THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST – A SUMMARY

SUMMARY OF JACK COTTRELL’S “COLLECTED WRITINGS” SERIES:
VOLUME ELEVEN: THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST, by Jack Cottrell

INTRODUCTION

Volume eleven in my “Collected Writings” series is about ecclesiology, a big word that refers to issues regarding THE CHURCH. The English term comes from the Greek word ekklēsia, which is used over a hundred times in the NT and is almost always translated as “church.” It literally means “called-out ones,” i.e., a group that has been called to assemble together for a specific purpose. It comes from two other Greek words, i.e., kaleō, “to call, to invite”; and ek, a common preposition meaning “out of, from.” The Greek word can be used for any kind of assembly (e.g., Acts 7:38; 19:32,39,41), but it is especially appropriate for use in referring to all those who have been called out from the general world’s population and are grouped together as those who are God’s saved people through their obedience to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

I taught a graduate theology course on “The Doctrine of the Church” for many years. What follows here is not my lengthy course outline on the subject, however. This is simply the contents of 29 separate items that generally relate to this doctrine. Many of them are written as answers to questions that have already been published over the years in my column for the CRA’s Restoration Herald, a column aptly named “Ask the Professor.” A few of these items are essays that have not been published before—at least not recently! (One was written and published in 1959; I will let the reader discover which one it was!)

I cannot attempt to summarize the contents of all of these writings. I will begin, though, by selecting a few for this purpose; then I will list the rest of the topics.

I. GOD’S ONE TREE – ROMANS 11:13-26a (pp. 3-11)

In the Bible, the church is described as many different things, being compared with many objects and relationships, e.g., a family or household, a kingdom, a flock of sheep, a bride, a human body, a temple, and a priesthood. One comparison that is easy to overlook is the one explained in Romans 11, namely, the church as A TREE.

One may wonder how the church can be represented as a tree. Paul’s point in drawing this comparison, though, is quite important. He uses it as one way to describe God’s purpose for the Jews, the “nation” of physical Israel. It comes near the climax of a crucial section in Romans, in which he is explaining what God expects of physical Jews, now that their primary purpose has been fulfilled through their bringing the Messiah into the world (Romans 9:1-6).

These are the kinds of questions God is answering via this comparison of the church with a tree: Does the nation of Israel still have a place in God’s plan? Has the church replaced Israel as “God’s people”? Is Bible prophecy being fulfilled by modern-day Israel? Will there be a mass conversion of all Jews sometime in the future, foreshadowing Christ’s second coming? Such questions can be answered by looking at what Paul says about GOD’S ONE TREE here in Romans 11.

A. The ROOT of God’s one tree is OT (physical) Israel, beginning with Abraham around 2,000 years before Christ. OT history brings this chosen nation through many dramatic events, yet throughout all of these significant events, it is still just the root of the tree.

B. The PURPOSE and TURNING POINT for God’s tree, resulting in its radical mutation, was the first coming of Jesus the Messiah. Israel’s sole purpose in God’s plan can be summed up in the word preparation: they existed as the preparation for Christ’s first coming. Thus once Christ had come, there was no longer a reason for Israel to exist in a special role in God’s plan. Israel’s role was thus fulfilled as being the ROOT of the tree.

The tree itself does not cease to exist, however; but when Christ came, its role was changed or transformed. In this New Covenant age, God no longer has a purpose for Israel as a nation. However, His purpose for individual Jews is now the same as it is for every other human being on earth (“Gentiles” in Jewish terminology), i.e., to become a part, together, of the main body of this transformed tree! Every believer, Jew and Gentile alike, becomes a branch on this ONE TREE! Jewish branches are transformed, while Gentile branches are taken from “alien” trees and grafted into this one tree.

C. The present form of this tree is THE CHURCH; as such, the church is a new kind of Israel: not a physical nation, but a spiritual family. This is not just a continuation of OT Israel, but a new kind of entity. Does God have a special place and purpose for physical Jews today? Yes indeed—but it is the same place and purpose that He has for all human beings, i.e., as members (branches) of Christ’s church.

D. Implications from this transformed tree, thus: (1) God no longer has a unique or special purpose for the physical nation of Israel, contra, e.g., Dispensationalism. (2) There will be no mass conversion of Jews, nor a special role for Jews, connected with the second coming of Christ. (3) The church today is not under the Abrahamic covenant, contra Covenant Theology (see the next main section below). (4) The church does not simply “replace” Israel, but transforms Israel. (5) Jesus did not come into the world simply to complete what Israel was supposed to do but failed to do—contra N. T. Wright, et al.

II. IS THE CHURCH UNDER GOD’S COVENANT WITH ABRAHAM? (pp. 39-61)

INTRODUCTION. What is called “Covenant Theology” today, as it exists especially among many Reformed theologians, was originated by Huldreich Zwingli (d. 1531) as part of his new (anti-Biblical) rationale for infant baptism—and ultimately for baptism as such. As Zwingli reconstructed salvation history, there is just one covenant embracing the OT era (beginning with Abraham) up through the second coming of Jesus. Also, this means that there is just one covenant people, beginning with Abraham, continuing with the nation of Israel, and concluding with the church between Christ’s first and second comings. Finally, there is just one covenant sign, beginning with circumcision under Abraham and continuing in a transformed version as baptism. (The transformation was made in order to finalize the need for the shedding of blood in salvation history with the crucifixion of Jesus.) It is important to see, though, that in this system the new purpose for baptism is the same as the purpose for circumcision, i.e., as a covenant sign demonstrating one’s already-existing membership within the covenant people.

My conclusion is that Covenant Theology, in all its parts, is a seriously false system of theology and hermeneutics. The church is NOT under the same covenant as were Abraham and OT Jews. There is no such thing as “covenant unity.”

A. The Old Covenant, according to Scripture. The Old Covenant began with Abraham in Genesis 12 and came to an end in the completion of Christ’s saving works (His death and resurrection) during His first coming. The transition to the New Covenant is set forth in Acts 1 and 2.

1. The purpose of the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant applied only to the descendants of Abraham (through Isaac and Jacob), in the form of the nation of Israel, for one specific purpose: as PREPARATION for the first coming of Christ. This was accomplished via a stream of special revelation to these special people, to build up within them two things: HOPE, engendered via Messianic prophecies; and PIETY, engendered via the Mosaic Law and prophetic preaching.

2. The parties of the Old Covenant were (1) Yahweh God; and (2) the Hebrew nation, i.e., Abraham’s offspring via Isaac and Jacob. This covenant membership began at physical birth and did not require heart-felt, saving faith in Yahweh. All physically-born Jews were part of the covenant people, and all physically-born males were marked as members via circumcision.

3. The unity of the Old Covenant. There was only one covenant governing Israel between Abraham and Jesus Christ, but Paul in Galatians 3:15-19 divides it into two stages or phases: the promise element given to Abraham, and the law element given through Moses. The NT recognizes only one covenant preceding the New Covenant; the book of Hebrews specifically refers to the first and second covenants—the latter being the New Covenant.

4. The fulfillment of the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant was fulfilled when its PROMISES were fulfilled. Abraham and his OT physical descendants received the verbal promises as such, but the fulfillment of those promises were not received by anyone until the first coming of Jesus—and that DID involve their fulfillment: see Acts 13:32.

Two of the promises God made to Abraham were necessary in order for the third and main one to be fulfilled (see Gen. 12:1-3). These first two are what enabled the PREPARATION for the coming of the Messiah, i.e., “many descendants” (the Jewish nation) and a special homeland for them (Canaan, the “promised land”). The main and final promise in the Old Covenant was that through Abraham and his one family, “all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (Gen. 12:3). This was the promise of the coming of the Messiah, for which everything else was preparation.

B. The New Covenant, according to Scripture. The New Covenant began with the first coming of Jesus Christ and is clearly different from the Old (first) Covenant.

1. The beginning of the New Covenant. The New Covenant did not begin with Abraham. The prophet Jeremiah, who prophesied around 1,400 years after Abraham, speaks of the New Covenant as something still in the future (Jer. 31:31-34). Jesus affirms that the New Covenant began with the shedding of His blood (Matt. 26:28; Luke 22:20). Hebrews 8 & 9 contrasts the Old and New Covenants, and declares that Jesus has mediated the latter and better one (see especially 8:6-13; 9:15).

2. The purpose of the New Covenant. The Old Covenant prepared the world for the coming of the New; the purpose of the New Covenant is not preparation but participation, i.e., to enable all believers to participate in the salvation brought in its fullness by Jesus.

3. The parties of the New Covenant. In the New Covenant age, the New Covenant is not made with a physical group or nation of people, but with individual believers, whatever their background. One enters the New Covenant on an individual basis, by personal choice—not by physical birth, but by the NEW birth of water and Spirit (John 1:12-13; 3:3-5). This key difference was spelled out in Jeremiah 31:33-34, which also shows clearly that no one is physically born into the New Covenant, but already knows the LORD as a requirement for membership.

4. The pattern for the New Covenant. In Galatians 3, Paul shows that the Old Covenant was composed of both promise and law. He also shows, though, that the New Covenant is patterned after the promise aspect of the Old Covenant (see 3:29). We are saved by believing these gospel promises and by obeying the gospel commandments (Rom. 10:16; 2 Thess. 1:8), not by obeying our law code.

[At this point in the book (pp. 57ff.), I present an addendum on the relation between circumcision and baptism—something about which it is crucial to have a clear and proper understanding.]

III. DIVORCE AND CHURCH LEADERSHIP (pp. 93-98)

Can a divorced and/or remarried man be an elder or deacon in the church? A common answer is “NO!”—usually based on the “husband of one wife” qualification (1 Tim. 3:2,12; Titus 1:6). This answer is not necessarily correct, though, given the literal meaning of this phrase. The phrase, literally translated, says that an elder or deacon must be a “one-woman man” or a “one-wife husband”—which refers more to a man’s present state of mind than his present marital status. What exactly does this phrase mean?

FIRST, I will list four different suggested meanings which I believe are faulty, thus: (1) It requires elders/deacons to be married, thus ruling out single men and widowers. (2) It forbids them to be or have been polygamists. (3) It forbids them to remarry after the wife’s death. (4) It forbids them to be or have been divorced.

The fourth of these views is probably the most common today. I believe, though, that in most divorces there is the “guilty” party (Matt. 19:9; 1 Cor. 7:15) and the “innocent” party. The main point here is that, if the elder or deacon involved in a divorce is the innocent party, he may still be a “one-woman man” in his heart.

SECOND, I will now present what I call “the preferred view,” namely, that a man is disqualified from serving as an elder or deacon ONLY if in his mind he is not being faithful to his wife. I.e., this qualification requires an elder or deacon to be thoroughly committed to God’s teaching about sexuality and marriage—even if at some point earlier in his life he was guilty of infidelity but has since shown thorough repentance.

Here are two primary implications: (1) Unfaithfulness, divorce, and remarriage prior to becoming a Christian will usually be irrelevant. (2) Divorce pursued against an innocent and unwilling party will also usually be irrelevant. What matters is whether the man, as a Christian, is fully committed to God’s plan for marriage. I.e., is he a one-woman man?

IV. SUNDAY: THE CHURCH’S HOLY DAY (pp. 113-115)

This short piece shows why Christians should always keep Sunday as the church’s one essential day for corporate worship. The basic reason for this is that the death and resurrection of Jesus have divided ALL of world history into two main epochs. This is true in two senses.

FIRST, history is divided in terms of COVENANTS. Under the Old Covenant, God designated Saturday—the Sabbath Day—as the one weekly holy day. It was kept separate mainly by ceasing all labor, in honor of God’s redeeming the Israelites from Egyptian slavery. See Exodus 20:8-11; Deuteronomy 5:12-15. The choice of the seventh day as the Jews’ day of rest was appropriate, since that was the day God rested from His work of (the first) creation (Gen. 2:1-3; Exod. 20:11).

In this Christian era, however, we are living under a new and different covenant, one established by Jesus via His death and resurrection (Jer. 31:31-34; Luke 22:20; Heb. 8-10). In this case the first day of the week is appropriate because that is the day Jesus arose from the dead, thus marking the beginning of a whole new way of relating with God. On this day we honor God not by resting but by celebrating.

SECOND, history is divided in terms of CREATION. Until Jesus, the world was under the condition inaugurated by the old creation as described in Genesis 1, and as being under the power of sin and its curse as seen in Genesis 3. Jesus, however, established not only a new covenant, but especially a new creation: see 2 Corinthians 5:17; Galatians 6:15; Ephesians 2:10). This new creation began to exist in the form of Jesus’s glorified resurrection body, which began to exist in principle on the first day of the week—SUNDAY (which is NOT the Sabbath).

Thus we Christians who follow Jesus no longer set aside the last day of the week, signifying the ending of the process of bringing the old creation into existence. Rather, we celebrate the first day of the week, which symbolizes the beginning of something new—a whole new creation that will be completed with a new universe and new bodies when Jesus comes again.

The earliest Christian writers unanimously testified that Sunday is the church’s special day, because that is the day of the week on which Jesus arose from the dead—inaugurating a new covenant and a new creation.

V. DOES SILENCE MEAN PROHIBITION? (pp. 179-181)

A main argument by the a cappella churches of Christ against the use of musical instruments in public worship is that the NT does not mention or command such use. It is argued that such SILENCE is the same as prohibition. Thus the matter is closed. Silence means prohibition; therefore such use of instruments is sin.

This argument of obviously false. That the Bible is silent about any issue is the essence of what we mean by “matters of opinion.” This is covered by the time-honored slogan, “In essentials, unity; in opinions, liberty; in all things, love.” A more precise version of this slogan is this: “Where the Bible speaks, we speak; where the Bible is silent, we are silent.” The latter part of this slogan speaks to our point: in any matter where the Bible does not speak, either to permit or to forbid, we should not make up any rules about it one way or the other. This is the essence of silence.

[For a much longer treatment of the validity of using musical instruments in worship, see pp. 149-173 in this volume, i.e., “Christian Worship and Instrumental Music.” This is one of my term papers, written at Westminster Seminary in (I think) 1965,]

VI. A LIST OF THE OTHER 25 ITEMS

PART ONE: The Nature of the Church

1. “Is There a Visible and an Invisible Church?” – pp. 13-16
2. “The Call To Build—Jeremiah 1:7-10” – pp. 17-21
3. “Can We Cooperate with ‘Christian’ Groups?” – pp. 23-26
4. “The Bible and the Church” – pp. 27-31
5. “What Kind of ‘Rock’ Is Peter?” – pp. 33-38

PART TWO: Choosing a Church

1. “Is It Necessary To Be a Member of a Local Church?” – pp. 65-73
2. “Does It Matter What Church We Attend?” – pp. 75-79
3. “A Church That Fits” – pp. 81-82

PART THREE: Church Leadership

1. “ ‘Called’ to the Ministry?” – pp. 85-88
2. “Thoughts on Preaching” – pp. 89-92
3. “Marriage, Divorce, and Church Leadership—A Sermon” – pp. 99-106
4. “Can Elders Be New Converts?” – pp. 107-109

PART FOUR: Worship Services

1. “Meaningful Worship” – pp. 117-125
2. “Should Non-Members Lead in Church Activities?” – pp. 127-128
3. “Why (and How Much) Should I Give to the Church? – A Sermon” – pp. 129-136
4. “Women’s Activities in the Church” – pp. 137-139
5. “What About Footwashing?” – pp. 141-145

PART FIVE: Church Music

1. “Christian Worship and Instrumental Music” – pp. 149-173
2. “Apostolic Precedent and Church Music” – pp. 175-178
3. “Are Patriotic Songs Appropriate for Worship Services?” – pp. 183-185

PART SIX: The Lord’s Supper

1. “Why Do We Take the Lord’s Supper Weekly?” – pp. 189-190
2. “Is Home Communion Necessary?” – pp. 191-193
3. “Tips for Preparing Lord’s Supper Meditations” – 195-199
4. “Can Only Believers Take Communion?” – pp. 200-202