And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
1 Corinthians 12:28

In the well-known 1842 Wentworth Letter, Joseph Smith included thirteen statements about the beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, known today as the Articles of Faith. The sixth statement says, “We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth” (Articles of Faith 1:6). Later, Elder James E. Talmage wrote, “In the dispensation of the Savior’s ministry, Christ established His Church upon the earth, appointing therein the officers necessary for the carrying out of the Father’s purposes. . . . Every person so appointed was divinely commissioned with authority to officiate in the ordinances of his calling; and, after Christ’s ascension, the same organization was continued, those who had received authority ordaining others to the various offices in the priesthood. In this way were given unto the Church, apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, high priests, seventies, elders, bishops, priests, teachers, and deacons.”[1]

Both the ancient and modern Church grew from a rather small number of believers to a much larger community of believers, developing offices and structures to deal with its growth.[2] For example, the restored Church in 1830 was led by the first and second elders with apostolic keys. Additionally, several men were ordained to various offices, including deacon, teacher, and priest. Later, additional offices were added, including bishop (1831), high priest (1831), patriarch (1833), and seventy (1835). By 1835, the First Presidency, Quorum of the Twelve, and the Quorum of the Seventy had been organized to help administer an expanding Church membership.[3] A similar development had occurred in the first century. The early Church, moved by inspiration, revelations, and needs, expanded its organizational structure as membership increased and new situations called for change.

As we examine the development of the early Christian Church organization and government within the first century, two important questions emerge: “Did Jesus organize a church during his mortal ministry?” and “How did the Church function after Jesus’s ascension?” To help answer this latter question, we will specifically examine the function of apostles and other titles and offices in the early Church, the administrative impact of a growing church, and Jesus’s designation in Matthew 16:18 of the Church as “my church.”

Did Jesus Organize a Church during His Mortal Ministry?

Is there evidence of a formal church existing during the mortal ministry of Jesus? The answer is difficult to determine and is dependent to some extent on how we define the word church. The Greek word for “church” used throughout the New Testament is ekklēsia. In its basic sense, it refers to a legislative body or assembly, but it can also refer to a casual gathering of people or a community of people with shared beliefs.[4] It is the last of these meanings that most closely reflects the New Testament concept of church, but we must remember that a community of people with shared beliefs can exist without a formal organization that includes initiatory rituals, priesthood, scripture, and so forth. Without doubt, the word eventually takes on all these meanings, but the question is, when? One of the difficulties comes because the word church appears only three times in the four Gospels, and all those occurrences are in just two verses in Matthew (Matthew 16:18; 18:17). By the time we reach Acts, however, we find a very different scenario. In Acts through Revelation, the word occurs more than one hundred times. Thus, the distinct existence of an individually functioning Christian Church is much more significant or well-known after Jesus’s mortal ministry.

Nevertheless, some indicators suggest that a basic organization did exist during Jesus’s mortal ministry, at least a community with priesthood. First, there is one cryptic comment in John that indicates Jesus’s disciples performed baptisms that seem to be independent of those performed by John the Baptist: “When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples)” (John 4:1–2). The Joseph Smith Translation amends the parenthetical portion to read, “Now the Lord knew this, though he himself baptized not so many as his disciples; for he suffered them for an example, preferring one another” (JST, John 4:3–4). Unfortunately, neither the Johannine passage nor the Joseph Smith Translation tells us about the purpose of this baptism. Was it like John the Baptist’s—for the remission of sins—or was it an initiation into a formal church? The texts simply give no answer. The fact that they were baptizing, however, implies that they had at least the Aaronic Priesthood.

Second, some of the followers of Jesus were part of an inner circle, showing that there was at least some basic level of hierarchy within the community. All three Synoptic Gospels record that Jesus called apostles (Matthew 10:1–5; Mark 6:7–13; Luke 6:13–16).[5] The Greek word for apostle is apostolos and comes from the verb meaning to “send forth.” When used in conjunction with people, apostolos indicates that they were sent forth with a specific purpose.[6] This definition fits well with the accounts in Matthew and Mark, but there is no indication at this point that the term apostle refers to a specific priesthood office, although, as we will suggest, it does at a later time in Jesus’s ministry. Rather, according to Matthew, the apostles are directed to heal (Matthew 10:8) and to “preach saying the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matthew 10:7). In the New Testament, there is little evidence that the apostles engaged in either of these activities until after Jesus’s ascension in Acts 1. Prior to this time, the Gospels portray them as accompanying Jesus as he healed and preached.[7] Even within this inner circle of apostles, there is a further division with Peter, James, and John being privy to some events, such as the raising of Jairus’s daughter, the events on the Mount of Transfiguration, and the invitation to come further into the Garden of Gethsemane than the other eight apostles.

That the apostles (in a general sense) eventually became Apostles (in the sense of a priesthood office) during Jesus’s mortal ministry is implied, rather than explicitly stated. At Caesarea Philippi, Peter receives the promise from Jesus, “I will build my church” (Matthew 16:18). Here the promise of a church is in the future tense. Immediately after this first promise, Jesus says, again in the future tense, “I will give unto thee [singular] the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou [singular] shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 16:19). The promise of a church with priesthood keys given specifically to Peter strongly suggests a shift to an official church, rather than simply a collection of like-minded people.[8] It must be remembered, however, that in this passage it is a promise, not a statement of fact—yet. Latter-day Saints understand that Jesus, Moses, and Elijah gave these promised keys to Peter, James, and John on the Mount of Transfiguration about a week after the events at Caesarea Philippi (Matthew 17:1–13; compare Doctrine and Covenants 110:11, 13–16).[9]

It is therefore probably not happenstance that in Matthew 18, the chapter that immediately follows the events on the Mount of Transfiguration, Jesus delivers the Church Discourse. Here, the word church is found twice in verse 17, in a context of establishing boundaries for participation in the Church and the use of the sealing power. Jesus teaches the process that should be followed if “thy brother shall trespass against thee.” First, the injured party should go and discuss it with the offender. If that doesn’t work, he or she should bring in witnesses. Finally, if reconciliation is still not achieved, “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” (i.e., he should be put out or excommunicated from the Church). “Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye [plural] shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye [plural] shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 18:15–18). Here the Church is spoken of as a present reality, rather than as a future promise. In addition, the power to bind is now available, not just to Peter but to the disciples—presumably the Twelve.

In addition to the Twelve, Luke also mentions the calling of seventy.[10] Luke tells us that Jesus “sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come” (Luke 10:1). Jesus instructed them, “Carry neither purse, nor scrip, nor shoes” (Luke 10:4). In Luke’s sequence of events, these seventy were called after the events on the Mount of Transfiguration and the bestowal of the priesthood keys. Their responsibility is similar to that given to the Twelve in Luke 9:1–6. The specific mention that they go in pairs may reflect the rejection and hostility that Jesus experienced in Samaria (Luke 9:52–53).[11] Unfortunately, we know very little about this group. Luke gives no account of their mission; he simply records that when they returned, they rejoiced because “even the devils are subject unto us through thy name” (Luke 10:17). After Luke 10:20 they are never mentioned again.[12] Luke probably includes them because the number seventy represents the whole world—in the Table of Nations in Genesis 10, the world after the flood is divided into seventy nations—and even though this group seems to teach only among the Jews, they foreshadow the time when the gospel will be taught “in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth” (Acts 1:8).

How Did the Church Function after Jesus’s Ascension?

The limited information we have about Jesus’s forty-day ministry tells us little about the Church and its organization. Robert J. Matthews suggests, “It is probable that it was during this period that the church was organized with quorums and various officers.”[13] If this is indeed the case, then it helps us understand why in Acts, much more clearly than in the Gospels, we see the apostles using the priesthood in the workings and organization of a church.

Ephesians includes two passages on Church organization that are particularly important for Latter-day Saints: “Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone” (Ephesians 2:19–20); “And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: that we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive” (Ephesians 4:11–14).

The emphasis on Christ is the bedrock of all teaching from the very beginning of Christian missionary work, but the list of offices included in Ephesians is neither exhaustive nor uniform in the New Testament. Ephesians does not mention, for example, the seven (Acts 6:3), elders (Acts 15:4), bishops (1 Timothy 3:1), or deacons (1 Timothy 3:10). While mention of the importance of apostles is very early and extensive, the New Testament descriptions of prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers are fragmentary.

The Apostles

Luke records the process of calling a new member of the Twelve in some detail, outlining a pattern which may be assumed later in his account when other apostles are mentioned. The prerequisite for considering someone to become a member of the Twelve was that they “have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection” (Acts 1:21–22). The language of the KJV in this passage is a little misleading. There is no Greek word in the sentence that can be translated as “ordained.” Instead, the Greek literally reads “one of these must become a witness (Greek martyra) with us of his resurrection” (authors’ translation). The language of this verse, then, does not require a priesthood ordination. Nevertheless, it is significant that the first thing Peter does after the Ascension is to fill the vacancy in the Twelve. This action indicates that, in Peter’s mind, having a group of eleven was not the same as having a group of twelve and that the latter was important for the Church to move forward.

Luke records the Twelve doing the two things Jesus had assigned them to do in Matthew 10: perform miracles and teach the gospel. Peter and John now heal “in the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 3:6). As a representative example of their healings, Luke recounts Peter’s healing of a man “lame from his mother’s womb” (Acts 3:1–11), but he also notes “by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people” (Acts 5:12; compare 2 Corinthians 12:12). The apostles also teach the gospel, initially at and around the temple and later in Samaria and the rest of the known world. In addition, when Peter and John are in Samaria, Luke records that they laid “their hands on [the new converts], and they received the Holy Ghost” (Acts 8:17), giving evidence that they had the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood.

We also see that the Twelve had administrative responsibility, both in Jerusalem and also in regional centers of the Church. Initially, when the members of the Church brought the money from the sale of their lands and possessions, they “laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need” (Acts 4:35). When there was a problem with the Grecian widows being neglected, the issue was brought to the Twelve (Acts 6:1–4). When Paul and Barnabas and “certain men which came down from Judaea” disputed over whether Gentile converts needed to be circumcised, they agreed to take the question to “the apostles and elders” in Jerusalem (Acts 15:1–2).[14]

What is not evident is whether all the apostles in the early Church were members of the Twelve. Our earliest Christian text that mentions the apostles, 1 Corinthians (written ca. AD 55), seems to make a distinction between the Twelve and the apostles. When discussing the Resurrection appearances, Paul mentions Jesus’s appearance to the Twelve and then noted that afterward he appeared to all the apostles: “He was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve. . . . After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles” (1 Corinthians 15:5, 7; emphasis added).

This situation seems to be corroborated in other New Testament sources. We know that Herod Agrippa I killed James, the brother of John, at an early date (Acts 12:1–2). Unlike Acts 1, Luke does not give any details of the Twelve meeting to find a replacement for James. In chapter 14, when Paul and Barnabas are on their first missionary journey, Luke begins to identify them as apostles (verses 4, 14), which could mean that there were at least thirteen members of the Twelve. In addition, at the conclusion of Paul’s letter to the Romans, he mentions Andronicus and Junia (a female name) as apostles (Romans 16:7). In 2 Corinthians, Paul mentions the “messengers [Greek apostoloi] of the churches” (8:23) and, more specifically, in Philippians he refers to Epaphroditus as “my brother, and companion in labour, and fellowsoldier, but your messenger [Greek apostolos], and he that ministered to my wants” (2:25). Here Epaphroditus is not an apostle for the entire church but only an apostle for the Philippians—an envoy or representative for the Philippian branch of the Church. In these instances, we should probably understand apostle in a general sense, rather than as an office of the Melchizedek Priesthood.

In antiquity, there was some debate in the Church over Paul’s status as an apostle. Paul did not fit the requirements for being a member of the Twelve, as outlined in Acts 1; although he was witness of the Resurrection, he was not a disciple “beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us” (Acts 1:22). This may be the reason that some in Corinth questioned his apostolic status, especially in relation to Cephas (Peter) and the other apostles (1 Corinthians 9:1–5). Paul declares, “If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you: for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord” (1 Corinthians 9:2). Is he suggesting that he was only an apostle for the Corinthians? Although Luke identifies him as an apostle during his first missionary journey (Acts 14:4, 14), Paul does not seem to be one of the apostles at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15), and he does not call himself an apostle in his earliest epistles to the Thessalonians written during his second missionary journey.[15]

In latter epistles, however, Paul begins each epistle with a reference to his being an apostle. In Romans 1:1 and 1 Corinthians 1:1, he specifically says that he was “called to be an apostle.” It is worth noting that there are three particular epistles where Paul has to justify his authority: Romans, 1 Corinthians, and Galatians. In Galatians, he calls himself an apostle but does not say that he was “called to be an apostle,” as he does in Romans 1:1 and 1 Corinthians 1:1. This suggests that when Paul wrote Galatians, his apostolic status may have been as a missionary, not yet called as a member of the Twelve (as was the case by the time he wrote Romans and 1 Corinthians).[16] Although Paul calls himself the “least of the apostles” (1 Corinthians 15:9), it is clear that he fights to be recognized along with the other apostles.

Prophets

In addition to mention of the apostles, we also find frequent reference to prophets. During the apostolic ministry, a number of unnamed and named individuals are called prophets: a group of prophets traveling from Jerusalem to Antioch (Acts 11:27); Agabus (Acts 11:28; 21:10); Barnabas, Simeon, Lucius, Manaen, and Saul (Acts 13:1); and Judas and Silas (Acts 15:32). Prophecy as a spiritual gift within the early Church is mentioned on numerous occasions and is also featured prominently in John’s Revelation.[17] With the exception of the apostles, we have on record only the prophecies of Agabus, who first prophesied of a coming famine (Acts 11:27–28) and later of Paul’s Roman incarceration (Acts 21:10–11).

What was the role of a prophet? Within the Israelite context from which Christianity grew, being a prophet (Hebrew, nābî’) was not a description of an office but of an endowment of the gift of prophecy. When Eldad and Medad prophesied in the Israelite camp, Joshua was concerned by what he perceived to be a challenge to Moses’s leadership. Moses, however, responded that he wished “that all the Lord’s people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his spirit upon them!” (Numbers 11:29; emphasis added). To Moses, such prophesying did not in itself give one hierarchical authority and thus was not a challenge to his position. This understanding prevailed throughout the Old Testament and continued into the New Testament world.[18] Although prophets are frequently mentioned in the New Testament, we never read of them being ordained in any sense. Thus, to be a prophet meant that one possessed the gift of prophecy but did not necessarily mean one held an ecclesiastical office.

What was the relationship between apostles and prophets? With the exception of Jesus’s statement in Luke 11:49, Paul is the only writer ever to mention apostles and prophets together, and whenever he does, apostles are always listed first (1 Corinthians 12:28; Ephesians 2:20; 3:5; 4:11). The ordering in the sentences was most likely deliberate and perhaps suggests Paul’s recognition that though the gift of prophecy was valuable, it was subject to those formally authorized to administer.[19] Paul himself demonstrates this when, writing to the Saints at Corinth in his capacity as an apostle (1 Corinthians 1:1), he gives instructions to help regulate the speaking and interpreting of prophecies among them (see 1 Corinthians 14:26–40). Within this same passage, he also counsels them to “covet to prophesy” (verse 39), instruction that would certainly have created chaos had prophecy been thought of in itself as giving a right to leadership.

Prophets, then, were an important feature of the early Christian Church. The presence of prophets was evidence that “the manifestation of the Spirit [was being] given to every man to profit withal. For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; to another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; to another the working of miracles; to another prophecy” (1 Corinthians 12:7–10). Being a prophet was not an office or position; rather, all Saints were encouraged to seek “the testimony of Jesus [which] is the spirit of prophecy” (Revelation 19:10).[20]

Evangelists

A rather enigmatic office is that of evangelist (Greek euangelistēs). In addition to the Ephesians passage, the term is found only two other times in the New Testament to describe Philip (Acts 21:8) and Timothy (2 Timothy 4:5), but these passages give no indication of the meaning of the term. Linguistically the word refers to someone who declares the “good news,” or gospel (Greek euangellos). Although it is clear that apostles were evangelists in the sense that they declared, not all evangelists were apostles. Neither Philip nor Timothy were ever considered to be apostles. Outside the New Testament, euangelistēs is found in an inscription from Rhodes describing “one who proclaims oracular sayings.”[21] This definition fits well with the Prophet Joseph Smith’s explanation that “an Evangelist is a Patriarch.”[22]

Pastors

The term “pastor” (Greek poimenas) refers to someone who looks after sheep, and so is used to refer to shepherds or leaders. Christ identified himself as the Good Shepherd (John 10:14), and he instructed Peter three times to “feed my lambs/sheep” (John 21:15–17). Ephesians 4 is the only place in the New Testament where the word pastor is used in a technical sense of a Church office, but variations of the Greek stem are often found in conjunction with other Church offices such as elder and bishop (1 Peter 5:1–2; Acts 20:17–35) and may indicate “their initial synonymous use as designations for Christian leaders.”[23]

Teachers

In the New Testament, teacher seems to be a descriptive term, rather than a priesthood office. Twice Paul identifies himself as an Apostle and “a teacher of the Gentiles” (1 Timothy 2:7; 2 Timothy 1:11). Likewise, Luke identifies prophets and teachers in the Church at Antioch such as Barnabas and Saul (Paul), whom we know about from other places, but others we do not: Simeon, Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen (Acts 13:1). Paul also encourages women to be “teachers of good things” (Titus 2:3). But the New Testament also warns against those who desire to be teachers but who understand “neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm” (1 Timothy 1:7) and “false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction” (2 Peter 2:1).

Elders

In both the Greek Old and New Testaments, the term elder (Greek presbyteros) is often used to refer to older men who were respected for their experience and wisdom.[24] In this context it appears frequently to denote the elders of the Jews, a group often in opposition to Jesus and his ministry. However, in a Christian context the term seems to refer to a specific office, received by appointment (Acts 14:23, Greek cheirotoneō; Titus 1:5, Greek kathistēmi). In Acts, elders work in close association with the apostles (Acts 15:2, 4, 6, 22–23; 16:4). Peter even identifies himself as a “co-elder”[25] (see 1 Peter 5:1; Greek sympresbyteros). Luke records that Paul and Barnabas, on their first missionary journey, “ordained [or appointed; Greek cheirotoneō] them elders in every church” (Acts 14:23). Paul similarly instructs Titus to “ordain [or appoint] elders in every city, as I had appointed thee” (Titus 1:5; emphasis added).

The responsibilities of these elders were many and varied: they received and distributed welfare goods (Acts 11:29–30); helped settle doctrinal disputes (Acts 15:2, 4, 6, 22–23; 16:4); oversaw and fed the flocks of God (Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:1–3); received reports of missionary efforts (Acts 21:17–20); sought to correct misunderstandings among Church members (Acts 21:18–25); ordained others to the ministry (1 Timothy 4:14); ruled (1 Timothy 5:17); labored in “the word and doctrine” (1 Timothy 5:17); anointed and blessed the sick (James 5:14–15); and served as examples for the rest of God’s flock (1 Peter 5:3).

Elders appear to have held a priesthood office on the local level and led the Saints in the absence of traveling apostolic authorities like Paul. At the end of Paul’s third mission, he went to Miletus and sent for the elders of the Church from Ephesus to come to him. Knowing that he would not return to the area (Acts 20:25), he directed them, “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers [Greek episkopoi], to feed the church of God” (Acts 20:28).

Bishops

The Greek word for bishops is episkopoi and refers to “overseers.” The KJV is not always consistent in its translation of episkopoi. Sometimes it will translate it literally as “overseers” (Acts 20:28) and sometimes technically as bishops (Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:7). The only time we find the term bishop (Greek episkopos) in the New Testament in a singular form is when Peter uses it to describe Christ (1 Peter 2:25). Again we are reminded of the fluid boundaries in the early Church between elders and bishops; both are described as overseers who shepherd their flocks. According to Paul’s letters to Timothy and Titus, bishops were responsible to teach (1 Timothy 3:2); take care of the Church (1 Timothy 3:5); serve as stewards of God (Titus 1:7); and exhort and convince gainsayers (Titus 1:9). It is not until the early second century that we find concrete evidence, in the writings of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, of a clear distinction between elders and bishops, with elders yielding to the bishop who is the representative of Christ and the leader of the congregation (To the Ephesians, 1:3; 4:1; To the Magnesians, 2:1; 3:1; To the Trallians, 1:1). In Ignatius’s letters, the bishop is now the only one who is described as a shepherd or pastor (To the Philadelphians, 1–2; compare To the Romans, 9:1–2).[26]

Deacons

Paul writes to the Philippians, “Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops [Greek episkopoi] and deacons [Greek diakonoi]” (1:1). Not only were bishops associated with elders, they were also associated with deacons. The difficulty again in understanding the many passages that use diakonoi is determining whether it is being used in the general sense of one who ministers, or in the technical sense of the office of deacon.[27] For example, Paul describes himself and Apollos as “ministers [Greek diakonoi] by whom ye believed” (1 Corinthians 3:5), yet at the beginning of the epistle he identifies himself as an apostle (1:1). Is he, therefore, identifying himself as an apostle who ministers to the Saints at Corinth, or is he indicating that he is a deacon in the Church? In another epistle, Paul commends to the Roman church a woman by the name of Phebe, whom he describes as “our sister, which is a servant [Greek diakonon] of the church which is at Cenchrea” (Romans 16:1). In most cases in the New Testament the context suggests that diakonoi should be translated as “ministers,” rather than “deacons.” One exception to this may be 1 Timothy 3:8–13, which describes the qualifications for being a diakonos. The passage says nothing about the duties of a diakonos but indicates that he must be serious, not double-tongued, not addicted to wine or money, and must hold to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. Then Paul instructs Timothy that an individual must be tested and, if he is found blameless, let him serve as deacon (Greek diakoneitōsan). In this context, it does not appear to be a general reference to ministering, because people who are not blameless can still effectively minister to others.

We have noted that on two occasions deacons are mentioned in conjunction with bishops. We see the same kind of pairing in 1 Clement, 42:4, and the Didache, 15:1, Christian texts which date to around the turn of the first century. Ignatius encourages the Trallians: “Let everyone respect the deacons as Jesus Christ, just as they should respect the bishop” (3.1). However, it is clear that Ignatius does not consider deacons to enjoy equal status with bishops; rather they are subject to the bishop and the elders (To the Magnesians, 2). He specifically describes “Philo, the deacon from Cilicia, a man with a good reputation, who even now assists me [Ignatius, who was a bishop] in the word of God” (To the Philadelphians, 11:1). Deacons, he writes to the Trallians, “are not merely ‘deacons’ of food and drink, but ministers of God’s church. Therefore they must avoid criticism as though it were fire” (2:3). Thus, it appears that the role of deacons was to aid the bishop by helping with the temporal welfare of the Church and by teaching the word, which, as we will see, corresponds remarkably with the seven who are called to minister in Acts 6.

The Administrative Effects of a Growing Church

Having examined the various groups in the early Church, we are now in a position to examine the ways it may have functioned. According to Acts, the Church began with very few members; only one hundred and twenty people were gathered with the apostles and women when the vacancy in the Twelve was filled (Acts 1:15). But events that followed led to an exponential increase in Church membership. After Peter’s teaching at Pentecost, “about three thousand souls” joined the Church (Acts 2:41). After Peter and John’s teaching at the temple, “many of them which heard the word believed; and the number of the men was about five thousand” (Acts 4:4), although the number could have been much greater if it included women and children. As a result of the “many signs and wonders wrought among the people” by the apostles, “believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women” (Acts 5:12, 14).

The rapid growth of the Church inevitably led to some administrative difficulties. Acts 6 records that “when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians [Greek-speaking Jews] against the Hebrews [Aramaic-speaking Jews], because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration” (verse 1). During this time the Church members were consecrating their wealth (Acts 4:37; contrast 5:1–11),[28] but due to the administrative difficulty of keeping up with the Church’s growth, some of the members—specifically the widows—were being neglected. This was a problem because they had given all to the Church and were relying on the Church for support.

When made aware of the situation, Peter realized that the apostles did not have the time to take care of these matters. He declared, “It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word” (Acts 6:2–4). As a result, we have the first administrative expansion of the Church leadership. Acts does not tell us much about these seven men, though Peter does say that the Twelve would “appoint” them. The Greek word is kathistēmi, which means to “put in charge.”[29] Elsewhere in the KJV it is translated as “ordain” (Titus 1:5; Hebrews 5:1; 8:3), perhaps suggesting a formal priesthood role. The only information that we have about any of them, specifically Stephen and Philip, describes them out preaching the gospel (Acts 6:8–7:60; 8:5–40). At least in the case of Philip, they seem to be operating under the authority of the Aaronic Priesthood, rather than the Melchizedek, because while Philip baptized, it was Peter and John who came to Samaria and “prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost. . . . Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost” (Acts 8:15, 17).

Beyond what specific duties the seven performed, the most important feature of this account is its demonstration of how the organizational structure of the Church was able to grow and adapt to meet new needs. Christ did not establish his Church, initially, in all its organizational potential. Initially there was simply no need for an extensive structure including bishops, welfare administrators, deacons, councils of elders, and so forth. Rather, he revealed the offices and organization of his Church gradually, line upon line, as the Church had need. Although the New Testament does not provide a record of how most Church offices developed, the calling of the seven serves as a potential model. First, there was a practical need for adaptation. Second, the apostles considered the situation and—no doubt under inspiration—came to a solution. Third, they implemented an organizational change, and as a result, “the word of God increased” (Acts 6:7), and the Lord blessed the Church.

The rapid growth of the Church must have also caused difficulties for the Church members in finding places to worship. While they “continu[ed] daily with one accord in the temple” (Acts 2:46) and continued to attend the synagogue (Acts 13:4; 19:8; 26:11), they also needed places where they could meet together as followers of Christ. Houses seem to have been the gathering places of choice for members of the Church. Acts 1:13 says that the Church members met in an upper room of someone’s home, possibly the same one where Jesus instituted the sacrament (see also Mark 14:15). Luke says, “Breaking bread from house to house, [they] did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart” (Acts 2:46). When Peter was delivered out of jail, “he came to the house of Mary the mother of John, whose surname was Mark; where many were gathered together praying” (Acts 12:12). Archaeologists have uncovered in Capernaum a house that seems to have been used as a Christian “place of meeting or worship as early as the end of the first century.”[30]

This practice of meeting in houses continued as missionary work expanded among the Gentiles and seems to have become the basic unit of the Church. Paul rarely speaks of the “whole church” (Romans 16:23; 1 Corinthians 14:23). Instead, he usually speaks of the Church in somebody’s house (Greek hē kat’ oikon ekklēsia). Thus, Priscilla and Aquila, Paul’s companions in Corinth and Ephesus, hosted a branch of the Church in their house (1 Corinthians 16:19; Romans 16:3–5). Likewise, Philemon hosted a branch in Colossae (Philemon 1:2), and Nymphas hosted a branch in Laodicea (Colossians 4:15). These house-churches “enabled the followers of Jesus to have a distinctively Christian worship and fellowship from the very first days of the apostolic age.”[31] It is probable that in larger cities more than one house-church existed. This state may be reflected in the groupings of salutations Paul sends in Romans 16:14–15.[32] The patrons of these house-churches, some of which may have been women (e.g., Lydia and Chloe), were probably not only responsible for providing the space for the Christian gathering, they probably also provided the meal that was a part of the sacramental celebration.[33]

House-churches were a natural outgrowth of the societal emphasis on the extended family in the first century.[34] Cornelius was “a devout man, and one that feared God with all his house” (Acts 10:2; emphasis added). While he waited for Peter to come, he “called together his kinsmen and near friends” to listen to Peter (Acts 10:24). This household and friends were the first gentile converts. Likewise, when Paul taught in Philippi, he baptized Lydia “and her household” (Acts 16:15), and in Corinth he “baptized also the household of Stephanas” (1 Corinthians 1:16). A household could consist of parents, children, grandparents, and other extended family members as well as servants and slaves. Not all members of the household, however, automatically joined the Church, as seen in the case of Onesimus who, as a slave, did not convert with his owner, Philemon (Philemon 1:1–2, 10).[35] It is possible that the early missionaries sought to baptize households that could become the nucleus of the Church in a new city.

While the Church was small, the house was a viable meeting place, where all the membership could gather together, but the exponential growth must have eventually made it impossible to gather everyone into one place (see Acts 12:17). Therefore, in any one city there was probably more than one house-church. Given the huge distances between cities and the difficulty of communication in the first century, a centralized Church government was difficult to administer and maintain with house-churches, which probably existed with a fair amount of autonomy, except for the infrequent visits from the apostles and the letters that they sent. It appears that the contention in Corinth may have resulted from conflicts between different house-churches that were established by different Christian missionaries (1 Corinthians 1:10–16). Likewise, 3 John may be describing a rogue leader of a house-church in its description of Diotrephes (3 John 1:9–10). Only in one instance is there a suggestion that one of these house-churches, the house of Stephanas, may have been viewed in a leadership capacity for other members of the Church (1 Corinthians 16:15–16).

“My Church”

When Jesus promised Peter at Caesarea Philippi that he would build a church, he specifically called it “my church” (Matthew 16:18). In 3 Nephi 27:8, Jesus identifies two qualifications for a church to belong to him: “And how be it my church save it be called in my name? For if a church be called in Moses’ name then it be Moses’ church; or if it be called in the name of a man then it be the church of a man; but if it be called in my name then it is my church, if it so be that they are built upon my gospel.” Jesus then gives a definition of gospel. He encloses it within two bookends, so to speak. He begins this definition with “Behold I have given unto you my gospel, and this is the gospel which I have given unto you,” and he closes with “Verily, verily, I say unto you, this is my gospel” (3 Nephi 27:13, 21). Within these two statements, he teaches that the gospel, or good news, is that he came to do the will of the Father and to be lifted up on the cross that he might draw all men unto him so that they can “stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil” (verse 14). But the good news is not just what Jesus has done; it also includes what we must do: repent, be baptized, remain faithful to the end, wash our garments in Christ’s blood, and “be sanctified by the reception of the Holy Ghost” (verse 20). All these principles and ordinances were taught and practiced in the New Testament. According to Jesus’s definition, therefore, the New Testament contains a fullness of the gospel and the New Testament Church qualifies to be called “my church.”

The New Testament, however, does not give us many indications of how the early Church members were identified, though in Acts we learn of two. In Acts 9:2, Paul seems to be calling them the “way.” Before going to Damascus, he went to the high priest, desiring letters to the synagogues in Damascus so that “if he found any of this way [Greek tēs hodou], whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem” (Acts 9:2). Scholars have argued that the word way may be a term used to identify members of the Church.[36] And the New Revised Standard Version contains the phrase “so that if he found any belonging to the Way.” Similar language is also found in Acts 19:23; 22:4; 24:14, 22. “The Way” may thus have been the earliest means to identify Church members who were still considered to be Jews but who were traveling a different path. Later, when Paul was arrested in Jerusalem, another name for the members of the Church was used when he was accused of being “a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes” (Acts 24:5).

But how did the earliest members of the Church identify themselves? The most frequent self-designation in the New Testament is “saints,” from the Greek word hagioi, “dedicated to God” or “holy.” This designation is used sixty times from Acts to Revelation, but only once in the four Gospels (Matthew 27:52). In Antioch, Ananias worries about “how much evil [Paul] hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem” (Acts 9:13). Twice Paul teaches about those who are “called to be saints” (1 Corinthians 1:2; Romans 1:7). Both these references follow Paul’s declaration that he was “called to be an apostle” (1 Corinthians 1:1; Romans 1:1), perhaps indicating that he saw membership in the Church as something more than an individual’s decision to join. One of the principal reasons for a Church organization is for the “perfecting of the saints” (Ephesians 4:12).

But there is also another possible self-designation. Like the people who inhabited Qumran (4QpPs37 3.10; “the community of the poor”), they simply identified themselves as the poor. As we have noted, Acts makes it clear that the members of the Church donated their wealth to the Church, similar to the lifestyle practiced by those at Qumran. Twice Paul identifies the members of the Church in Jerusalem as ho ptōchoi (“the poor”). In Galatians, Paul describes James, Cephas, and John’s directions that as he and Barnabas preach to the Gentiles, “they would that we should remember the poor” (Galatians 2:10). Paul writes, “For it hath pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor saints which are at Jerusalem” (Romans 15:26). Both these instances have reference to the collection Paul is making to take to the Jerusalem church and, on one level, may refer to their economic state after the famine prophesied by Agabus (Acts 11:27–28), but it may also refer to a life of consecration.[37]

The term Christian seems to have come later. In two of the three occasions in the New Testament, it is outsiders who use the term Christian. Acts 11:26 describes the period when Barnabas and Paul are teaching in the Church at Antioch: “And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people.” Then it records, “The disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.” The passive voice in this verse suggests that outsiders, rather than insiders, coined this name.[38] In the second instance King Agrippa tells Paul, “Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian” (Acts 26:28). Thus, it seems that the term Christian, like the term Mormon, was originally coined by outsiders, although it eventually became a self-designation, as we see in 1 Peter 4:16: “Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.” By the beginning of the second century, Ignatius frequently uses it as a self-designation (see his letters to the Ephesians, 11:2; to the Magnesians, 4; to the Romans, 3:2; and Polycarp, 7:3).

There is no doubt that the Church of the first century qualifies to be called Jesus’s church on the basis of its teaching of judgment, atonement, repentance, baptism, enduring to the end, and sanctification. The case for its qualifying as his church because it was called in Jesus’s name is more difficult to make in our present New Testament, although Christian did eventually become a self-designation.

Conclusion

From the information we have in the New Testament and early Christian literature, we see that the organization of Christ’s Church on earth developed over a period of time, in a way similar to the organization of the Church in this dispensation.[39] This development came as the fledgling Church grew and expanded both in numbers and geography. As we read the New Testament, it is important for us to understand that it gives us only the equivalent of snapshots of what the Church looked like at any one time. But the nature of the text, as it stands today, often does not join all the pictures together into a movie of the Church in the first century. Oftentimes we have more questions than we have answers. What is true, however, is that the early Church was grounded on the teachings and Atonement of Jesus Christ, just as it is today; that it operated under the power and authority of the priesthood, just as it does today; and that the offices of the Church developed as the needs of the members and the administration dictated.

Joseph Smith did not simply study the New Testament as did other Christian Primitivists (Restorationists) in the nineteenth century who attempted to pattern their organizations after the church outlined in the book of Acts. The Church of Jesus Christ was organized as revealed to the Prophet by the Lord Jesus Christ. In this sense, “We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church” (Articles of Faith 1:6), that is, a church led by revelation and inspiration that adapts to the current needs of the times and to the growing membership of the Church spread across the earth.

Gaye Strathearn and Joshua M. Sears, “The Church in the First Century,” in The Life and Teachings of the New Testament Apostles: From the Day of Pentecost to the Apocalypse, ed. Richard Neitzel Holzapfel and Thomas A. Wayment (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2010), 35–62.

Notes

[1] James E. Talmage, The Articles of Faith: A Series of Lectures on the Principal Doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1899), 201.

[2] Jared W. Ludlow, “The Book of Acts: A Pattern for Modern Church Growth,” in Shedding Light on the New Testament: Acts–Revelation, ed. Ray L. Huntington, Frank F. Judd Jr., and David M. Whitchurch (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2009), 1–29.

[3] See “Adjustments to Priesthood Organization,” Church History Topics, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/adjustments-to-priesthood-organization.

[4] “ἐκκλησία; ekklēsia,” in Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed., ed. Frederick W. Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 303–4. (hereafter abbreviated as GEL).

[5] John P. Meier, “The Circle of the Twelve: Did It Exist during Jesus’ Public Ministry?,” Journal of Biblical Literature 116, no. 4 (1997): 637. The Gospel of John does not contain any specific reference to the calling of the apostles, and it uses the word apostolos only once (John 13:16) but in a very general sense. John does, however, refer to the Twelve (John 6:67–70; 20:24). The synoptic Gospels also refer to the Twelve, but only twice do we find the phrase “twelve apostles” (Matthew 10:2; Luke 22:14).

[6] “Apostolos,” in Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich, GEL, 122. See also Eric D. Huntsman, “Galilee and the Call of the Twelve Apostles,” in Richard Neitzel Holzapfel and Thomas A. Wayment, eds., From Bethlehem through the Sermon on the Mount, vol. 1 of The Life and Teachings of Jesus Christ (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2005), 228–38.

[7] The one exception may be when the disciples failed to heal a boy who was possessed of a spirit. The text never calls them apostles but the context, most clearly in Matthew, suggests they may have been the nine apostles who did not go up into the mountain. The question is whether the disciples attempted to heal the boy through the power of the priesthood or simply through the power of faith. Jesus’s response to the disciples’ question, “Why could not we cast him out?” suggests that it may have been the latter. He says that they could not heal the boy “because of your unbelief” (Matthew 17:19–20).

[8] S. Kent Brown, “Peter’s Keys,” in The Ministry of Peter, the Chief Apostle, ed. Frank F. Judd Jr., Eric D. Huntsman, and Shon D. Hopkin (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2014), 91–102.

[9] History, 1838–1856, Volume C-1 [2 November 1838–31 July 1842], p. 11, The Joseph Smith Papers.

[10] A number of manuscripts say that Jesus called seventy-two, not seventy (e.g., Sinaiticus, a; Alexandrinus, A; Ephraemi, C; Bezae, D; and Freer, W).

[11] Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), 412–13.

[12] The fourth-century Church historian Eusebius claims that Matthias, who was called to fill the vacancy left in the Twelve by the death of Judas, had served among the Seventy, as had Barnabas and an otherwise unknown figure named Thaddaeus. He recounts that “after [Christ’s] resurrection from the dead and ascent into heaven, Thomas, one of the twelve Apostles, was divinely moved to send Thaddaeus to Edessa, himself listed among the number of the Seventy disciples of Christ, as a herald and evangelist of the teaching about Christ.” Ecclesiastical History, 1:13. He also cites Clement of Alexandria, who wrote that after the resurrection the apostles passed divine instruction on to the Seventy. Ecclesiastical History, 2:1. If these records have a historical basis, it would indicate that the Seventy continued as an organized body in the Christian Church beyond the Resurrection under apostolic direction.

[13] Robert J. Matthews, Unto All Nations: A Guide to the Book of Acts and the Writings of Paul (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1975), 1. Robert L. Millet suggests that the phrase “speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God” (Acts 1:3) could indicate that it was at this time that Jesus “provided the more complex church organization” to the apostles. “The Saga of the Early Christian Church,” in Robert L. Millet, ed., Acts to Revelation, vol. 6 of Studies in Scripture (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1987), 2. After surveying various interpretations of the forty-day ministry, Hugh Nibley concludes that Jesus’s desire to better prepare the Twelve was “the argument most confidently put forth today.” “Evangelium Quadraginta Dierum: The Forty-day Mission of Christ—The Forgotten Heritage,” in Mormonism and Early Christianity, vol. 4 of The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1987), 12.

[14] For a detailed discussion of the Jerusalem Council, see Richard Neitzel Holzapfel and Thomas A. Wayment, “Unto the Uttermost Part of the Earth,” in The Life and Teachings of the New Testament Apostles: From the Day of Pentecost through the Apocalypse, ed. Richard Neitzel Holzapfel and Thomas A. Wayment (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2010), 63–79.

[15] Nor does Paul identify himself as an apostle in Philippians 1:1; Titus 1:1; or Philemon 1:1. In these instances it may be because there is no question about his apostolic status.

[16] Thomas A. Wayment, From Persecutor to Apostle: A Biography of Paul (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2006), 153.

[17] Acts 2:16–18; 19:6; 21:9; Romans 12:6; 1 Corinthians 11:4–5; 12:10; 13:2, 8–9; 14:1–6, 22–26, 31–32, 37, 39; 1 Thessalonians 5:20; 1 Timothy 1:18; 4:14; 2 Peter 1:19; Revelation 1:3; 10:11; 16:6; 18:20, 24; 19:10; 22:6–7, 9–10, 18–19.

[18] This explains why such women as Miriam (Exodus 15:20), Deborah (Judges 4:4), Huldah (2 Kings 22:14; 2 Chronicles 34:22), and Anna (Luke 2:36) could be considered prophetesses despite a gender-based priesthood restriction. See also Acts 2:16–17; 1 Corinthians 11:5.

[19] The Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrate that other Jews who were near-contemporaries with Paul similarly regulated that people speaking prophetically were subject to the leadership and correction of those with priestly authority. See Joshua M. Sears, “False Prophets as a Construction of Authority at Qumran,” in The Prophetic Voice at Qumran: The Leonardo Museum Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls, 11–12 April 2014, ed. Donald W. Parry, Stephen D. Ricks, and Andrew C. Skinner, Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 120 (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 115–27.

[20] Andrew T. Lincoln, Ephesians, Word Biblical Commentary 40 (Dallas: Word, 1990), 153.

[21] “εὐαγγελιστήϛ; euangelistēs,” in Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, eds., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 10 vols., trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964–76), 2:736.

[22] History, 1838–1856, Volume C-1 [2 November 1838–31 July 1842], 9, The Joseph Smith Papers. John W. Welch has noted, “Today we cannot be certain of the origins of the new testament term euangelistēs. But of all the meanings attributed to the word evangelist over the years, the Prophet Joseph Smith’s identification of this office as that of a patriarch who gives spiritual and prophetic blessings to individuals still comes closest to the meaning of this term in its earliest known occurrence.” “Word Studies from the New Testament,” Ensign, January 1995, 29.

[23] John H. Elliott, “Elders as Leaders in 1 Peter and the Early Church,” Harvard Theological Studies 64, no. 2 (2008): 687.

[24] In fact, “throughout the ancient world, both in Greco-Roman and Israelite circles, heads of households respected for their age and prestige were known as ‘elders’ (zekanim, presbyteroi, gerontes, seniors) and exercised the role of local leadership.” Elliott, “Elders as Leaders,” 686.

[25] Elliott, “Elders as Leaders,” 685.

[26] Elliott, “Elders as Leaders,” 688.

[27] Other places where diakonos is translated as the generic “minister” include Matthew 20:26; 22:13; Mark 9:35; 10:43; John 2:5, 9; 12:26; Romans 13:4; 15:8; 16:1; 1 Corinthians 3:5; 2 Corinthians 3:6; 6:4; 11:15, 23; Galatians 2:17; Ephesians 3:7; 6:21; Philippians 1:1; Colossians 1:7, 23, 25; 4:7; 1 Thessalonians 3:2; 1 Timothy 3:8, 12; 4:6. This is clearly the predominant sense of the word.

[28] There is no evidence that this practice was entered into by Church members outside Jerusalem.

[29] “καθίστημι; kathistēmi” in Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich, GEL, 492.

[30] John J. Rousseau and Rami Arav, Jesus and His World: An Archaeological and Cultural Dictionary (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 40.

[31] Floyd V. Filson, “The Significance of the Early House Churches,” Journal of Biblical Literature 58 (1939): 109.

[32] Wayne A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983), 75.

[33] For more on early Christian worship, see Erik Odin Yingling, “Worship and Ritual Practices in the New Testament,” in New Testament History, Culture, and Society: A Background to the Texts of the New Testament, ed. Lincoln H. Blumell (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2019), 586–602.

[34] See Ken M. Campbell, ed., Marriage and Family in the Biblical World (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003).

[35] Meeks, First Urban Christians, 76.

[36] S. Vernon McCasland, “The Way,” Journal of Biblical Literature (1958): 222–30.

[37] The early Church Fathers knew of an early group of Christians, whom they regarded as heretical, who lived the law of Moses (cf. Acts 21:20) and were called the Ebionites, from the Hebrew word for poor, ebyônîm. See Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1.26.2; 3.11.7, 21.1; 4.33.4.

[38] For examples of outsiders using the term, see Josephus, AJ, 8.3.3, Pliny, Letters, 10.96, and Suetonius, Claudius, 25.13–15, where the word Chrestus is used. “‘Christus’ was often confused with ‘Chrestus’ by non-Christians, and sometimes even by Christians. This confusion arose from two sources, of meaning and sound. The Greek ‘Christos’ and its Latin equivalent ‘Christus’ would have suggested a strange meaning to most ancients, especially those unfamiliar with its Jewish background. Its primary Greek meaning in everyday life suggests the medical term ‘anointer’ or the construction term ‘plasterer.’ These meanings would not have the religious content that ‘Christ’ would have to someone on the inside of Christianity. These unusual meanings could have prompted this shift to a more recognizable, meaningful name. Due to a widespread phonetic feature of Greek, ‘Christus’ and ‘Chrestus’ were even closer in pronunciation than they appear to be today.” Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 34.

[39] Change and development are a feature, not a bug, of a “living Church” (Doctrine and Covenants 1:30). In response to changes being made to the organization of the Seventy in the late nineteenth century, the Lord gave a revelation to the First Presidency on April 14, 1883 and explained, “Let not your hearts be troubled, neither be ye concerned about the management and organization of my Church and Priesthood and the accomplishment of my work. Fear me and observe my laws and I will reveal unto you, from time to time, through the channels that I have appointed, everything that shall be necessary for the future development and perfection of my Church, for the adjustment and rolling forth of my kingdom, and for the building up and the establishment of my Zion.” As cited in Earl C. Tingey, “The Saga of Revelation: The Unfolding Role of the Seventy,” Ensign, September 2009, 56; emphasis in original.