Church Age

It’s no coincidence that the Church had its beginning on Shavuot (Pentecost; Ac 2). Israel became a nation (i.e., became betrothed to God [Yahweh]) fifty-two days after the first Passover (Ex 24:4-8). While Bikkurim (Firstfruit) and Shavuot (Pentecost) were not celebrated as festivals until the Israelites reached their Promised Land (Lv 23:10), the covenant God made with Israel to make them a nation occurred on the same day that Shavuot would normally occur. In the same way, the Church was born or was betrothed to God [Yahweh] on the first Shavuot after Christ’s death, burial, resurrection, and ascension.

The Church did not replace Israel (Ro 11:1-2, 11, 25-29) but the mode of worldwide impact for God was transitioned from a nation to individuals. It was a betrothal because God calls the Church his bride (2Co 11:2; Ep 5:24; Rv 19:7). It is interesting that Shavuot is also known as the First Shofar because the betrothal period is marked by the blowing of a shofar. The sound of the shofar was the very voice of God when Israel was pledged to God at the base of Mount Sinai (Ex 19:18-19; Dt 4:12-13). The sound of a rushing mighty wind, the Holy Spirit himself, occurred when the Church was pledged to God in the upper room in Jerusalem (Ac 2:2) forty days after Christ’s ascension into Heaven (fifty days after his resurrection on Bikkurim, or Firstfruit).

This was the foreshadow (2Co 1:22) of God’s new, more intimate, covenant promised to Israel (Jr 31:31-34). Jesus had fulfilled the previous covenant with Israel (Mt 5:17) and was now making a new blood covenant which would actually forgive sins (Mt 26:28) whereas previously, all the sacrifices just placated sin (Hb 10:1-4).

While the idea of the Church we know of today was alluded to in the Old Testament (e.g. Dt 32:21; Is 65:1), it was not made fully known in how God would use it until God revealed such to the apostle Paul (Ep 3:4-6). The birth, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ had to first occur before his Church could be established. Why is that? Because the power of sin over humans had to be eliminated (Ro 6:7).

We need to fully understand what Christ did for us on the cross. He became our sin so that we could take on his righteousness (2 Co 5:21). What does that mean? Our past, present, and future sin was placed on Christ; all sin ever committed by anyone. Now, that’s quite the burden. The apostle Paul tells us Christ disarmed the powers and authorities and made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross (Cl 2:15). This implies that he went to Sheol in our place so that penalty of our sin could be dealt with once and for all. So Christ went to Sheol for three days, proclaimed to those on the unrighteous side why their fate is sealed, and preached to those on the righteous side what he just did for them and gave them the gift of redemption. He then brought the righteous home to the third heaven where they are today and why Paul stated to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord (2Co 5:8). Because of the disarming by Christ to Satan and his kingdom, he can now bestow on those in his Church gifts for building up his Bride and make her strong and effective.

Christ received back from Satan the power he had stollen from Adam (Cl 2:13-15; Jn 10:17-18; Rv 1:18). What power had God given to Adam? God gave him dominion over all the earth (Gn 1:28) to rule in God’s authority (Ps 8:6-8). Satan deceived that out of Eve and Adam rebelled against God (Gn 3:1-7) so Satan connived Adam’s kingdom from him (Mt 4:8-9; Jn 14:30) and all born afterward are born into sin, Satan’s kingdom (Ps 58:3, Jn 12:46; Ro 5:12); therefore, we do not have to choose Satan’s kingdom because we are born into it and must make a conscious decision to leave it (Jn 3:17-18).

God’s people, his Church has gained that power back. Paul tells us the power we have received is the same mighty strength God exerted when he raised Christ from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms (Ep 1:18-23), and God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus (Ep 2:4-10). Therefore, we, God’s Church, have far greater power and authority than we have been led to believe. If you have accepted Christ as your Savior, you already have this power which comes to us through the Holy Spirit. We can exert more and more of this power as we allow the Holy Spirit to control more and more of us.

The early church was given, and operated, in a five-fold ministry, as some have called it. Paul states that Christ gave the Church apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers to equip his people for works of service so that those who come to Christ may be built up in unity of faith and become mature in the knowledge of Christ (Ep 4:11-13). There is much debate about this verse both from a gift classification perspective and from a gift over time perspective. Paul does use a different conjunction between the first three gifts and the last two gifts. Yet, the conjunctions Paul uses in this verse, (de and kai) while different are still translated as the English conjunction ‘and.’ Yet, just because a different conjunction is used (kai) between the last two does not necessarily mean these are one gift but likely mean they are more connected in character and function than the other three. For example, all pastors are teachers but not all teachers are pastors. This same type of mental gymnastics cannot be done for the other three (apostles, prophets, evangelists). So, in the end, it seems there are still five distinct gifts, but some individuals could be pastors and teachers, while others are teachers but not pastors.

Then, there is the controversy over apostles and prophets being for the early church, but not for today. This, I think, comes down to the definition of these terms. Some state there were only twelve apostles so there were no additional apostles after these individuals. While this is a true statement, this does not necessarily exclude others from being called apostles. For example, the original twelve apostles were also called disciples, but this did not mean Jesus had only twelve disciples. After all, the word ‘apostle’ simply means “an ambassador of the Gospel” usually with miraculous powers.

It seems there were apostles Christ had chosen (Ac 1:2) and then apostles which the churches chose (Ac 14:14; Ro 16:7; 1Co 9:2). Paul also uses the word ‘we’ when he mentioned the term ‘apostles’ in his letter to the Thessalonians (1Th 2:6). He is likely referring to not only himself, but also to Silas and Timothy as well (1Th 1:1). Later, Paul also refers to Andronicus and Junia as apostles, two among many others. Therefore, it seems over time, the term apostle came to be applied to other dedicated individuals for God’s service and not just to the original twelve.

In addition, it seems others were posing to be apostles even though they were not (2Co 11:13). It would seem these individuals, whom he sardonically called “super-apostles” were performing some type of miraculous signs as that was one indication of an apostle (2Co 12:12). Yet, their overall intent was not the advancement of the gospel but their own fame. Yet, if apostles were noted to be only Christ’s original twelve apostles, then these individuals would not have been able to feign being apostles.

The other term to consider is ‘prophet.’ Some claim that once all of Scripture was complete, there was no need for prophets as we now have God’s compete word to follow. While that is true, I’m not sure that settles the issue. After all, prophets were not just to deliver a message that would become Scripture but provide messages from God that warned people about obeying God’s Scripture. Granted, there were many prophets in the Old Testament that became part of our canon of Scripture (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachai) but there were many others who delivered a word of warning from God which did not become part of Scripture, but held true to Scripture (e.g., Gad, Nathan, Ahijah, Azariah, Hanani, Elijah, Elisha, Micaiah, Jahaziel, Oded, Huldah, and Uriah). In addition, there were prophets mentioned in the New Testament as well (Silas, Judas [Ac 15:32], Agabus [Ac 21:10], and others [Ac 13:1]). So, just being a prophet does not mean words delivered will become Scripture. Yet, their words will never contradict Scripture.

Yes, we have God’s complete Scripture today, but we have so many different interpretations of Scripture today leading to so many different doctrines based upon the same Scripture. Is this what God would want? Would prophets have prevented such from occurring? Just something to consider.

Also, prophets have always popped up when God’s people have gone astray from following his word. That is why so many were persecuted because they warned people they were not in the right. People get very angry when they are spiritually reprimanded. We also see that throughout Scripture.

While prophets are certainly about the future, that doesn’t necessarily mean they are talking about a future not reported in Scripture. But let’s be honest here, we have so many views of our future, how can we know which are truly correct? Would prophets have prevented that from occurring as well? Again, something we should consider.

In addition, if there are no prophets today, then why does Scripture teach there will be prophets in “the last days” (Jl 2:28-32)? So, we had them, then they went away, and then they’ll return? If so, who determines when we should listen to them again?

Also, if prophets were only for the early church until the canon of Scripture was in place, wouldn’t Scripture have been more explicit about that? At what point is the cutoff for prophets? The canon of Scripture occurred over several hundred years. Also, how do we handle what Paul says about prophecy when he said, “Do not treat prophecies with contempt but test them all” (1Th 5:20)? Because if we are no longer listening to prophets, then we are technically treating them with contempt because we are not following them. So, at what point were we allowed to not follow Paul’s advice in this regard? Would this suggest that we should listen to prophecy as long as they do not contradict the Bible itself?

And, if we look at what many prophets are saying today, then many are talking about a Kingdom Age that is upon us, or a powerful outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the earth to bring a great revival. Is this something we should listen to or ignore? If this is upon us, why weren’t those of the early church looking for this future for themselves? Wouldn’t Paul have known about this and would have put this in his writings?

I think the short answer is no. Why? Because they were already operating in the idea of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Paul likely expected the outpouring of the Holy Spirit to continue throughout the Church Age, so he would not be expecting it to wane and then come back again. Therefore, his emphasis was on Christ’s return and not another outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

So, what would have caused this decline of the outpouring of the Holy Spirt to get us where we are today? What some have purported, and what is hard to refute, is that the teaching of the spiritual gifts of apostle and prophet no longer being needed is the reason. If these two gifts were meant to be carried farther, what caused their demise? Politics.

Whether we look at Judaism or Christianity, both have not fulfilled their spiritual destiny God had ordained for them because of politics. Not politics itself, per se, but allowing those not led by the Holy Spirit to lead.

As an example, by the time Eli was Israel’s high priest, the people went through the motions of sacrifice, but their hearts were not in it, mainly because his sons were quite corrupt. Likely when the people saw their corruption, they were not as enthusiastic in following the precepts God had required of them. It was at that time God brought Samuel into play. While he was a judge, he was also a prophet by warning the people as to what God required of them.

By the time of Jesus, the high priest position had become a political position and thereby the person being high priest had lost a lot of their concern about following God’s precepts. They were in the position for the power, prestige, and wealth the position provided them. In addition, it led to nationalistic encouragement rather than Scriptural encouragement. This led to the Jews becoming more exclusionary to other nationalities rather than teaching other nations the ways of Yahweh. The letter of the law became more important than the heart of the law.

This is also true of the Church as well. The early church had the spiritual fervor, ever desired to be led by the Holy Spirit. As the church became larger, it became more organized, and over time, became hierarchical. While there is nothing wrong with such organization, it led to those who were not really Christian to hold high positions, ever looking how to increase their power, prestige, and wealth. This led to the Church becoming more political and less spiritual. It would be easy to see how apostles and prophets would be discouraged in such an environment because they would bring stinging remarks that those in prominence were not in keeping with the heart of Scripture. Religious rites became more important than the true leading of the Holy Spirit.

What about you today? What is leading you? Are you more about the letter of Scripture or the heart of Scripture. God has always stated it is better to obey than sacrifice (1Sa 15:22; Ps 40:6; Ho 6:6). Let’s walk in the light of the Holy Spirit and allow him to guide us.

Next, we’ll look at something wonderful that will be coming. I hope you join me for the next post where we will be discussing that.

____________

Visit Books & Words to Inspire by Randy C. Dockens