The Church at Jerusalem

The Danger of Centralization

The church at Jerusalem was the beginning of what would today most probably be called a 'movement.' So far we have been concerned with certain factors pertaining to the local aspect of the Jerusalem assembly. We now want to look more particularly at its influence in a wider sphere.

First we must look at the scriptural principles governing the relationship of one local church with another. The New Testament does not categorically state the independent and autonomous nature of each assembly, but neither do we find any precedent or principle within its pages which would allow the practice of any one person or a group of persons exercising authority over a number of churches. The idea of one church exercising jurisdiction over other churches is equally foreign to the Word of God. On the other hand, the only organized unit recognized in scripture is the local church, and consequently it is the only recognized sphere of administrative authority. What may possibly appear as an exception to this is the ministry of apostles such as Paul, but Paul's very defense of his apostleship is an indication that he could claim the ear of the churches not as a right because of the position he held, but only according to the measure of his spiritual stature and ministry. This was so in spite of the fact that the peculiar nature of the apostleship in the days of the church's infancy and before the written revelation was completed placed him in a position which no man occupies today.

The many different metaphors used of the church in the New Testament bespeak a close-knit, practical unity of believers in work and witness, and it is always in this context that scripture lays down principles of church rule and authority. If we really accept the fact of Christ's dominant presence in the midst of the two or three, then the imposition of rule from any external source is nothing less than a usurpation of the authority of the Lord.

The independence of each local congregation of Christians was a largely accepted fact for some time after the apostolic era. Even when monarchial bishops superseded the rule of elders, there was no thought of the bishop's superintendence over a number of churches. The conception of a diocese was a later development, and the earliest monarchial bishops held a similar position to that of a parish priest today. Yet the tendency towards the federation of the churches into a close-knit organizational unit was not absent even in New Testament times. That this should be so is a well-nigh inevitable outcome of the innate human love of authority. The church at Jerusalem is particularly interesting in this connection because we see there actions which demonstrate a clear recognition that it is not the place of one church to exercise jurisdiction over another, while, on the other hand, the urge to maintain a position of pre-eminence and rule over other assemblies is most marked.

Spiritual consultation and fellowship know no local barriers, and can be of the utmost value. The church at Jerusalem with all its weaknesses contained a wealth of experience which stemmed from an intimate knowledge of our Lord during His earthly ministry. It was both natural and allowable that every advantage should be taken of this source of spiritual counsel. It was on this basis that Paul and Barnabas, along with others, formed a deputation to take the question of circumcision up to Jerusalem, resulting in what has come to be known as the Council of Jerusalem.

Circumcision was a question on which most of the believers in Jerusalem held decidedly strong views, but they were quite aware that the rite had not been accorded any place as a condition of fellowship in the church at Antioch from which the deputation had just come. However much they may have disagreed with the stand taken by the Antioch assembly, there had been no thought of trying to legislate for them, and we can well understand that, if they had thought it was within their competence to lay down the law on such matters for others outside their own circle, the question at issue would have been the subject of serious deliberation long before it was raised by the visit of Paul and Barnabas. The fact of the matter was, however, that the Jerusalem church fully recognized, in theory at least, the independence of each local assembly. The result of the Council was, therefore, in the nature of advice, not the promulgation of a law. Its purpose was not to regulate the conditions of church fellowship, but to encourage easier social relationships between those of a Jewish and a Gentile background.

The nature of the outcome of the Jerusalem get-together is further indicated by Paul's discussion of some of the same matters in his first letter to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 10). Very obviously, if he had considered the edict of the Jerusalem church final, there would have been no point in discussing the matters further and, incidentally, of giving advice which was quite contrary to what had already been recommended. It would simply have been a matter of laying down the law, and no further deliberation would have been admissible. The principle is perfectly clear. Advice from the church at Jerusalem was to be welcomed; advice from Paul, or any other spiritual person for that matter, was to be equally welcomed; but finally it was the responsibility of the church in question to decide the matter in the fear of the Lord. Paul did not feel duty-bound to accept the Jerusalem edict as law. Neither did the assemblies. Their direct relationship with the Lord dominated everything.

Yet this is but one side of the story. Theoretically, the stand taken by the Jerusalem church was clear and right. But the church's life was beset by a most perplexing contradiction, a double standard. There was one standard for the Gentiles in the midst of whom the Spirit's work could simply not be denied. For the Jerusalem believers there was another standard, the imposition of a rule which amounted to an addition to faith in Christ as a condition of fellowship. Here we see the warfare of the flesh against the Spirit, not in the experience of the individual believer, but in the life of the assembly itself; a warfare between the spirit of self-importance that must bring everything and everybody under its sway, and the Spirit of life and liberty through which Christ dwells in the midst of His people wherever they be, making them responsible to and dependent upon Him alone.

We cannot read the events relating to the church at Jerusalem without gaining a sense of its dominance and spiritual self-esteem. But God did not honour it. More and more the Jerusalem church occupies the place of a spectator in the great advances of the gospel--a very interested spectator no doubt, but with very little place of active involvement in the spread of the truth abroad. What we find, however, is a subtle effort, in the midst of protestations of spiritual freedom, to impose upon the assemblies in general the conformity into which the Jerusalem church itself had already settled.

Jerusalem's sense of superiority is not without illustration in the New Testament. The eminently reasonable recommendations of the Council are couched in language which would suggest that, although what was said was given purely by way of advice, yet it was expected to be obeyed--and no nonsense. And, of course, it was accepted with rejoicing, for it was good advice, but all advice may not be so good just because it comes from Jerusalem, and 'advice' which is always and automatically obeyed is a command. Again, what of the request to Paul that he 'should remember the poor' (Galatians 2:10)? The poor were the Jerusalem believers themselves. The assembly appeared to suffer from a chronic poverty and had been the recipient of generous aid from believers in other parts. Paul may have accepted the exhortation as an impetus to the mutual sense of responsiblity, love and grace which should characterize all the Lord's people, but it is very probable that the Jerusalem church had something quite different in mind. They may have tended to feel that contributions to them from others was their due in much the same way as people throughout Jewry contributed to the Temple funds.

Then there were the Judaizers whose baneful influence necessitated Paul's writing his letter to the Galatians. They had come from Jerusalem, and some at least had brought tiding from James (Galatians 2:12). That they carried with them a certain air of authority is only too plain from the confusion they caused. From where did their sense of importance come? Even if we believe that they were self-appointed to their ministry of bondage, and the evidence is more to the contrary, their self-esteem can be traced to no other source than that they came from the 'mother church.' Had their ministry produced the intended results, it would certainly have added to the sphere of that same mother church's jurisdiction. That it did not do so was due simply to the grace of God.

There seems little doubt that we are dealing with a definite attempt on the part of the Jerusalem church to bring other groups of believers under its control. This may have been done in all sincerity and without a full awareness that the churches were being centralized into a mere human organization, but it was none the less deadly for that.

We have noted the attitude of the Jerusalem church itself. What we must now consider is the attitude of others to it. One aspect of this has already come to our notice. The Council recommendations were accepted in Antioch, not as divine oracles, but with pleasure and good common sense. This healthy outlook was no doubt due, in good measure, to those who bore the tidings, Paul, Barnabas, Judas and Silas, humble men who were well-grounded in divine principle and were neither inflated by a sense of self-importance nor overawed by an exaggerated sense of the importance of the assembly from which they had just come. This, however, had not been the case in Galatia where the Judaizers gained the ear of the believers out of all proportion to their spiritual authority (if they had any) or their importance. The mere fact that they came from James or Jerusalem not only lent weight to their over-estimation of themselves as having the word of God, but induced others to a veneration of them and their message that was in no way warranted.

Peter is a pertinent example. His complete upset is a sad warning of how even spiritual experience and maturity can at times fail God when faced with human authoritarianism guised as divine. In perhaps the most graphic spiritual encounter of his whole career, the vision of 'a certain vessel descending, as it were a great sheet, let down by the four corners upon the earth' (Acts 10:11), Peter entered into an understanding of the revelation of the church. The implications of what God showed him he at first resisted, but ultimately had to accept. There was no mistaking the voice of God.

Even the brethren at Jerusalem, when Peter related to them what had happened, had no option but to believe. 'And when they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God' (Acts 11:18). But these precious, God-given lessons Peter all of a sudden casts aside. The Judaizing teachers almost certainly possessed neither his experience nor his maturity, but they came from James and Jerusalem. This fact took precedence over all else. In fear of James and Jerusalem Peter abandons fear of God (Gal. 2:12). What a demonstration of the almost unconscious tendency to look to Jerusalem instead of to the God of Jerusalem. Yet if Peter found himself bereft of spiritual judgment through the temptation of a misplaced subservience to a 'mother church,' what could be expected from the community of ordinary believers who would soon be overawed by the same authority that overawed Peter? Paul challenged Peter openly (Galatians 2:11). Paul was not perturbed. His respect for the Jerusalem brethren was great, but his respect for the Lord was greater still.

The story of the Jerusalem church is a grave warning against the dangers of centralization and authoritarianism. These ultimately lead to a dispute with the authority of Christ, for He, actively present in the midst of His people, is the Head of the church. Christ alone stands as the Mediator between God and men. To the church God has granted authority to represent Him in the world, but no human being or group of persons has the authority to represent God to the church, for Christ dwells there in person.

God graciously forestalled this early move to centralize control of the churches under one human authority. Jerusalem had to be set aside. There is no indication that Antioch in apostolic days ever became the center of veneration that Jerusalem had been, or ever had ambitions in that direction, but it was from there that the Spirit gave His impetus to the preaching of the Word that was to go forth into all the world.