles
including Jesus’ half-brother James.) So, the dozen or so
apostles in Jerusalem were in charge of thousands of Christians
who didn’t meet in giant auditoriums or sanctuaries built
for that purpose. Instead, each day in Jerusalem
it was the custom of thousands of believers to gather together
in homes to break bread. The largest meeting room we’ve seen
accommodated 120 people. Even if we suppose that some of the
venues were quite spacious that would still be a very large
number of meetings for 12 apostles to attend each day and
each week throughout Jerusalem.
If
elders were indeed appointed to help conduct church meetings
in the absence of the apostles it would make sense that we
would find elders in Jerusalem
despite the fact that the apostles were there as well. The
elders in Jerusalem would be able
to help the apostles by attending church gatherings among
the thousands of Christians throughout the city. This makes
complete sense and fits quite well with Luke’s clear intention
in Acts 14:23 to describe the appointment of elders in response
to the fact that the apostles Paul and Barnabas were leaving
and returning to Antioch.
In summary, both in Jerusalem
and beyond, elders were appointed to serve in the place of
the apostles when the apostles could no longer attend local
church gatherings.
Survey
of Post-Ascension Church
Gatherings: Acts 15, Gathering of the Jerusalem Church
As
we return to the activities of the Jerusalem Church
in Acts 15, we find recorded for us an important church gathering
that will further inform us about New Testament church meetings.
Acts 15:1 And certain men which came down
from Judaea taught the brethren,
and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner
of Moses, ye cannot be saved. 2 When
therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation
with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain
other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles
and elders about this question. 3 And being brought on
their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles:
and they caused great joy unto all the brethren. 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. 5 But there rose up
certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying,
That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them
to keep the law of Moses. 6 And
the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this
matter. 7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter
rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren,
ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us,
that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the
gospel, and believe. 8 And God, which knoweth the hearts,
bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he
did unto us; 9 And put no difference between us and them,
purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore why tempt
ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which
neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11 But we believe
that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be
saved, even as they. 12 Then
all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas
and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought
among the Gentiles by them. 13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and
brethren, hearken unto me: 14 Simeon hath declared how
God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them
a people for his name. 15 And to this agree the words of the
prophets; as it is written, 16 After this I will return, and
will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen
down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will
set it up: 17 That the residue of men might seek after the
Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith
the Lord, who doeth all these things. 18 Known unto God are
all his works from the beginning of the world. 19 Wherefore
my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among
the Gentiles are turned to God: 20 But that we write unto
them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from
fornication, and from things strangled, and from
blood. 21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that
preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
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: 23
And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The
apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto
the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria
and Cilicia: 24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain
which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting
your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep
the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: 25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send 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 therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also
tell you the same things by mouth. 28 For
it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon
you no greater burden than these necessary things; 29 That
ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and
from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if
ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well. 30 So
when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch:
and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered
the epistle: 31 Which when they had read, they
rejoiced for the consolation.
There
are many important facts to consider from Acts 15. First,
this church gathering is conducted in much the same way that
we have seen each time an official gathering of Christ’s disciples
is described in detail so far in Acts. We have a gathering
of believers. We have a few people speaking at the meeting
and dominating the discussion. This includes Peter, Barnabas,
Paul, James, as well as believers from the sect of Pharisees
who argued that circumcision was required for salvation. So
the meeting was open in the sense that more than one person
could speak up and present their point of view from the scripture.
However, the meeting was not one where everyone present contributed
equally. Instead, a limited number of persons dominated the
proceedings.
Second,
we should also take note that every time Luke mentions how
the matter was considered and decided he lists the elders
right along with the apostles. This occurs five times in this
passage beginning in Antioch in verse 2 with the decision to go to the apostles
and elders in Jerusalem.
In verse 4, we are told that the apostles and elders receive
the company from Antioch. In verse 6, it
is the apostles and elders who come together to decide the
matter. In verse 22, it is both the apostles and elders who
decide the matter based upon and in agreement with the statements
of Peter, Paul, Barnabas, and James. In verse 23, 25, and
28 the authority of the decision is attributed to the apostles
and the elders. (Acts 16:4 also attributes the decision to
the authority of not just the apostles, but to both the apostles
and the elders.)
While
it is true that Luke only records the statements of the apostles
Peter, Barnabas, Paul, and James, we must note that not all
of the other apostles spoke. And we must also note that the
apostles weren’t the only ones allowed to speak at the gathering.
The Christians who were from the Pharisaic tradition also
spoke. These same men had been able to teach in Antioch (Acts 15:1). And
from the verses highlighted above we can see that Luke is
stressing the shared participation of the elders with the
apostles in their authority to conduct the meeting and to
decide the matter at hand. What we are beginning to see is
a picture painted where the elders were persons who were not
sent as apostles by Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit directly,
but who participated along with the disciples in conducting
and leading the church gatherings and overseeing doctrinal
issues.
Significantly,
Acts 15 presents the elders as sharing in the special position
and authority that the apostles had over the church and in
making important decisions for the church. Acts 15 does not
contrast the apostles with the elders by assigning a special
function or authority to the apostles that it withholds from
the elders. Instead, whatever Acts 15 credits the apostles
with, the elders are credited with also. This is an important
point since Frank Viola’s model necessitates a very hard distinction
between apostles and elders, particularly with regard to their
function and authority in church gatherings. Such a distinction
is not presented in Acts 15. In fact, such a distinction is
contrary to any indications we have from the text itself.
As such, Acts 15 provides serious indications that Viola’s
model is in error with regard to its claim that the role of
elders in the church was very different from the special function
held by the apostles.
We
might also draw attention to what happens in Antioch when the church there received the news about the
decision from this church gathering in Jerusalem.
Acts 15:30 So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude
together, they delivered the epistle: 31 Which
when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation. 32
And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and
confirmed them. 33 And
after they had tarried there a space, they were
let go in peace from the brethren unto the apostles. 34 Notwithstanding
it pleased Silas to abide there still. 35 Paul also and Barnabas continued in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of
the Lord, with many others also.
In
Antioch
the church gathers together to receive the news. And Judas
(Barsabas) and Silas speak and exhort the gathering. Silas
even remains in Antioch with Paul and Barnabas for teaching
and preaching the word. Now, who were Judas and Silas? They
were not apostles. And yet they addressed and spoke at the
gathering in Antioch alongside the apostles Paul and Barnabas.
Were they perhaps among the elders of Jerusalem? We cannot be sure, but this would
fit with what we’d expect from what we’ve seen so far.
Continuing
in the Book of Acts we next encounter Luke’s account of Paul’s
second missionary journey. This begins in Acts 15:36 and continues
through chapter 21:14. Throughout this longer series of chapters
there is little mention of Christian church gatherings. There
are several mentions of Paul and others, such as Apollos,
going into the synagogues to persuade the Jews (Acts 17:1,
17:17, 18:4, 18:7, 18:19, 18:26, and 19:8).
In
Acts 18:26, we find mention of Aquila
and his wife Priscilla’s interaction with Apollos. After hearing
Apollos speak in the synagogue, Aquila
and Priscilla take him aside and explain the way of God to
him more perfectly or completely. It is important to discuss
this passage in relation to the idea of participation by women
in church gatherings. First, it is important to remember that
it is not our position that the scripture prohibits women
from ever speaking or sharing with men in personal or private
settings particularly when accompanied by their husband. Second,
the very first thing we must note from this passage is that
this event does not take place in a church gathering. Instead,
this is a private exchange between three persons. As such,
this text cannot inform us about whether women could speak
in a church gathering.
But
what about the issue of women teaching men? Is this an instance
where a woman, in this case Priscilla, is teaching a man,
namely Apollos? It would be difficult to draw any certain
conclusions about this question from the text, which does
not explain further or provide additional details on the nature
of the conversation that took place here. It is true that
Luke describes how Aquila
and Priscilla took Apollos aside and expounded unto him the
way of God more fully, but there is no indication that Priscilla
herself spoke. As we have seen previously in the Book of Acts,
Luke will at times attribute something to more than one person
(Paul and Barnabas, Peter and John), when only one of those
persons does all or most of the speaking. (Perhaps both Aquila
and Priscilla are mentioned because they both invited Apollos
to their home and acted as hosts while Aquila
did most of the talking and Luke followed his familiar pattern
of generally attributing the speaking.) Ultimately, given
the fact that Luke has used such general attributions before,
we cannot be sure whether Priscilla herself instructed Apollos
or whether it was merely Aquila
who did the instructing.
But
more significantly, we can be sure that in either case, this
would not be an example of a woman teaching in a church gathering.
As such, Acts 18 does not present any real difficulties for
the Elder-Leadership model’s assertion that women could not
speak, teach, or ask questions in a church gathering. Nor
does it provide any real support for the Viola model’s assertion
that women can speak, teach, and ask questions equally with
men at church gatherings.
Next
in Acts 21:26 through Acts 22:22 we have Luke’s account of
Paul’s return to Jerusalem followed by the riot at the Temple,
Paul’s arrest, and his trial before the Sanhedrin (Acts 22:23
through 23:30.) Acts 23:31-26:32 recounts Paul’s trials and
hearings with Roman officials, courts, and kings. In Acts
27:1, Paul begins his journey to Rome and is shipwrecked on Melita. And finally
in Acts 28:16-31, Paul at last arrives in Rome and meets with Jews there. Luke then goes
on to inform us that after this meeting, Paul taught for two
years in Rome at a home he rented
there while awaiting his trial before Caesar. Thus concludes
the Book of Acts.