An Examination of the “Jesus-group” Argument
Tim Haile
No religious doctrine or practice is
right unless it is authorized by God (Col. 3:17). In an effort to find positive
divine authority for modern-day non-church evangelistic collectives, some
brethren are turning to Luke 8:1-3 and John 12:1-8. It is argued that these
passages authorize men today to do what Jesus and the apostles did before the
establishment of the church. Mike Willis makes this argument in the book, “We Have a Right: Studies in Religious Collectivities,”
pages 108-118. This book is a publication of the Guardian of Truth
Foundation and can be obtained from their bookstore. Brother Willis makes the
argument in an effort to defend the practices of Guardian of Truth Foundation.
Others have used the argument to defend the organizational structures and
functions of other religious collectivities. In this study I will show that it
is a misapplication of the above passages to practice the “Jesus-group” concept
today. I will demonstrate both the fallacy, and the dangerous consequences of
this argument. Let us remember that honesty
demands that one give up a position if he is unwilling to accept the logical
and unavoidable consequences of that position.
Though I have made reference to Mike Willis and the
Truth Foundation, my review is of the “Jesus-group” argument, and not merely of one man’s use or application of the
argument. I have referenced Mike Willis’ use of the argument because he has
done the best job that I have seen in making
the argument. I encourage the readers of this study to also read the study that
was done by brother Willis.
Explanation of the “Jesus-group” Concept
For the benefit of those who may have not yet heard
or read the argument, I will here provide a brief description. I will emphasize
only the major tenets of the argument, seeing that there are different versions
of it, which contain varying particulars.
Jesus and the apostles worked together in the
preaching of the gospel. Luke 8:1 tells us that Jesus proclaimed the gospel and
that the 12 apostles were “with Him.” Luke 9:1-6 tells us that Jesus sent the
12 apostles out on the limited commission. Mark recorded, “And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he
might send them forth to preach” (Mk.
The gospels contain many references to Jesus
and the twelve. There was common
identity among them. Peter’s accusers recognized that he was “one of them” (Matt. 26:73).
Members of the Jewish high court recognized that Peter and John had “been with Jesus” (Acts
Depending upon the translation, either Jesus, or the Jesus-group was funded by contributions from individual
disciples. Luke 8:2-3 tells us of Mary, Joanna, Susanna and many others who “provided for him from their substance” (KJV,
NKJV). Translations following the majority text have “them” (ASV, NASB, ESV). Since the “them”
versus “him” difference is a manuscript issue,
it can only be resolved by a consideration of the facts surrounding the nature
of the group and of its function. We know that Jesus carried no money on His
person (Matt.
One might read my description of the Jesus-group
arrangement and wonder why I earlier stated my opposition against practicing
such a concept today. After all, one might remind me of the very truths that I
just described; how that Jesus and the
apostles participated in such an arrangement. One might ask how it could be wrong for us to do what
Jesus did. One might also observe that we can read about the practice in the Bible, and that Luke 8 and John 12
therefore authorize the establishment
of Jesus-group-styled religious organizations today. Let us examine the
Jesus-group argument and see where it goes. I remind the reader that honesty
demands that one give up a position if he is unwilling to accept the logical consequences
of that position.
1.
Those
who make the Jesus-group argument ignore several key components of the nature
of the group. Most importantly, Jesus was the sole founder of the group, and He
was exclusively responsible for the selection of the members of the group. He “called to Him those He Himself wanted” (Mk.
2.
Not
all of God’s actions are authorized to
be repeated by men. That is, some things are right for God to do, but wrong
for men to do. For example, God personally administered the first discipline in
a local church. He killed Ananias and
Sapphira for the sin of lying (Acts 5:5, 10). Are we to follow this divine
example today? Are we to kill impenitent church members? No, vengeance belongs
to God alone (Heb.
3.
The
Jesus-group existed prior to the
establishment of the church. By appealing to the “Jesus-group” for authority
for similar religious collectives today, one appeals to passages describing an
organizational structure that is contrary to that of the New Testament church.
The New Testament requires that each church be governed by local church elders (Acts
The “Jesus-group” style of leadership is very similar to what is found in some
denominational churches. A one-man “pastor” directs the church, while “deacon
boards” or variously styled “elder” groups offer suggestions and carry out
instructions. The Jesus-group is organized like many human denominations and
mega-churches. I wonder if they would cite the Jesus-group as authority for
their style of organization?
4.
The
Jesus-group ceased to exist upon the establishment of the church. The church is the “eternal purpose” of God, not the
“Jesus-group” (Eph.
5.
The
function of the Jesus-group was fulfilled in the church. The Jesus-group
accomplished its divinely purposed tasks and was assimilated into the church.
The Jesus-group observed the Lord’s Supper on the night of Christ’s betrayal
(not on Sunday, as we shall see later), but Jesus told the apostles that he
would not observe the Supper again with them until He did so in His Father’s kingdom, that is, the church, Acts 2:42; 20:7). Notice the
connection between the Jesus-group and the church. Jesus was the universal head
of the disciples while He was upon the earth, and He is now the universal head
of the church while He is in heaven (Eph.
6.
Jesus
and the apostles were divinely
commissioned in their work. As
the “apostle of our confession,” Jesus
was “sent” to accomplish the Father’s will (Heb. 3:1; Jn.
7.
The
Jesus-group observed the Lord’s Supper on Thursday night (Luke
22:14-20; 1 Cor. 11:23). If one uses Luke 8:1-3 for
authority to establish similar religious collectives today, then can he use
Luke 22:14-20 for authority for his religious collective to observe the Lord’s
Supper on some other day than Sunday? If not, why not? The fallacy in the
Jesus-group argument is seen in the fact that it proves far too much. Advocates
of the argument have a particular agenda in mind. They want to justify what
they are doing. Long-held beliefs and established practices usually limit one’s
vision and foresight. All passages are interpreted from the skewed perspective
of trying to defend what is already in existence and practice. Men get caught
up in trying to defend what they are already doing, and do not stop to consider
all of the corollary implications of their position. If the Jesus-group example
authorizes action for today, then it authorizes non-church religious
collectives to observe the Lord’s Supper, and it authorizes them to observe the
Lord’s Supper on Thursday. Are you
willing to accept this position? I hope not.
8.
By
using Jesus-group passages, like Luke 8 and John 12 for one’s authority for
modern non-church religious collectives, one binds himself to the form of
government that was practiced by Jesus and the apostles. This means that all
non-church religious collectives would have to be organized with one
superintendent over twelve men, whom the superintendent had appointed. The
twelve would be trained by the superintendent and would be subject to his
orders. They may offer suggestions, such as the one offered by Judas in John
12:5, but all such suggestions would be subject to review by the Jesus-like
leader of the collective, and he may arbitrarily overrule any suggestion at any
time, much the way Jesus did in John 12.
9.
Some
try to distinguish the Jesus-group from the local church by pointing out that
the Jesus-group is funded by individuals. Some proponents have admitted that
the group performs the works of the local church, and that it has common
identity, common oversight and a common treasury. Functionally, there is, therefore, no real difference between the
Jesus-group and a local church. This is why some people are very quick to
observe that their non-church collective is “funded and supported by
individuals, and not by churches.” But so is the local church! “Every man according as he has purposed in
his heart, so let him give…” “…Let every one of you lay by him in store…” (2
Cor. 9:7; 1 Cor. 16:2). Even
joint
religious activity involves individuals! This argument is a
smokescreen. The real difference between the church collective and the non-church
collective is that proponents of the non-church collective concept feel free to
fund evangelism in whatever way they think best. By accepting funds from
individuals and not from churches, they feel no scriptural restraint in their methods.
They turn to the New Testament pattern to define their work, but they ignore the New Testament pattern in defining their methods.
10.
If
the Jesus-group arrangement authorizes the formation of similar religious
collectives today, then it authorizes a missionary
society arrangement. Notice that I said “a” missionary society arrangement, and not “the” missionary society arrangement. Many people lightly dismiss
this comparison by affirming that their collective does not accept funds from
local church treasuries. I understand and appreciate this fact, but that is not
my only concern. I am not here concerned with the source of the funding, but with the kind of practice that is being funded. Supporters of the Jesus-group
arrangement must admit that if their interpretation and application of Luke
8:1-3 is accurate, it would authorize the missionary society concept today! To be consistent they
will have to admit that missionary societies are scriptural if they are funded
by individuals. They will have to admit
that there has never really been anything wrong with the missionary society
concept, itself. If they are correct in their application of Luke 8 and John 12,
the only real criticism that they can make against the missionary society is
that it was funded by churches, and
that it sought to control churches.
That is all! The concept of the
missionary society must be accepted by those who use the Jesus-group argument.
By defending the use of Jesus-group styled religious collectivities today, one
admits that the Bible authorizes the use of missionary societies in the work of
evangelism. Opposition to a particular method of funding a thing does not
necessarily constitute opposition to the thing itself. Due to the history of unscriptural practices by some
missionary societies, one may feel compelled to disavow the practice of local churches supporting the societies.
This is not, however, absolute disavowal of the nature, function and purpose
of the society. The missionary society concept stands or falls together
with the Jesus-group concept as it is held by some
brethren. As I explained above, the Jesus-group found its fulfillment in the
church. It does not exist today.
11.
The
Jesus-group fed people (Matt.
Conclusion
Modern practice of the Jesus-group concept is a circumvention
of the local church. It is a way for non-institutional brethren to practice
every tenet of institutionalism without directly
involving the treasuries of local churches of Christ. There is the pooling
of funds (donated by individuals, of course), the centralization of control
under a one-man, Jesus-like figure, the feeding of saints and non-saints alike,
non-biblical methods of supporting preachers, and a missionary society
arrangement. All of which is defended on the basis that the “Jesus-group” is
not the church, and that no church funds are used to fund the group and its
activities. We are witnessing the rise of a brand new form of institutionalism.
These groups defend their arrangements by soliciting and accepting the
financial and moral support of individual saints only. They feel safe
with this position, but has any proponent of this concept considered the
consequences of their becoming hugely successful in their actions? The
organized activation of the universal church is limited only by the degree of
success of the individually supported society. What if a Jesus-group-styled
organization achieved such success that it had the financial backing of all
living saints on the earth? And what if its gospel lectureship was attended
by all of these saints, so that they could all engage in worship in one huge
assembly? Ultimate and global success for such a group would amount to the activation of the church universal under
one-man headship and through a common treasury! What did I earlier say
about accepting the logical consequence of a position? Brethren, this must be opposed. It will lead
to all forms of error and digression. I strongly encourage the colleges,
bookstores and publishers among us to provide their services for those who are
willing to buy them, and stay out of the collective functions that God designed
the church to accomplish. There is unity in the Bible way, and upon the Bible
platform (Eph. 4:4-6). The innovations of human wisdom lead to sin, selfish
ambition, confusion and division (Jas.
Tim
Haile
timhaile@aim.com