The New Testament Church

 

“Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honor to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come and his wife hath made herself ready. And to her it was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white; for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.” - Rev. 19:7-8

 

     There are many views among Christians concerning the identity of this woman in Revelation 19:7-8.  However, when all the air clears there are but just two opposing ideas.  She represents either all saints of all ages or she is restricted to a limited number of saints.  The limited theory is further subdivided into one of two ideas; (1) she is either composed of all saints in a certain dispensation or (2) she is composed of the members of New Testament churches.  The final restriction is subdivided one step further; (a) She is composed of all New Testament church members or (b) she is composed only of  faithful New Testament church members.

    Although the exact identity of the bride in the book of Revelation is much disputed there is little or no dispute as to the identity of the espoused bride in this present age. In this present age the Scriptures clearly identify the New Testament church of Christ as the espoused or promised metaphorical wife of Christ.

 

“...Unto the church of God which is at Corinth....For I am jealous over you with godly jealously: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you a chaste virgin to Christ.” - 2 Cor. 1:1; 11:2

 

    Significantly, this passage is addressed to the local church at Corinth and its particular membership. This passage is rich in metaphors and draws from well-known Jewish customs. However, in order that the Bible reader does not misunderstand, and think that the church at Corinth alone is the Bride of Christ, Paul uses this same betrothal metaphor for the Church at Ephesus:

 

“..to the saints which are at Ephesus....that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be without blemish.” - Eph. 1:1; 5:27

 

     Both of these passages are addressed to local churches. However, this last passage uses generic terms to demonstrate that this metaphor is not restricted to merely one or two specific churches but is applicable to  each and every church of Christ.[1]

 

 

The Metaphorical Bride

 

   The church is not a literal physical bride but rather she is a metaphorical bride. What is a metaphorical bride? First, we must define what is a metaphor. The word “metaphor” simply means “to cross over” or “to transfer.”[2] The key to understanding the right application of a metaphor is to understand how a metaphor can and cannot be used.   E.W. Bullinger in his book Figures of Speech Used in the Bible defines a Metaphor by comparing it to a simile:

 

     “The Simile says, ‘all we LIKE sheep,’ while the metaphor declares that ‘we ARE the sheep of His pasture.’ While, therefore, the word ‘resembles’  marks the simile: ‘represents’ is the word that marks the metaphor” - p. 735

 

     The simile uses terms such as “like” and “as” whereas the metaphor uses to be verbs such as “am” and “is” or “are.”  The simile conveys resemblance’s whereas the metaphor conveys representation. What type of representation is intended by the metaphor?  Bullinger defines the limits placed upon metaphorical representations when he says;

 

     “Let it then be clearly understood that a Metaphor is confined to a distinct affirmation that one thing is another thing, owing to some association or connection in the uses or effects of anything expressed or understood. The two nouns themselves must both be mentioned, and are always to be taken in their absolute literal sense, or else no one can tell what they mean.” - Ibid., p. 735 (emphasis mine)

 

     This means that the intended representation is restricted to those qualities or attributes found in the term as understood in its most literal sense. For example, the church can only represent a bride in areas that are characteristic of a literal bride. What are some characteristics of a literal bride? Faithfulness and purity and commitment to an espousal covenant are some characteristics that can be transferred metaphorically to the church because they are qualities found in a literal bride.

      I am certain that the doctrine of the church has been completely distorted into something it is not simply because of the misuse and abuse of metaphors.  For example, when Paul told the church at Corinth “ye ARE the body of Christ and members in particular” (I Cor. 12:27) he was speaking metaphorically and the idea conveyed is the same as if he had said “Ye REPRESENT the body of Christ....” meaning that the church REPRESENTS characteristics that can be found in the literal physical body of Christ. To understand the metaphorical application to the church, one must first understand the literal characteristics found in the “body” of Christ.  His literal body was composed of many different members working in physical unity under the authority of His literal head. How would a church represent such a “body.” It is to be composed of many different kind of members brought physically together in a visible unity underneath the sole authority of Christ as the metaphorical head of the body.  Indeed, the church of Christ cannot exist apart from this very kind of visible unity and submission to Christ. The Church at Corinth was splintering into different fractions and Paul used this metaphor to call them back into a visible working UNITY underneath the leadership of Christ.

      However, an example of this metaphor being abused beyond its limits is the concept of a “universal invisible” body of Christ. This concept is impossible for a literal  “body” to express, as no human body possesses such attributes. Not only does this concept fail to exist in a literal “body” it also fails to exist as an application to anything God has in this world. There is no such thing in this world as an unassembled, invisible body of Christians working in unity together under the authority of Christ. Never has been and never will be in this life. Such a concept not only violates the use of metaphors but also has no application in this life or the life to come, as there will be no separation in heaven.

      Such abuse is also true for the metaphorical expression “head.” For example, every man is said to have Christ as his ”head” (I Cor. 11:3). Obviously, this must be understood metaphorically or we have Christ’s literal head chopped off and planted on top of every single man’s body. Another problem with such a literalism is how can one literal head be placed on millions of bodies?  However, if “head” is understood metaphorically, then, it simply means that “every man” is to be subject to the “authority” of Christ. Now apply this same truth metaphorically to Christ and His churches. Each and every church of Christ is to submit to the authority of Christ as its metaphorical “head.”  If Christ is the metaphorical head of each New Testament Church then obviously each church is also His metaphorical body (I Cor. 12:27). These are metaphorical descriptions and they are not intended to be taken literally or else we have a monstrosity of countless bodies sharing one head and countless brides sharing one groom.  Such metaphors express relational concepts between Christ and His churches.

     Let’s conclude by summarizing the intent of the above three metaphors. The concept of a “head” REPRESENTS Christ as the final authority over the church. The concept of a “body” simply means that each church REPRESENTS the unity and working relationship between its members under the direction of one head (final authority). The concept of a “bride” REPRESENTS the idea of church members in covenant faithfulness to that authority. The bridal relationship with Christ is simply faithfulness to the terms of the espousal covenant.

 

 

The Espousal Metaphor

 

“...Unto the church of God which is at Corinth....For I am jealous over you with godly jealously: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you a chaste virgin to Christ.” - I Cor. 1:1; 11:2

 

    One of the major metaphors related to the church as the bride of Christ is the espousal metaphor. The custom of betrothal was the act whereby a man and a woman agreed to specific covenant terms in view of a future wedding date.[3]

     According to the Jewish Mishnah the bridegroom could betroth a woman through an authorized agent.

 

“A man may betroth a woman either by his own act or by that of his agent...”  - Mishnah, p. 323

 

     Usually the Bridegroom’s agent was one of his friends[4]. In our text above the Apostle Paul acted as such an agent between the church at Corinth and Christ. However, this kind of metaphorical ministry had its origin with John the Baptist.

 

“He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom’s voice. Thus my joy is fulfilled” - Jn. 3:29

 

    John’s mission and ministry are characterized by this metaphor. The context for this statement sheds considerable light upon its meaning. Some Jews had attempted to make John jealous of Jesus by telling him that “all men” were forsaking him and going to Jesus to be baptized (Jn. 3:26). In other words, they were telling John that Jesus had usurped and assumed John’s unique Baptist ministry and was replacing him before the multitudes. John reminded them that he had already told them that it was his mission to prepare the way for the Lord (Jn. 3:27-28).  John 3:29 is John’s response to these critics. John’s ministry was not in competition with Christ but rather complimentary and preparatory to Christ’s ministry.  His preparation work was the job of the “friend of the bridegroom” who acted as the agent for the Bridegroom in setting forth the terms of betrothal to the bride. John was not seeking the bride for himself but for Christ. Luke describes John’s preparation work in the following words;

 

“And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah....to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.” - Lk. 1:17

 

    The very words used in this passage are terms used for bridal preparations.[5]   It was the work of the bridegroom’s agent to make ready a bride prepared for the bridegroom by obtaining the consent of the Bride to the covenant terms of betrothal. John’s espousal ministry was a ministry that set forth the terms of espousal as the bride of Christ. Those who submitted to these terms made it public through the new ordinance of baptism. As such, baptism was like signing a betrothal covenant publicly. Baptism identified them as those committed to Christ and those who would remain faithful to Him.  Calling sinners to repentance and faithful commitment to Christ was John’s ministry.

    However, Jesus also performed the same ministry. He too called sinners to repentance and to faith in Him. Those who submitted to His call made it public through baptism. Baptism was like signing a betrothal covenant before men. It was a public pledge of identity with Christ and commitment to be faithful to Him.

     The Apostle Paul used this same metaphor to describe his ministry to the Corinthians (2 Cor. 11:2). He too called men to repentance and faith in Christ. Those that heeded his call made it known through the ordinance of baptism. Baptism was like the public signing of a betrothal covenant. Those submitting to baptism were telling the world they were Christ’s and were committed to live for Him and obey Him until He comes for them.

    The Bible says that “the baptism of John” was from heaven. It was the visible symbol of this betrothal covenant. The Biblical name chosen to describe this betrothal ministry was “The Baptist.”  John was called “The Baptist” before he baptized one person (Mt. 3:1).  Why “The Baptist”? The whole espousal ministry is represented in the ordinance of baptism. Baptism publicly identifies you with the gospel of the great commission. Baptism is the public commitment to the discipleship aspect of the great commission.  The descriptive noun “The Baptist” conveyed the espousal ministry from beginning to end. For example, consider “The Baptist” ministry of John and what it consisted of:

 

 

1. The terms of the Gospel are presented:

 

“Behold the lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world” - Jn. 1:29  - “John answered and said.....He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life but the wrath of God abideth on him.” - Jn. 3:27,36

 

2. The public vow of Baptism by an authorized agent:

 

“...The one who sent me to baptize...” - Jn. 1:33 - “The baptism of John whence was it? From heaven, or of men?” - Mt. 21:25. Jesus walked 60 miles to be baptized of John because he was authorized to administer the ordinance.

 

“and were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins...Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance.” - Mt. 3:6,8

 

3. The terms of Discipleship are required:

 

“Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples; And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God. And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus.” - Jn. 1:35-37. 

 

     These three distinctive aspects constitute The Baptist ministry. (1) The gospel set forth the terms of submission. (2) Baptism made such submission public. (3) Discipleship demonstrated this submission on a daily basis. Those who submit to this ministry will be “a people made ready for the Lord” (Lk. 1:17).  John had faithfully carried out the espousal ministry and many had submitted to these terms. It was in light of this accomplishment that John said:

 

“He that hath[6] the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom’s voice. Thus my joy is fulfilled” - Jn. 3:29

 

      Therefore the announcement that “all men” were coming to Jesus through the same espousal terms did not make John jealous.  Rather this announcement made him rejoice. He rejoiced because when Christ adopted “The Baptist” ministry it was an approval of John’s ministry that it was from God. He rejoiced as it demonstrated that he had been a faithful “friend of the bridegroom” and could say  - “Thus my joy is fulfilled.”

 

 

 

A Transitory or Abiding Ministry?

 

   We know that John began the espousal ministry but did this ministry end with the death of John? Today, many teach that John’s ministry and the rite of baptism (which began with him) were merely a transition between the Old Testament Judaism and New Testament Christianity.  These expositors teach that the baptism of John was not “Christian” baptism but   a transitory ceremonial rite that prepared Judaism for a “Christian” ministry which began on Pentecost by the Holy Spirit. 

   What are the consequences of such a teaching? First, this would mean that Christ submitted to something less than “Christ-ian” baptism (Mt. 3:15). This would also mean that Christ led His disciples to administer something less than “Christ-ian” baptism (Jn. 3:26; 4:1)!

 

      “When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples.” - Jn. 4:1                                           

     In addition to the above, this theory would mean that the “council of God” should have been rejected by the Lawyers and Pharisees,  as according to this theory,  the baptism of John was to be rejected by the church anyway on the day of Pentecost:

 

“And all the people that heard him, and the publicans justified God being baptized with the baptism of John. But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the council of God against themselves, being not baptized of him.” - Lk. 7:29-30

 

   However, all these assumptions are inconceivable with the truth of the above Scriptures. This theory finds no support from the Biblical record as there is no record of the apostles or any of those they baptized ever being rebaptized.    

     What is the whole basis for this very popular  theory? This theory is based entirely upon a questionable interpretation of Acts 19:1-6.  Questionable, since this text records an event which occurred somewhere between 12-15 years after Pentecost.   A careful study of Acts 19:1-5 within its proper context will demonstrate that Paul is not replacing John’s baptism with “Christ-ian” baptism but is challenging whether or not the baptism of John was really received in the first place. The responses given to Paul by these disciples demonstrate that whoever baptized them was not qualified to do so.  They were ignorant of the very essentials of John’s ministry such as the coming of the Holy Spirit (Mt. 3:11) and the coming of the Messiah in the person of Jesus. Moreover, it seems that whoever baptized them, baptized them in the name of John when in contrast Paul distinctly says that John baptized in reference to the coming of Christ.

 

     “Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people that; they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.” - Acts 19:4

 

    It is only after they heard that John baptized in reference (in the name of) to  Christ that they submitted to correct baptism.

 

“When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” – Acts 19:5

 

    The problem with their baptism was not that it was the baptism of John but that it was a baptism administed in reference to John rather than in reference to Christ. Morover, it lacked the distinctive of a duly authorized administer of John’s baptism.  The probable administrator of their baptism was Apollos. Indeed in the preceding chapter, Luke vividly points out that Apollos had deficiencies that needed to be corrected. The deficiency was in the area of the baptism of John. He had no authority to administer it. The consequence of that correction was that Apollos ceased being a free lance minister and associated himself with the churches of Christ from that point on as the authority to administer the baptism of John was in the church. God authorized John (Jn. 1:31-33) to baptize and  then, Christ (Who is God) authorized the Church (Mt. 28:19-20).  Who authorized Apollos to administer the baptism of John?  If Apollos did not have authority to administer the baptism of John, then what those disciples considered to be “John’s baptism” was no baptism at all.   This text does not provide a sufficient basis to reject the baptism of Jesus, His apostles and  all those  they baptized prior to Pentecost. This text does not question the validity of the baptism of John but rather the validity of any baptism administered by unauthorized administrators. Paul administed baptism under the authority of such a New Testament church. The apostle Paul was sent out by the church at Antioch (Acts 13:1-4) and reported back to this church (Acts 14:26-28; 15:1-3; 18:22-23) demonstrating that he was acting under the authority of this church.  He was authorized by the church at Antioch to plant churches through preaching the gospel and baptizing the converts and organizing those converts into New Testament churches.  Apollos acted upon his own authority.

      The following pages will provide more concrete proof that the Baptist ministry (the espousal ministry) did not end with John but continued by Christ through His churches until the end of this present age.

 

 

Jesus Continued The Baptist Ministry

 

“When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John (though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples). He left Judea, and departed into Galilee.” - Jn. 4:1-3

 

     The Holy Spirit led the Apostle John to record the  above statement immediately after the conversation between John and the Pharisees (Jn. 3:22-36) for the express purpose to demonstrate that Jesus continued The Baptist ministry begun by John.

    The thought transition from John’s conversation to the above statement is too obvious to miss. This text informs us that Jesus “made and baptized MORE” disciples than John. The direct inference is not that Jesus rejected the ministry of John but rather that what John began Jesus continued.  The historical context demands the continuation as all realized that baptism as a rite began with John and Jesus had personally submitted to it and now began to administer it.  The transition from John to Jesus is also seen in the fact that the disciples of John became the disciples of Christ:

 

“Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples; And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God. And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus....he found...Simon.....the following day...Jesus found Philip....Philip found Nathaniel” - Jn. 1:35-37,41,43

 

 All of the above facts demonstrate clearly that the ministry begun by John was continued by Christ. The same espousal terms set forth by John through the gospel (Jn. 3:36) are set forth by Christ (Jn. 3:15-18) and the same public token of submission to these terms begun by John is the same token of submission  continued by Jesus  (Jn. 4:1-2).  If the ministry of the Baptist had ceased so would have it’s terms and token. However, the Scriptures demonstrate that the terms and token of His ministry continued under Christ.

      In answer to the question “was John’s baptism a continuing baptism...” the Biblical evidence clearly demonstrates that it was continued under Christ and His disciples. Jesus continued to call out a people who would submit to the terms of the betrothal covenant. The Baptist ministry (the espousal ministry) and the ministry of Christ were  one and the same.

 

 

The Baptist Ministry Continued by the Church through the Great Commission

 

      Just as there is a clear transition from John to Christ as recorded in John 3:22-4:1 there is also a clear transition from Christ to His church as recorded  in Matthew 28:18-20.

 

“And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power (lit. Gr. Authority) is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. 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.”

 

    The terms of the betrothal ministry are the terms of the Great Commission with one notable exception.  The limits of John’s ministry and the ministry of Christ was to Israel while the church’s commission is to the whole world. Apart from this one exception, the ministry is the same.

     Some question whether or not it was the church that this commission was given to. We believe the overall context and related texts make it clear that this authority is not given to Christians as individuals or to a particular church office (e.g. apostle, Pope, etc.).

     For example, Luke makes it crystal clear that this commission  was given to the church through its first representative officers when he describes the first actual application of this commission in the book of Acts:

 

(1) “Then they that gladly received his word  (2) were baptized: and the same day three were added unto them....(3) And they steadfastly continued in the apostles doctrine.....And the Lord added to THE CHURCH daily such as should be saved.” - Acts 2:41,42,47

 

      Previous to the day of Pentecost Christ had already designated the church as the final authority on earth in kingdom affairs:

 

 “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 an heathen man and a publican. Verity 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.”  - Mt. 18:17-18.

 

    The above passage demonstrates that the Roman Catholic Church is in error when they teach that Christ gave this authority to Peter as the first Pope.  Instead, Christ gave it to Peter as the contextual spokesman in behalf of the church as this text proves.

     Naturally, the above texts assume the existence of the church prior to Pentecost. Indeed, these texts infer the existence of the church parallel with the ministry of Christ on earth.

     Contrary to the popular opinion that says the church began on Pentecost by the Holy Spirit is the fact that the Scriptures demand the existence of the Church as early  when Christ first called out to himself those disciples baptized by John in the first chapter of the gospel of John.

     This particular point of origin for the church is confirmed by the qualifications set forth to fill the church office of apostle:

 

“Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, Beginning from the baptism of John...” - Acts 1:21-22[7]

 

     The term “companied” means a “gathering together” and the words “went in and out among us” demonstrates an organized and structured assembly. The  terms “from the baptism of John” demonstrates this to be a continuing and enduring assembly. The very fact that Jesus addressed church discipline as early as Matthew 18:15-18 demonstrates the existence of the church prior to Pentecost.

     Paul tell us that the first office Christ set in the church was the office of apostle.

 

     “And God hath some in the church, FIRST apostles, secondarily prophets...” - I Cor. 12:28

 

     The gospel writers record the exact time when these disciples were set in the office of apostle (Lk. 6:12-13).  It should be obvious that you cannot set anything into something that does not first exist. A Church office cannot exist apart from the existence of the Church. Hence, the church had to first exist before any office could be set in it. John The Baptist asserted that Jesus already had possession of the bride (the church) even before John passed from the scene (Jn. 3:29).

       Popular opinion says the church began at Pentecost. However, the Scriptures never state this opinion anywhere. According to the Scriptures, the Church had been assembling consistently with Christ from the baptism of John. The church office of Apostle was functioning and needed to be filled before Pentecost (Acts 1:15-26). At Pentecost this church was simply empowered (Acts 1:8) and “added” to (Acts 2:47). There is a great deal of difference between originating something and adding to something.

     Having concluded that it is the church that Jesus gave the Great Commission to, we may now go on to demonstrate that this commission is the same espousal ministry begun by John and adopted by Christ.

    Just as John had been particularly and specially authorized to set forth the terms of the betrothal covenant, so also the church was particularly and specially authorized to proclaim the same terms not merely to Israel but to all the world. In fact, only the church was qualified to carry out the Great Commission.[8] To think otherwise would be accusing Christ of authorizing the blind to lead the blind. It should be a simple matter to see that Christ never authorized anyone to gospelize others who had never first  embraced or believed in the gospel themselves. He  never  authorized anyone to baptize if they had not first submitted to baptism themselves. He never   authorized anyone to indoctrinate others who had not been first indoctrinated themselves. The text proves this when it says “whatsoever I have commanded you.....” - Mt. 28:20. Those authorized were those who had already been discipled in all three aspects of the espousal covenant begun by John.

     Moreover, the phrase “whatsoever I have commanded” demands that such authority to make disciples is restricted within the boundaries of these same espousal terms. This means that what is being commissioned is the same kind of gospel Jesus preached (Jn. 3:1-19) and the same kind of baptism Jesus administered (Jn. 4:1-2; Lk. 7:29-30) and the same kind of doctrine Jesus taught and observed. This restricts the commission to those who are in doctrinal unity with Christ in these three areas.

      Furthermore, these three espousal terms demand the existence and inclusion of the New Testament church institution. For example, there can be no “teaching to observe” without the actual physical assembling together of both the teacher and those who were previously  gospelized and baptized. Both the teacher and those taught must be unified around the same gospel, same baptism and observing the same doctrine and practice Jesus commanded on a ongoing habitual basis. The New Testament church is inseparably involved in the Great Commission.

      Finally, the last aspect of the Great Commission (teaching them to observe all things)  demands obedience to the first aspect (...go...baptize....teaching them to observe all things....etc.). This means that the Great Commission is nothing less than a reproductive cycle of like faith and order until the end of the age.

    Consequently, if this commission requires the church to disciple others by the same terms, then, the Great Commission must be recognized as the Lord’s plan to reproduce churches of like faith and order.  Since all acknowledge that the Church is the metaphorical “bride” of Christ, then, these are  the terms of the espousal covenant.

     If all the above is rejected, then the following fact clearly proves the point. The continuity of The Baptist ministry (the ministry of espousal) through the church in the Great Commission is demonstrated by the fact that Paul claimed the same espousal ministry as John. Just like the original Baptist, He claimed to be an authorized betrothal agent “I have espoused thee unto Christ..” (2 Cor. 11:2). Just like “The Baptist” Paul preached the gospel of Christ and then baptized the repentant believers forming them into a visible church body under the leadership of Christ to be taught to observe all things whatsoever He has commanded.  Like The Baptist, Paul had been authorized[9]  to set forth the same betrothal covenant terms and as a result the church at Corinth had come into existence through his ministry just as the first church at Jerusalem originated with the material prepared by the first Baptist.[10]

 

  

  These terms were the covenant terms for every church that Paul organized in his ministry. Thus, every church the apostle organized was considered to be a “chaste virgin” betrothed unto Christ.

      The ministry of the church did not begin with Pentecost or some later date but  the church at Jerusalem began in conjunction with the ministry of John:

 

“That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judea, and began from Galilee after the baptism which John preached.” - Acts 10:38

 

    The baptism of John was not simply an action but a message that “John preached”.  Baptism epitomized John’s mission, message and ministry. Baptism stands between the “go” of the gospel and “teaching them to observe all things.” The gospel terms call for initial commitment to Christ but the last aspect of the commission calls for faithful continued commitment to Christ. Baptism identifies the believer with the gospel but also is the public vow of commitment to faithfully observe all things whatsoever Jesus commanded. Thus, baptism is the sign and seal of the espousal covenant with Christ.

     Hence, the metaphorical concept of an “espoused” bride simply means that each New Testament Church entered into its existence through these espousal terms and promises to be faithful to Jesus until He comes and takes her to Himself. Jesus is still building His churches. The church sends out a missionary which “makes ready a people prepared for the Lord.” Hence, the ministry of New Testament Churches still continues to be  “The Baptist” ministry until Jesus comes the second time.[11]  Therefore, in answer to our consideration - “was John’s baptism a continuing baptism and if so, who was authorized to continue it?”, the answer is that it was continued by Christ through His church. The Baptist ministry, the espousal ministry and the Great Commission are all  one and the same ministry.

 

 

The Continuity of the “Baptist” kind of Bride

 

“...and lo, I am with you always even unto the end of the world. Amen” - Mt. 28:20b

 

    The closing words of the Great Commission contain an element of sovereign purpose. There is the element of sovereignty found in the Great commission which manifests itself in the divine promise that this commission will be successful until the end of the age, “and lo, I am with you always even unto the end of the world. Amen.”  Is this a lie or a promise that He will keep?  This promise means that there will not be a day in this age that you will not be able to find a church  discipled by the SAME gospel, SAME baptism and meeting together to observe the SAME doctrine. Hence, the Great Commission is an age long reproductive cycle of churches of like faith and order. This is what Christ meant when He said, “Upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall never prevail against it” (Mt. 16:18).  As an institution or specie the church has never apostatized and never need reformation. As a kind, the churches of Christ have never went out of existence and never will.

     This does not mean that individual churches do not apostatize or go out of existence.  It only means that Christ promised that no generation would see an apostasy or  annihilation of all New Testament Churches before at least one of like faith and order had been reproduced  for the following generation. For example, the Church at Antioch may have apostatized and gone out of existence but not before it had produced other New Testament Churches through its missionary Paul. Individual churches established by Paul may have gone out of existence or apostatized but not before they had produced other New Testament churches for the next generations and so on and so forth until Jesus comes again. This is the promise attached to the Great Commission.

     There is sufficient historical evidence to demonstrate a continued line of succession of churches that were faithful to the “Baptist” or espousal ministry of the Great Commission. The first great departure from the Baptist ministry among Apostolic churches occurred with the Church at Rome and all those churches which followed her into apostasy about 250 AD  Apostolic churches rejected what later became known as the Roman Catholic Church due to her worldliness and affiliation with the state. Those churches which remained true to the Baptist ministry were identified by Rome  as “Anabaptists” because they re-baptized those who came over from Roman type churches to their churches. It is from the historical records of their Roman persecutors that evidence is obtained to demonstrate that these Apostolic Baptist churches have existed in every age from the apostles to the present.  Consider a few of these historical claims:

 

A. Sir Isaac Newton - the greatest scientist who ever lived says:

 

“The Modern Baptist, formerly called Anabaptists, are the only people who have never symbolized with the Papacy”

 

B. John Clark Ridpath, Methodist, author of the monumental work “Ridpath’s History of the World” says,

 

    “I should not readily admit that there was a Baptist church as far back as 100 AD, though without doubt there were Baptists then, as all Christians were then Baptists.”

 

C.  Mosheim, Lutheran Historian says,

 

     “Before the rise of Luther and Calvin, there lay secreted in almost all the countries of Europe persons who adhered tenaciously to the principles of the modern Dutch Baptists”

 

D. The King of Holland appointed  Dr. J.J. Dermout and Dr. Ypiej of the Reformed Church to write a history of Christianity and they say of the Baptists:

 

“We have now seen that the Baptists, who were formerly called Anabaptists, and in later times Mennonites were the original Waldenses, and who have long in history received the honor of that origin. On this account the Baptists may be considered the only Christian community which has stood since the days of the apostles, and as a Christian society which has preserved pure the doctrines of the gospel through all ages...”

 

E. Cardinal Hosius, Roman Catholic, president of the Council of Trent says in the year 1554 AD

 

    “If the truth of religion were to be judged by the readiness and boldness of which a man of any sect has shown in suffering, then the opinion and persuasion of no sect can be truer and surer than that of the Anabaptists, since there have been none for these TWELVE HUNDRED YEARS past that have been more generally punished....”

 

      Rome Dates Baptists back to at least the year 354 AD

 

F. Zwingli, Swiss Reformer, writing in 1525 says of the Anabaptists:

 

“The institution of the Anabaptists is no novelty, but for THIRTEEN HUNDRED YEARS has caused great trouble to the church.” 

 

     Reformers Date Baptists back to 225 AD

 

G. Alexander Campbell, founder of the Disciples of Christ says of the Baptists;

 

“From the Apostolic Age to the present time, the sentiments of Baptists have had a continued chain of advocates, and public monuments of their existence in every century can be produced.”

 

H. Robert Barclay, a Quaker says,

 

    “There are also reasons for believing that on the continent of Europe small hidden Christian societies, who have held many of the opinions of the Anabaptists, have existed from the time of the Apostles”

 

I. Roland Bainton, a Mennonite, author of “The Reformation of the Sixteenth Century” says of the Anabaptists:

 

   “To call these people Anabaptists, that is re-baptizers, was to malign them, because they denied that baptism was repeated, inasmuch as infant baptism is no baptism at all.  They called themselves simply Baptists.” - p. 99

 

 

   When the Reformation occurred, the Protestants joined with the Catholics in persecuting these Anabaptists.  Even in America up to the introduction of the bill of rights these Anabaptists were publicly persecuted by Protestants. The “Ana” was dropped and they became known merely as “Baptists.”  Historical Baptist[12] have always rebaptized all who came over from the ranks of Protestants and Catholics simply because baptism was the designated act to publicly identify a believer with the Baptist ministry (not a Catholic or Protestant ministry).

     The Protestant Reformer Henry Bullinger confirms the fact that these apostolic churches rejected both Protestant and Catholic churches and their ordinances when he says of them:

 

“The Anabaptists think themselves to the only true church of Christ, and acceptable to God; and teach that they, who by baptism are received into their churches, ought not to have communion [fellowship] with [those called] evangelical, or any other whatsoever: for that our-[i.e., evangelical Protestant, or reformed] churches are not true churches, any more than the churches of the Papists.” - J.R. Graves, Old Landmarkism What Is It?, p. 115

 

     Significantly, since the time that a denominational difference occurred among apostolic churches, the name “Baptist” has always been attached to those churches which continued the ministry of John (Ana-baptists, Cata-Baptists, etc.)  However, today, the name “Baptist” has become a generic tag worn by many conflicting denominations which do not share in either the doctrinal or historical heritage of these churches. Nevertheless, still under this generic name even today there can be found those churches which tenaciously teach and practice the ministry of John. These churches are truly the historical Baptists. As a matter of history, only historical Baptists can fit the terms and  promise of the Great Commission. Only the Baptist institution can rightly claim to identify with John The Baptist.

 

 

 

 

A Word to our Ecumenical Brethren

 

     It is interesting to note that according to the Jewish Mishnah a priest must marry a bride whose line of descent can be traced back in succession from mother to mother in a priestly line.[13]  The Bride of our Great High Priest is composed of those churches which can trace their lineage through an historical succession of such churches to the first church at Jerusalem.

     Dear evangelical brother consider the following thought. The Great Commission cannot possibly exist apart from such baptistic churches nor can it continue to exist without producing such baptistic churches. Why? Simply, because the terms of the Great Commission demand the reproduction of disciples in like faith and order with the ministry of John the Baptist.  Therefore if the Great Commission is an age long commission then the such churches must continue to the end of the age as such churches are the inseparable product of that commission.

      As an Evangelical (gospel of grace believer) I believe that you already accept the position of this book in at least a partial way.  Let me demonstrate my point.  Please take a clean sheet of paper and draw a target on it like the following example:

 

                             

 

    Lets assume that the actual bulls eye represents   New Testament Churches.

     Now, let me ask you a question: “Do you think all world religions and their sacred temples or shrines are acceptable to God?  Does the Hindu and the Moslem serve God  in a way acceptable and are they going to heaven?” 

      Jesus answers this question for you in John 14:6 - “I am the way, the truth and the life, no man cometh to the Father but by me.”    Peter answers this question for you in Acts 4:12 - “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is no other name under heaven given among men whereby  we must be saved.” 

    Therefore the majority of the religious world is lost and is not serving God acceptably.  Both salvation and service are limited to “Christianity.” Place “WR” (world religions) in the outer circle of your target.

     The 1998 Almanac lists a total of 3,848,891,000 (almost 4 billion out of nearly 6 billion world population) people on planet earth that belong to non-Christian religions. Therefore, like it or not, as a Christian you are in the minority.

     Let, me ask you a second question: “Would you accept every Christian denomination as an acceptable way to serve God”?  If you are honest with yourself, I think you will have to answer “no”.[14]  Now don’t misunderstand me.  I am not saying that all who are members within non-Baptist denominations are lost. I am not saying that. I am simply considering whether the following institutions are Biblical ways for saved people to serve God acceptably. Can such institutions keep the espousal terms?

    For example, would you accept New Age Christianity as an acceptable way to serve God (Christian Science, Scientology, etc.)? They say you are god and  everyone is a little “god”? If you cannot accept such churches as “Christian” churches, then, place these types of churches in the second most outer circle. Label this circle as “NA” (New Age). Like it or not, with this limitation you are eliminating many institutions that claim to be “Christian.”

   Let me ask you a third question:  “Would you accept cultic Churches as acceptable to God (Jehovah’s Witnesses, World Wide Church of God, Mormons, etc.)?” Perhaps they possess more Biblical characteristics and at least use the Bible more than the second group? However, no evangelical Christian would dare consider such churches as “Christian” for a moment. Place these in the third most outer circle and label them “CC” (Cultic Churches). Your view of a real Christian church is getting narrower.

      Lets proceed to the fourth question: “Would you accept sacramental churches as acceptable to God - meaning churches that demand that salvation is found in ceremonies and ordinances and church membership (Roman Catholic Church, Churches of Christ, Lutherans, Methodists, etc.)?” As an evangelical Christian, you know that these churches deny the very heart of the gospel of Christ and as institutions they publicly preach another gospel other than grace. If you have doubt about whether they are acceptable to God then read what Paul says about those who preach a gospel of works which is “another gospel”

 

           “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another (another different kind) gospel. Which is not another (of the same kind); but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, LET HIM BE ACCURSED. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, LET HIM BE ACCURSED.” - Gal. 1:6-9

 

     Unless you can bless and receive what God has said is accursed,  place  these churches in the fourth circle.[15]  Label these churches “SC” (Sacramental Churches). Your view of what constitutes a real Christian church is shrinking rapidly.

     Lets pause a moment and consider the four categories you have eliminated thus far.  Actually all four categories above are essentially one type of religion. They all teach that salvation is by faith in God PLUS your good works.  Their bottom line message is that ultimately good works or bad works determine salvation. When it comes to salvation, the Hindu, Moslem, Methodist, Mormon, Seventh Day Adventist, Assembly of God, Roman Catholic, etc., are alike when it comes to the bottom line principle of salvation.

     Jesus   separated all religious people into two distinct classes or ways (Mt. 7:13-14). Those described above fit into what Jesus called the “broad way.” The Apostles identified these two ways by name in their epistles as “works” versus “grace.”  Works is the broad way which includes the majority of the religious world.  Among professing Christianity, the way of works is the way of good works plus Christ IN ORDER TO BE saved. 

    This type of Christianity is what Jesus describes in Matthew 7:21-23. It is the kind that professed “Lord, Lord...” with the additional profession of “have we not done....”. They attempt to mix their own imperfect works of righteousness with the perfect righteousness of Christ as the basis for acceptance into heaven. Christ’s response   to this type of believer is “I never knew you, depart from me ye workers of iniquity...”

     This is the type of churches and preachers that we are repeatedly warned of in the Scriptures to avoid (Rom. 16:17; 2 Thes. 3:6; Gal. 1:6-9; 2 Jn. 9-11; Rev. 18:4). This is the type of churches that true believers are commanded to “come out of” (Rev. 18:4) and to “mark” and “avoid” (Rom. 16:17) and withdraw from  (2 Thes. 3:6).

     On the other hand, the narrow way or the way of grace is the unmerited way of self-denial and complete trust in Christ IN ORDER TO GET TO heaven.

   The minority way (“few there be”) is the way of grace, as it is the way of complete denial of self and thus a complete reliance upon Christ and his merits to be saved. Only those in this way will populate the new heaven and earth, as only those will be saved. The Bible clearly says, “For by grace are ye saved through faith and that not of yourselves, but it is the gift of God, NOT OF WORKS lest any man should boast. For we are God’s workmanship created in Christ Jesus UNTO good works...” - Eph. 2:8-10.

     Now again, let me reiterate that there are no doubt many really saved people within many of these “works for salvation” institutions in spite of what they have been led to believe after their salvation. However, what we are considering here is what is an acceptable public Christian way of service (“church”) rather than personal salvation.

     Do you honestly believe that churches which deny the gospel of grace and pervert the ordinances are acceptable ways or institutions to serve God in and through? If so, then listen to the Apostle Paul:

 

“Now we command you brethren in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that you withdraw  yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly and not after the tradition which he received from us” - 2 Thes. 3:6

 

     According to the 1998 World Almanac there are 1,955,229,000 professing Christians in this world. 981,465,000 belong to the Roman Catholic Church (50%).  Another 218,350,000 belong the Greek Orthodox Catholic Church (11%).  Hence, a total of 1,199,815,000 (61%) belong to sacramental Catholic churches. Another 404,088,136 (20%) belong to Protestant sacramental (baby baptizers) churches (Lutheran, Presbyterian, Reformed, etc.).  Now add all the cult churches  (Christian and New Age) and non-church attendees to the above figures (7%) and you have approximately 251,334,000 evangelical Christians that are members of evangelical churches world wide. Dear friend, this means that only 12% of professing Christianity belong to evangelical Christian churches.  Are you getting the picture?  Look at the chart below. As an evangelical Christian in an evangelical church you are in the 12% minority.

 

     Now since you have located yourself in the very “narrow” 12% margin of Christian churches, lets consider the final question. “The question is what evangelical  denomination(s) fit within the exact bulls eye?”  Since we have eliminated all   churches but those that preach the right gospel, then the next step of elimination is very simple. Since salvation has to do with the right gospel, then the issue of the “church” has to do with right service.

   Therefore, New Testament Churches must be those that not only preach the right gospel but teach the right way of service. Only those churches that preach the right gospel and teach the right way of service can be considered acceptable ways to serve God.

     Is there a Biblical standard that we can measure and define what is and what is not true service? Yes, there is. It is the Great Commission.  The Great Commission sets forth the four terms of the espousal covenant to Christ or the terms of faithful service. The true churches of Christ must be:  (1) The kind that preach the same gospel Christ preached (Jn. 3:1-16), (2) that administer the same baptism Christ administered (Jn. 4:1; Lk. 7:29-30) and (3) teach the same doctrine and practice that Christ commanded  (Acts 2:41-42) and (4) reproduce after their own kind through the age long reproductive cycle in the Great Commission (Mt. 16:18; 28:19; Eph. 3:21).

      The Bride of Christ was present at the writing of the book of Revelation (Rev. 22:17  “say” is present tense) and Christ promises her that He will be with her to carry out the Great Commission “always even unto the end of the world”” or as one scholar translates according to the meaning of this passage, “day in and day out unto the end of the age” (Mt. 28:20).  The historical perpetuity and reproduction of like faith and order until the end of the age is a Biblical doctrine and promise that God has made. It is just as much an identifying mark of true New Testament Churches as right doctrine and practice. It is not an either/or situation but both are essential to identifying true New Testament Churches and all true New Testament Churches will openly confess both.

      It is true that such churches would be a small minority among professing Christendom today. However, you joined a small minority of churches (12%) when you  took a stand for the right gospel.  Jesus predicts that before His return that those standing for “the faith” will be very small (Lk. 18:8).  Why not take a second step and take a stand for the right way of service? The Bible says that the New Testament Church is “the pillar and ground of the truth” (I Tim. 3:15).  The Bible says that “God is not the author of Confusion” (I Cor. 14:33).  Doesn’t even common sense indicate to you that God cannot be the author of all the denominational confusion in our world today?  How would you eliminate the true from the false?  Doesn’t it make sense that the true kind of churches will be united on the right gospel and right way of service whereas all false churches will fail to measure up to one or both of these standards? Doesn’t it make sense to you that the Lord’s true churches will be faithful to Him as described in the terms of the espousal covenant? Church succession is an essential and integrate part of the Biblical teaching concerning the faithfulness of Christ’s bride.  Perhaps it would help to look at this question from the negative side.