The word “brotherhood” here is translated from adelphotes. It appears only twice in the New Testament, both
times in First Peter (2:17; 5:9). The King James renders it “brethren” in 5:9, but the New King James
renders it “brotherhood” in both verses. Of adelphotes Vine says, “primarily, ‘a brotherly relationship,”
and so, the community possessed of this relationship, “a brotherhood,” 1 Pet. 2:17 (see 5:9 marg.)” and
Thayer says, “brotherhood” ; the abstract for the concrete, a band of brothers i.e. of Christians,
Christian brethren : 1 Pet. ii. 17; v.9).
It is clear that Peter uses the term to refer to what Vine calls “the community possessed of this
relationship” throughout the world. In 5:9 he compares the sufferings of those immediately addressed in his
epistle to that experienced by their “brotherhood in the world (nkj).” In 2:17, it seems to be a contrast
to “all men.” Hence, when we as children of God and brothers and sisters in Christ speak of “the
brotherhood” we are speaking of ourselves along with all in the world that share in this great
relationship. What a great throng of people! It is this throng that Peter especially tells us to love.
It seems to me that in recent years we have lost much of that keen sense of brotherhood that we once
enjoyed. Those of us who consider ourselves “conservative” and “non-institutional” have done a pretty good
job of teaching that each local congregation is autonomous and independent of any other congregation in the
world. We have shown that a failure to recognize this fundamental Bible principle has historically led to
most of the wholesale apostasies of the past. We have rightly pointed out that the congregation of which we
are members can exist and scripturally function as if there were no others like it in the world. We have
also emphasized that each member of a congregation has a relationship and responsibility to the local
church collectively and distributively that he does not have toward brethren elsewhere.
I fear that during all of this we may have developed a mentality that is a bit too “independent.” As a
result of this perverted sense of independence, brethren have almost isolated themselves from any real
concern, contact or sense of fellowship with their brethren elsewhere – even other brethren meeting across
town. An invitation can come (in some cases no invitation is sent) from faithful brethren elsewhere to
their gospel meeting. It may or may not be announced at the receiving congregation, but it is generally
ignored because it not a function of “our” congregation. In some areas preachers of local congregations
have little contact or interaction with preachers or other members of other congregations. This writer
confesses his own guilt to a degree at times along these lines.
We can remember a time when a church, in an area where there were several congregations would have a gospel
meeting that the house would be filled mostly with members from the other congregations. Often, we would
travel miles to encourage another congregation in its gospel meetings. We were just as interested in seeing
another congregation prosper in the Lord as we were to see the congregation where we attended. We showed an
interest in and often inquired about how that brethren meeting at such and such place were doing. That was
before we conceived that “autonomous” and “independent” meant “isolation.” Have we forgotten how to heed
Peter’s admonition to “love the brotherhood?”
The brotherhood, of which Peter wrote, is not a brotherhood of churches organized together as a unit nor is
it a brotherhood of Christians organized into a unit. It is a relationship that exists between all
Christians. They share a common faith and have common interests.
While New Testament congregations were not tied together organizationally speaking, they were tied together
doctrinally because they subscribed to the same standard. Paul declared that what he taught and ordained in
one church he ordained in all (1 Cor. 4:17; 7:17). They shared in a common faith.
I do not have the right to meddle in the internal affairs of another congregation nor infringe upon its
autonomy. It can decide, without any interference for me, its meeting times, when it will have a gospel
meeting, how it can best use its treasury, who will do its teaching and preaching, lead its singing and
praying, what kind of facilities it well provide to do its work, which of its members it may or may not
discipline, etc.
But, because of my duty to “love the brotherhood,” I have an obligation to “speak the truth in love” to my
brethren everywhere I have the opportunity to do so, just as I have an obligation to preach the gospel to
every creature in the world because I love their souls. It is not interference into the affairs of other
congregations when I demonstrate my love of the brotherhood by teaching them the truth and warning them of
departures from the faith once delivered unto the saints (Jude 3) and even the Bible teaching that should
govern them as they exercise their autonomy.
Let us love and appreciate those of the brotherhood that we meet and work with regularly in the local
congregation, but let us also broaden our scope of interest and “love the brotherhood” as a whole – enough
to “correct, rebuke and encourage” (2 Tim. 4:2 - NIV) as needed.
edbragwell@gmail.com
