When did the Church start?

The church started at Pentecost, IMO. I think SE Anderson is wrong.

How does believing Israel differ from the Church? Was a believing Jew one thing one day and part of the Church on the day of Pentecost?

[Dennis Clemons] How does believing Israel differ from the Church? Was a believing Jew one thing one day and part of the Church on the day of Pentecost?

Possibly. But being part of the church is a relational issue. Being part of the church (in the true sense) means that one Spirit has baptized us into one body, and that we are members of one another, and that relationship has no connection to national identity.

According to Matthew 16:18, the church was yet future when Jesus said, “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.”

Also, in Ephesians 2:20, the church had already been started, the foundation being the apostles and prophets, with Christ as the cornerstone: “having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone…”

The foundation is sequentially the first part of the building, so we can assume Christ became the corner stone after His resurrection, and, since there were no prophets until NT times, they could not lay a foundation before they existed. That’s why Pentecost is a good guess. Still, no text actually states that.

i don’t understand a baptist claiming the church started with john’s baptism. every baptist i’ve ever met has pointed to acts 19 to say that john’s baptism wasn’t enough.

anyway, i’d put it a bit before pentecost because acts 2 talks about adding. so there had to be something existing before pentecost to add to.

We often frame the debate in terms of “Israel” and “church.” Is this the right question? What if we were to frame the question in terms of the Old and New Covenants? When was the New Covenant inaugurated? When did the accompanying eschatological realities begin to be fulfilled?

I would have to say that the New Covenant was inaugurated with the death of Christ (cf. Heb. 9:15 and the way the Book of Hebrews connects the New Covenant to the blood of Christ, as well as Christ’s statement re: blood & New Covenant at the Last Supper). I would have to say that the outpouring of God’s Spirit (Ezek. 37? don’t have my Bible in front of me) that correlated with the New Covenan t (Jer. 31) first came at Pentecost.

This may warrant a different thread but…can anyone think of a NT passage that compares/contrasts “Israel” and “church”? I can think of passages re: external Israel and true Israel, Jews and Gentiles, and Old Covenant and New Covenant, but nothing re: Israel and church as we have framed the discussion. This is why I ask, “When did the ‘church’ begin?” may be the wrong question.

Hebrews 12:23

[Pastor Harold] All of these are very good points. Allow me to ask another question, was John a Christian?

He declared Jesus to be the Lamb of God, from God, and that He would baptise you with the Holy Ghost. All of these are believed by Christians and rejected by the unbelieving Jews.

I would consider John as being a Christian, in that a Christian is a believer in Jesus Christ.

As far as your first question is concerned. I would say that the work of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost initiated the church. I agree with Ed that being part of the church involves being baptized by the Spirit into one body.

I believe that Acts 19 is a clue into exactly what was going on around that time. Paul meets a group of believers who were not Christians. Although they were believers they were not a part of the church because they believed Old Testament truths, but knew nothing about Jesus Christ. It was no until they believed in Christ, were baptized and received the Holy Ghost that they became members of the church. To me, this is a strong argument that the church was founded on the day of Pentecost.

[Bill Roach] Hebrews 12:23

Would you mind explaining further ?

Hi Gabe,

I was only pointing out that the Bible talks of the Church existing in the OT on Mt. Sinai. It also mentions the “church in the wilderness” during Moses’ day in Acts 7:38.

In my opinion, any discussion about “when the Church began” must address these two pretty clear passages that state that “ekklesia” existed in the OT.

But I also know that this is a tough one that gets battered about by good brothers…

Bill

Michael beat me to the punch as far as any scripture to reference.

Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

Heb 9:16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

Heb 9:17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

The New covenant and all that goes with it went into effect after the death of Christ.

Ever so often I see this question debated and I say without any impertinence and with no disrespect, It doesn’t matter to me. I can’t definitively prove when it was founded and it is founded so I’m content to wait for the Lord’s explanation.

[Mike Mann] Michael beat me to the punch as far as any scripture to reference…The New covenant and all that goes with it went into effect after the death of Christ.

I agree w/ Michael Osbourne and Mike Mann here. I pointed to Pentecost because the indwelling of the Holy Spirit [the Comforter of John 14] finally came to the apostles and divinely empowered them for ministry and disciplemaking. The audience’s hearts were changed through the preaching of the death of Christ, and they demonstrated fruits of repentance by their baptism.

I don’t see a problem with ‘being added’ in v. 41- they were joined to the Body of Christ when they repented of their sins [and were later baptized] - the apostles’ number being the base of the church itself. Christ is the cornerstone of the Church proper, and the apostles formed the rest of the foundation, according to Ephesians:

[Ephesians 2:19-22] So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.

[M. Osborne] We often frame the debate in terms of “Israel” and “church.” Is this the right question? What if we were to frame the question in terms of the Old and New Covenants? When was the New Covenant inaugurated? When did the accompanying eschatological realities begin to be fulfilled?

I would have to say that the New Covenant was inaugurated with the death of Christ (cf. Heb. 9:15 and the way the Book of Hebrews connects the New Covenant to the blood of Christ, as well as Christ’s statement re: blood & New Covenant at the Last Supper). I would have to say that the outpouring of God’s Spirit (Ezek. 37? don’t have my Bible in front of me) that correlated with the New Covenan t (Jer. 31) first came at Pentecost.

This may warrant a different thread but…can anyone think of a NT passage that compares/contrasts “Israel” and “church”? I can think of passages re: external Israel and true Israel, Jews and Gentiles, and Old Covenant and New Covenant, but nothing re: Israel and church as we have framed the discussion. This is why I ask, “When did the ‘church’ begin?” may be the wrong question.

I agree. The word εκκλησια is used often in the Septuagint to refer to the totality of Israel (or the remnant), whether in actuality or by representative - Judges 20:2; 1 Kings 8:14; 1 Chronicles 13:2, 4; 2 Chronicles 6:3; Ezra 2:64; Neh. 13:1; Psalm 22:25; 40:9; 89:5; Micah 2:5. It consistently translates the Hebrew qhl, which is a pretty good cross-language synonym. Of course, there are non-religious uses of both qhl and εκκλησια, but most of the references do refer to “the assembly of God’s people.” So, when Jesus starts using εκκλησια, he’s not using any new concept. In fact, the word probably points to the continuity between the Old and New Testament peoples.

On the other hand, if one is asking when the “New Covenant” people began, then I think the period between John the Baptist and Pentecost is perfect. John the Baptist starts forming the messianic community. It is this community to which people “are added” at Pentecost (as ChrisC so ably noted), when the promise of the Holy Spirit is realized. Really, trying to establish a single point in time seems a bit silly. If you believe that the book of Acts is “transition,” then even at Pentecost you don’t have the Church really developed. It’s a process.

I think really to ask the question well we have to define the church. Personally i think it’s silly to say that John started a baptist church by baptizing Jesus. - (If the church started then, I’d want to give Jesus more credit than John as forerunnner)

The question in my mind centers around the definition and vocabulary of Church.

1) What did Jesus mean? - How would his audience take it?

2) Is the language of the gospels “technical” - or natural? - example, when Matthew writes - after Pentecost how much of his writings assume a Church audience? -

3) What’s the difference between the “baptist church” and believing Israelites?

I’m with Charlie and Mike O - but I think we have to be careful to avoid reading back our (or even ancient) definitions of baptist “church” into the gospels. - and frankly, i’m critical of Anderson because I worry where he goes historically from John the Baptist, and I’m skeptical of the whole “trail of blood.” thing from a historical standpoint.

Charlie, the term εκκλησια can mean more than church - I believe it can also mean “assembly” or “congregation”. While it may have been used in the Septuagint to refer to the OT assemblies, I’m fairly sure that there is no Hebrew word for “church” as we understand it in the NT sense of the word.

[Jay C] Charlie, the term εκκλησια can mean more than church - I believe it can also mean “assembly” or “congregation”. While it may have been used in the Septuagint to refer to the OT assemblies, I’m fairly sure that there is no Hebrew word for “church” as we understand it in the NT sense of the word.

I hear what you’re saying, Jay. It would probably be more accurate to say that the term εκκλησια only means “church” by the technical extension of its primary meaning. It is a specific religious usage of an otherwise secular word. A related example would be “baptism,” which was a common enough secular word involving washing (of disputed types) but, by extension of that meaning, came to refer to something quite specific in Christian theology. In both cases, the extended or technical designation of the word comes to overshadow the secular origin, so that when Paul or Peter uses a “bapt-” family word, the reader is more likely to associate it with the religious sense than with the secular sense, unless context clearly indicates the latter.

So…. I agree that there is no word that means “church” as in “new covenant people of God,” but the Hebrew QHL does indeed seem to bear a particular religious significance referencing the entire people of God, Israel. This is especially clear in 2 passages in Numbers where the phrase QHL YHWH (assembly of the Lord) refers to all Israel, even though they are only gathered in the sense that they are all together in the wilderness. Numbers 16:3; Numbers 20:4. The word QHL also seems to bear a religious significance as the “people of God” in Genesis 48:4, where it is translated “multitude” or “company.”

I think that the early Christian community understood QHL/εκκλησια in a religious sense and self-consciously appropriated the word, implying continuity with the Jewish roots of their religion. You can read the very enlightening TDNT entry on page 11 of this journal article: http://ntresources.com/documents/ekklhsia3G.pdf

Charlie, I have no background whatsoever w/ Hebrew, so I appreciate the information and will be sure to read it. Thanks.

I’m asking myself why this question matters. It seems like this question invariably involves a lot of speculation without any real hard biblical evidence on either side. We can see that Scripture is murky on the answer, at best. So why is this question important at all? I suggest that it is only important because it is critical that the Church began in the New Testament to validate an Israel/Church distinction and support dispensationalism as viable. Without that as a backdrop, it is an immaterial question. We begin with a pretext - How can we prove dispensationalism is valid? - and then seek for the answer that we want. Otherwise it is a meaningless question.

I can’t make heads or tails of this post. Do you react like this every time you read a book?

[Pastor Harold] If we would preach about John’s doctrine and his bold yet humble character half as much as we talk about that day on Pentecost we would half the number of Charismatics polluting our churches.

Who is “we”? Baptists? Most Baptists I know don’t talk about Pentecost very much, except maybe for singing “Pentecostal Power.” If anything, Dispensational Baptists are Paul-centric.

[Quote] Keep in mind that Peter was preaching to “devout men” from every nation. Men who had a good knowledge of the OT and Jewish culture. Men, we will never have a crowd like this in America.But wait, all of John’s audiences were not just Jew-friendly Gentiles, but Jews! They are even farther removed from our cultural frame of reference.

[Quote] John however, was laying the ground work, preparing a people for the Lord. He was the greatest man who ever lived aside from Christ. How in the world could you possibly know that? Matthew 11:11 seems to point the other way.

[Quote] Why pastors don’t teach the people more of John I’ll never know.How much should they preach? He only occurs as a mid-level character in a few books of the New Testament. There’s far less written about him than, say, David or Moses or Paul.

We will not come close to duplicating the accounts of Acts 2, however we should strive to teach the things John taught, act the way John acted and recognize his valuable ministry.

What? We should live in the desert, eat locusts, wear strange clothes, and prepare Israel for the advent of the Messiah? John’s role is one of the most unique in all the Bible. No passage of the New Testament says pastors should be like John. He was (presumably) single without children, which is against the qualifications for an elder in the pastoral epistles. You are off on a “John the Baptist” tangent.

I see congregations like John’s all of the time. For those who want to be ‘Relevent’ here’s your story!

What congregation did John pastor? You see congregations composed exclusively of Jews who hold to the Mosaic law and are waiting for the Messiah to appear? When Jesus appeared, John’s “congregation” disappeared. John 3:30 John pointed to Jesus and wouldn’t want us to focus inordinately on him.

[Charlie]

No passage of the New Testament says pastors should be like John. He was (presumably) single without children, which is against the qualifications for an elder in the pastoral epistles.

Charlie,

I noticed the above quoted comment, and I was wondering about the view. In this view, are you saying an unmarried man or a married man who was unable to have children would not be qualified to be an elder? I know this is off topic, and I am not trying to create a separate debate, but I would like to see this view presented. Could you please direct me to a source to read more about this? Or we could possible start another thread.

Thanks,

Joe G.

Since this thread has “revived,” as I read my earlier comments and then later comments, I would like to point out:

1. Jesus said “I WILL build MY church…” Thus the church of which Jesus speaks (MY church) is future from the time Jesus said this, and is distinct from OT believers. It is, rather, individuals collected by and around Jesus (and then individuals collected by previous generations of believers in Jesus). The salvation of those not knowing about Jesus at or before this time (e.g., OT, people already regenerate but who had yet to hear of Jesus) is not under discussion in this context of Matt. 16.

2. I made a typo earlier. Oops. Accept my apologies. Ephesians 2:20 says the church is built upon the “foundation of the apostles and prophets.” I meant to say that therefore there could be no church (in the sense of MY Church) before the apostles (I said “prophets” in error!). Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that JESUS’ church did not start until after he had names 12 of his disciples as “apostles.”

A foundation has to be laid first.

This itself does not prove that the church began at Pentecost, but it does nudge us in that direction.

I guess I didn’t know I had an objection to answer!

It appears to me that the Lord Jesus used the Greek word translated “church” at Matthew 16:18 to refer to a Jewish assembly of believers and not to the Body of Christ.

I won’t argue with your actual words, but I will clarify my views: The early church WAS a Jewish assembly. It is not until years after Jesus’ resurrection that the church included gentiles. But it was HIS (Jesus”) Jewish assembly.

ater in the same gospel the Lord Jesus also said: “But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. 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.Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Mt.18:16-18).

I concur.

The Lord Jesus’ instructions concerning “two or three witnesses” are straight from the Old Testament ordinances in regard to Israel:

“One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established” (Deut.19:15).

That’s right. Much (perhaps most) of Jesus’ teaching are midrashim from the OT, particularly Deuteronomy. The Book of Hebrews likewise consists of quotes or principles from the Torah. I am finishing off a series that demonstrates just that point. If you want to see my outlines, they are posted at this link (scroll down 2 sermons; I left the series for 2 weeks for Christmas); click on the sermon central icon from our church website link: http://www.highlandpc.com/sermoutl/

Even those who say that the Body of Christ began on the day of Pentecost realize that the Lord Jesus’ disciples would have understand that His reference to the “church” at Matthew 18:17 was set in a Jewish context. In The Bible Knowledge Commentary, a publication of Dallas Theological Seminary (Acts 2), Louis A. Barbieri Jr. writes that “the disciples probably would have understood Jesus to mean the matter should be brought before the Jewish assembly” (Louis A. Barbieri, Jr., “Matthew” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary; New Testament, ed. John F. Walvoord & Roy B. Zuck [Colorado Springs: Chariot Victor Publishing, 1983] , p.62).

I believe Christianity is cross-cultural Messianic Judaism. All of the church were Messianic Jews for the early years, then gentiles began to be incorporated into the church as God-fearing gentiles joined to believing Israel in one body, but drawing her strength from Israel.

Building the church is set in a very Jewish context. Christ died on Passover (feast) to make us holy (feast of unleavened bread) and rose on first fruits (feast); the Spirit came on Pentecost (feast); the feast of Trumpets (feast) signifies the 2nd coming to the clouds followed by Yom Kippur (feast) the future national repentance of Israel, and the feast of Tabernacles is the feast of the Millennium.

It’s all VERY Jewish, IMO. I would guess that you conceive of the church in a very different manner than I do.

BTW, Paul uses the same Deuteronomy passage for his direction to the church at a much later date:

2 Corinthians 13:1 This will be my third visit to you. “Every matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.”

1 Timothy 5:19

Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses.

This does not imply that these assemblies were largely Jewish, although they very likely had some Jewish members.

Are we to preach to national Israel that if she repents then the Father will send back the Son to usher in the earthly kingdom, the “times of refreshing”? Of course not!

Jerry, don’t say “of course not.” I don’t think there is anything wrong preaching the above.

According to Zech 12-14, when Israel repents IS when the Messiah returns to rule on earth. So they are correlated.

My theology is such that if the whole nation believes and repents, Christ will return, as Peter preached. But my theology also says that this will not, in fact, happen until the end of the Tribulation.

But the statement in Peter’s sermon is still valid, I believe. There are many interesting quotations in the Talmud to a similar effect, so the belief I am espousing (when all Israel repents, the Messiah will come to reign) is an old one!

[Jerry Shugart] “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal.3:27-28).

Since in the Body of Christ there is no difference between the Jew and other people that means that at some point in time national Israel was temporarily set aside as the Lord’s special people. That is because the Lord cannot act at the same time upon two wholly different and incompatible principles. In other words, He cannot deal with the Jews as a special people at the same time when He declares that there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek. Therefore we can conclude that before the Lord could begin to build His heavenly Church He must have first temporarily cast aside national Israel. On the day of Pentecost Israel had not yet been set aside so therefore it is impossible that the Body of Christ had its beginning at that time.

In His grace,

Jerry

Boy, we can go round on this one! To be brief, there is a SENSE in which we are not male or female or Jew or gentile. But yet, for example, we distinguish between the genders (women are not to be elders or teach men Bible). So in one sense there is a difference, in another, no. That’s why Paul referred to himself as a Jew on several occasions in Acts, and the Jewish believers were zealous for the Law in Acts 21:20-25.

God has never stopped working with Israel. Believing Israel, along with believing gentiles, are part of the church. God is now making unbelieving Israel Jealous, but he has saved a remnant of Israel The cultivated, natural branches do not turn into wild branches. They are still two distinct types of branch drawing nurture from Israel. Your paradigm would imply there is no difference. Romans 11:1-24.

Bless you, bro!

Jerry, this is great. I’ll quote you and then add my 2 cents (I’m pretty tight, so sometimes if might only be 1 cent).

Do you believe that the nation of Israel still enjoys the following status before the Lord?:

“For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth” (Deut.7:6).

Yes.

Do you believe that the Jews “according to the flesh” who are members of the Boby of Christ are “above all people that are upon the face of the earth”?

As Jews (on an ethnic basis in contrast to other nations), yes. In relationship to God (who covenants on an individual basis), no. Jewish believers and gentile believers have equal status before God. But equal status does not translate into “sameness.” Just as male and female have equal status, that does not mean there are no differences that God recognizes. What it does mean is that there is no difference in what matters most.

A lot of times issues have more than one sense. For example, if I had young children at home, would I be superior to them? In the realm of authority, yes. In the realm of wisdom, hopefully. As far as human dignity, no.

It has long been held within the dispensational community that at the present time those belonging to Israel are no longer above all people that are upon the face of the earth and that national Israel has been temporaily set aside.

I know of this view and preached and taught it for years. I prefer it greatly to the Covenant position, but I believe it to be a “diamond in the rough” needing refinement. Spiritually, I pointed out that a remnant of Israel is saved. If they are a remnant, they have to be a remnant of something. If there were no difference in any sense between Jew and gentile, then they could not be a remnant. I would point out that Roman 11:29

for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable.

suggests that God does not waver when He gives gracious gifts; if his blessing of Israel was a result of grace and not works (which it is; see Deuteronomy 7:7-26).

In other Deuteronomy passages (e.g. Deuteronomy 4:25-31), even God’s judgment of Israel is a result of him being ACTIVELY INVOLVED with Israel. The point you might be missing is that even when Israel turns from God and God judges her, the relationship between God and Israel continues; it turns sour, but it is a relationship nonetheless.

“There is an interval between the 69th and 70th ‘sevens.’

This is correct. I believe calling this interval a “Parenthesis” is a big mistake. Please consider this: the term “parenthesis” is not used in Scripture, and it colors the text. It is accurate to say that the 69 weeks are fulfilled and one awaits fulfillment. This period of time is a time in which God continues to work. But an interval in time does not indicate an interval in God’s relationship with Israel. There is nothing in this interval to suggest that God is “switching gears.” Israel has neither been replaced by the church nor has it been set aside. Instead, a small stream of Jews are faithful to the Lord and many Gentiles have attached themselves to believing Israel. Something new (Jesus’ church) has been added, but nothing has been taken away.

True, Israel has no temple and judgment has come to them; but this happened during the Babylonian captivity on a short-term scale. Nonetheless, the Jews were still God’s special nation, even though many had resorted to idolatry. He disciplined them, they responded, they rebuilt the temple and repopulated the land. Although greatly stretched out, this is sort of what is happening now. In this case, however, the matter is the rejection of the Messiah.

[Jerry Shugart] Ed,

Then what am I to make of the following verse which speaks of that nation being rejected at the present time?:

”For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?” (Ro.11:15; NIV).

Robert Saucy himself writes that “The thought of the future restoration of Israel is reiterated in verse 15, but instead of ‘their fulness,’ it is expressed as ‘their acceptance.’ In contrast to ‘their rejection,’ which refers to the temporary casting away of unbelieving Israel by God, ‘their acceptance’ can mean nothing less than ‘God’s final acceptance of what is now unbelieving Israel’ ” [emphasis mine] (Robert Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan 1993] , 251).

Even Saucy admits that at the present time unbelieving Israel has been temporarily cast away. It is certainly a stretch of the imagination to assert that even though that nation has been cast away that she still remains a “holy people unto the LORD thy God…a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.”

Again, J. Dwight Pentecost writes:

”There is an interval between the 69th and 70th ‘sevens.’ Christ’s crucifixion, then, was in that interval, right after His Triumphal Entry, which concluded the 69th ‘seven.’ This interval was anticipated by Christ when He prophesied the establishing of the church (Matt. 16:18). This necessitated the setting aside of the nation of Israel for a season in order that His new program for the church might be instituted.”

Hi Jerry. Good questions.

First, I think that the “rejection” is the rejection BY the Jews of the Messiah. Although this rejection is in the plan of God (even allude to in passages like Isaiah 53:1) and God even hardened the hearts of the Jewish people, Paul’s point is that BY the Jews rejecting Jesus, the result was an open door to the Gentiles, as exemplified by Paul’s approach in Acts and elsewhere (to the Jew first). Again, if there is no differnece between Jew and gentile in the church age, then how could he go to the Jew first? There really no longer is a “Jew,” just saved and lost people, based on that logic. But the Scriptures assume that there is a difference.

As far as Saucy and Pentecost go, I believe they are both simply wrong (I guess I’m a self-esteem success story!).

Replacement theologians believe that God has put unbelieving Israel (as God’s special nation) in the trash.

Traditional Dispensationalists believe that God has put Israel in the deep freeze.

Some Progressive Dispensationalists (esp. those influenced by Messianic Judaism) tend to believe God has put Israel on the back burner, but is still actively working with her. The church, on the other hand, is on the front burner with the heat up to maximum.

I also believe that Jesus did not know “the day or the hour” of end time events while He emptied Himself (kenosis). I think he left the duration of the Era of the New Covenant (and how long it would be until King Jesus reigned from Jerusalem) open -ended. He refused to give his disciples a time frame in Acts 1:5-9, but the issue there was “when” not “if” the kingdom would be restored to Israel.

1Ti 1:16 Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.

I would like to direct your attention too three words in the above passage.

First…If you are thinking the Church began at or before Penticost this word “First” would kind of put a rolling block on your line of thinking.

So we know that Paul was the “First” of something.

And then we come to the word patern.. meaning a model to build by

And last, I would direct your attention to the word Hereafter. Meaning from this moment on.

And when we put it all together, Does it not say that Paul was the model that everyone there after should follow ?

We know that Jesus Christ is the.

Hbr 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of [our] faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

So what was Paul first at that we should be modeled after ? I think when you find the answer to this, You will find the answer to the question in this thread.

What was so different about Paul ?

Is this not better understood to be that Paul was one of the first (the first per Paul in this statement) to be converted and saved by Christ? This would be an interpretation which is more appropriate for the context in which the statement is made:

‘Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.’ 1Ti 1:13

‘And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus’ in 1Ti 1:14

‘This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. ’ in 1Ti 1:15

I am not sure but I do not see how this verse can be interpreted as being the start of the Church.

I understand the text at the ESV translates it:

16But I received mercy for this reason, that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display his perfect patience as an example to those who were to believe in him for eternal life.

1Ti 1:16 Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.

Better translations render the word “First” as “foremost.” It is obvious that Paul was not the “first” temporally speaking that Christ showed longsuffering to. There were many before him who obtained mercy.

Does it not say that Paul was the model that everyone there after should follow ?

No, doesn’t say that at all. It says that Paul was the most unlikely candidate for God’s mercy, and all others should see that mercy of God and take hope in it.

James, “Is this not better understood to be that Paul was one of the first (the first per Paul in this statement) to be converted and saved by Christ?”

No, Paul was converted long after thousands and thousands of others.

Larry, - “Better translations”……Says who ? Please see the reply to Jerry.

Ed, You didn’t say it was better so no reply is needed really. Please see the reply to Jerry.

Jerry. Jesus forgave sins before the cross. He told the theif on the cross that he (theif) would be with him in. I believe that man was saved.

The 11 could heal the sick and raise the dead. Because it was given for them to do so.

Mat 10:5 ¶ These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into [any] city of the Samaritans enter ye not:

Mat 10:6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Mat 10:7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Mat 10:8 Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.

And even more to the point

Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Mat 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Now, that being said.. do you doubt that Peter could push you under water and tell you that you were saved ? I’m not asking you how he could do it. As far as I understand God in the flesh said he could and thats all I need to know…

Now, Turning to Paul. Paul was not the first man saved IMO.. He was the first man saved UNDER THE BLOOD ! Again IMO and based on what I have read in the Bible.

Peter taugh the cross as the place where Jesus was murdered and he was right.

Paul taught that the cross was where the sins of those who believed were washed white as snow.

The thief on the cross did not have to be baptized because God in the flesh was there ! But what of all those Peter preached to in Acts ?

We know its not Jesus + something. Now.

Can a man find salvation under what Peter preached if he heard it for the first time today ? Or maybe a better question would be could a Gentile ? Peter was sent to a gentile and I have no doubt that this gentile was saved.. But again, God was involved directly.

That can be argued from a great many angles. It could be said that without the calling of GOD a man could not seek. And on and on….I believe that God can save whomever he wants. But for every day I would not stand and preach without preaching the blood.

It is because of Paul and what he was given that we can sing ” Just as I am without one plea, but that Thy blood was shed for me.”

I have been called names here before because I believe this. But if you are saved today it is because of the Blood of Christ. Thats what I believe and thats where I stand.

But unlike some here, I am always willing to hear what the Word of God says. If you think I am in error, Please, by all means point me in the right direction.

“that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.” 1Ti 15.

First in 1Ti 1:16 being used as a noun in that he was the first among sinners, or Foremost which is probably a clearer translation as Ed suggested, or perhaps ‘chief’ as stated in 1Ti 1:15. Alternatively, that he was the first of the ‘great’ sinners to be saved (same basic context but using first as a verb). Yes, many were saved before Paul.

I should have gone into more detail regarding my position of the verses. It was just that I did not feel the context indicated that Paul was the beginning of the Church, at least that view is not capable of being derived from these verses in my opinion.

Obviously, from Jerry Shubert above, my opinion is contrary to that of others ‘There are many sincere believers in the Mid Acts community who say that the following verses prove that Paul was the first member of the Body of Christ’.

Larry, - “Better translations”……Says who ?

Says people who read the text and understand it. There is no reasonable way that I can see to read that first and understand “proto” in a temporal sense. It is a sense of priority, meaning “foremost” or “prominent.” That is the only understanding that either the immediate context, history, or theology will allow.

He was the first man saved UNDER THE BLOOD ! Again IMO and based on what I have read in the Bible.

So you believe that people in the first eight chapters of Acts were not saved under the blood? And what about people before that? What were they saved by?

the Bible teaches that anyone who has ever been saved has been saved through the blood of Jesus. There is no other way of salvation. That’s why Jesus had to die.