|
BY THE AUTHOR
Dr. W. Robert Cook, Th.D
Thy hand, O God, has guided
Thy flock from age to age;
The wondrous tale is written,
Full clear on every page;
Our fathers owned thy goodness,
And we their deeds record;
And both of this bear witness,
One church, one Faith, One Lord.
Edward Hayes Plumptre (1821-1891)
Having now studied the grand truths of God’s saving work it may seem to the student of theology that all of theological significance has been considered. What greater truth can an individual experience than deliverance from eternal loss and punishment to eternal gain and blessing? But, there is yet another dimension of biblical revelation to be considered—not greater, but other. In soteriology we saw God’s saving work; now we come to his provision for the saved.
In the preceding the emphasis is upon what God has done for the individual sinner; in the following we will see God’s provision for the redeemed in community. One’s experience of biblical Christianity may begin with a personal relationship with Jesus Christ but it is not God’s design that it should end there. Until and unless the individual believer is joined in a productive relationship with a local church God’s broader purpose for that person is not being realized.
As far as the biblical record is concerned the earliest evidences of semi-organized religious activity relate to the family and its head. The father apparently served as priest and worship leader (e.g., Job 1:5). By the time of Abraham there was a more formalized approach to the worship of God as evidenced by the fact that Melchizedek was the acknowledged priest of God Most High (Gen. 14:18-20; cf. Ps. 11:4; Heb. 7:1 ff.).
As the children of Israel were formed into a nation under Moses’ leadership God gave even more organization to religious life. The entire life of the nation revolved around the tabernacle and later the temple with elaborate detail given to priesthood, sacrificial system, and laws which involved everyday life. With the coming of Christ and his rejection by the nation of Israel as their Messiah there was a significant shift in the divine activity among men. The establishing of the church of Jesus Christ marked a change from the national to the trans-national. As will be noted later, this was the introduction of something altogether new.
A careful reading of the New Testament will soon uncover the fat that the church is more than incidental in God’s program for today. It is of central importance. Our Lord declared that he would build his church and that nothing would thwart the carrying out of this purpose (Matt. 16:18). The measure of his love for the church is seen in that he gave himself up in death for her with a view to her cleansing, sanctification and glorification (Eph. 5:25-27). These truths must not be overlooked or minimized in a day when private Christianity, on the one hand, and para-church organizations, on the other are given such prominence.
I. The Meaning and Usage of the Term “Church”
A. The Greek word—ekklēsia
1. Derivation and meaning
Etymologically, the term is composed of the preposition ek meaning out from and kaleō meaning call. Thus it originally meant a called out or assembled group. The idea of being called out was soon lost in usage, however, leaving assembly as its meaning. Consequently, Saucy writes, “while often this etymological meaning is used to support the biblical doctrine of the church as a people called out, separated from the world by God, the usage of this term both in secular Greek and the Greek Old Testament, which provides background for the New Testament language, does not lend support to this doctrine from the word ekklēsia itself.” [i]
2. Usage
a) Pre-Christian usage
In extra-biblical usage it originally described an assembly of free citizens called together by a herald, but eventually it came to refer to any assembly no matter how convened.
Because “the primary background for the New Testament use of the term ekklēsia … is the Old Testament, specifically the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures in the third century B. C.,” it is essential to consider the use of this term in the Septuagint. “The word ekklēsia occurred almost a hundred times in the Septuagint and always translated the Hebrew qahal or a word of the same root.” [ii] After an analysis of the Lexical data provided in, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, [iii] Saucy concludes, "this varied use indicates that no technical meaning was attached to qahal in the Old Testament or to its Septuagint Greek translation, ekklesia." [iv] This is likewise the conclusion of F. J. A. Hort. [v] Put in other terms, then, qahal and its Greek translation refers to an assembly of Israelites gathered together for a particular purpose, whether religious or otherwise, which purpose must be determined by context and modifying terms rather than by the words themselves. After an extended discussion of the Septuagential usage of ekklēsia, Radmacher summarizes:
It has been seen that an ekklesia may meet for any purpose, but there always seems to be some deliberative purpose for the meeting. Secondly this ekklesia seems to be autonomous in nature. Thirdly, whereas the qualifications of the constituency may vary to a great extent, yet one qualification is constant, never varying to be a member of an ekklesia a person must be physically present at the assembly. The ekklesia is never contemplated as a spiritual fact, independent of spatial and temporal limitations. Finally, as was the case in the classical writings, there is no evidence whatever that the word acquired a specifically religious connotation in the Septuagint. All uses of the word never go beyond the simple meaning of an assembly. Thus, there is no place for reading the church back into the Old Testament on the basis of the prevalent usage of ekklesia. [vi]
b) New Testament usage
In the New Testament ekklēsia has three general classifications of usage. Its secular sense (Acts 19:32, 39, 41) had the meaning of town-meeting, whether it was in “confusion” (v. 32) or a “lawful assembly” (v. 39). Its Jewish sense (after the Septuagint) is found in Acts 7:38 and Hebrews 212 (Ps. 22:22). In both cases it refers to the congregation of Israelites and nothing more. While there were theocratic implications from the contexts, in neither case can the New Testament church be in view.
The third New Testament usage was what may be called the Christian sense. In its earliest Christian uses it probably still meant an assembly with the Christian sense being supplied by modifiers (see Matt. 16:18, where Christ speaks of “my church"; Matt. 18:17 which is best understood in light of 16:18; 1 Thess. 1:1; 2:14; 2 Thess. 1:1, 4). Later, it came to have a technical sense in and of itself and was understood to refer to a Christian church either as used of the whole body of believers in Jesus Christ regardless of time or location and with no necessary idea of being assembled (1 Cor. 12:28; Eph. 1:22-23; Col. 1:18; Heb. 12:23); or as used of a local organization comprised of professed believers (1 Cor. 1:2; 16:19; see also 1 Thess. 1:1); as used of a significant portion of the body of believers at a particular time and place in history (Acts 9:31). This last usage combines concepts from both of the preceding.
B. The English Word—Church
1. Derivation
The English word church is derived from a Greek term, kuriakos, meaning ‘of the Lord’. While it is used in 1 Corinthians 11:20 to refer to the Lord's Supper and in Revelation 1:10 to refer to the Lord's Day, it is not used of the church in he Bible.
2. General usage
The word is used in general speech to refer to a building for religious activity, worship; to denominational or sectarian groups associated in common organizational relationship; to local congregation of professing Christians; and to the universal body of Christians. Only usages three and four are found in scripture.
Thus it may be noted that while kuriakos provided the lexical background and form for the word the biblical meaning of church is to be traced to ekklēsia.
II. The Place of the Church in God’s Program
A. The Church Distinguished from Other Divinely-Ordained Entitles
1. The church and Israel
Some schools of theological thought see a line of continuity between Israel and the church which comes close to identification. Israel is viewed as the church in the Old Testament while the church is held to be the New Testament Israel. Oftentimes this means that the church has supplanted Israel in the purposes of God leaving Israel without a future as a distinct entity. Others have taken the position that the two groups are so distinct they have nothing at all in common.
a) Points of distinction
1) The matter of a "spiritual" Israel
There has always been a true or believing element within the larger national entity. Nonetheless, the term "Israel" is basically a national one. According to Romans 2:28-29 and 9:6, not all who are physical Jews, are Jews spiritually. Not all who are physically circumcised are of the circumcision. That is, jewishness and circumcision are in reality inward. Or, to put it in other words, physical descent and external rite (circumcision) does not make one a Jew.
On the other hand, spirituality in and of itself does not make one a Jew, either. Physical descent, external rite, and spirituality do make one a Jew see e.g., Nathaniel, John 1:47). As an example of this truth, note Paul's distinction in Galatians 6:16, between non-Judaizing Jewish Christians, “the Israel of God," non-Judaizing gentile Christians, “those who walk by this rule,” and Judaizing Jews and Gentiles (concerning whom Galatians is a warning). There is no such thing as a spiritual Israel which is not composed of Jews.
Some identifiable areas of distinction between Israel and the church are:
i. As to birth—Israel's relationship is based on physical birth; the church's is based on spiritual birth.
ii. As to headship—Israel's head is Abraham; the church's is Christ.
iii. As to nationality —Israel is one nation; the church is from all the nations.
iv. As to divine dealing—Israel’s is both national and individual; the church's is individual only.
v. As to dispensations—Israel is seen in each economy of God from Abraham on; the church appears for the first time in this current economy.
vi. As to governing principle—Israel's was embodied in the Mosaic Covenant and included grace; the church's is embodied in the New Covenant and includes law. (In the future Israel will be related to God by the New Covenant as well. See below.)
vii. As to priesthood—Israel had a priesthood; the church is a priesthood.
2) The matter of Abraham's seed
Abraham’s seed is used of three distinct categories in scripture. It may refer to
i. His natural descendants (Isa. 41:8; Ps. 105:6; John 8:37; Rom. 11:1) and have in view a physical seed.
ii. Jesus Christ, (Gal. 3: 16).
iii. all who are in Christ, whether Jew or Gentile (Gal. 3:29, cf. Rom. 4:11-12) when it refers to a spiritual seed. This usage is based upon the universal segment of God’s promise to Abraham (Gen. 12:3, cf. Gal. 3:7-9). Its fulfillment is illustrated by the Apostle Paul in his use of the figure of the olive tree in Romans 11.
The root of the olive tree seems to represent the place of God's blessing which exists as a result of God's covenant promises to Abraham. Since what was promised to Abraham came to fruition in his seed, and since his seed is epitomized in Christ (Gal. 3:16-29), the olive root probably is a figure of Christ. All who are grafted into the root, whether Gentiles or Jews, partake of the blessings originally promised to Abraham (Rom. 11:11-24). Thus all who are blessed have this experience because of appropriate relationship to Christ. In a yet future day that blessing will be realized by Israel as it is saved as Israel (Rom. 11:15, 25-26).
3) The matter of the New Covenant
All agree that both Israel and the church are related in some way to the New Covenant. There is difference of opinion as to how.
Some find this joint relationship to be support for the idea that promises originally made to Israel have been transferred to the church. [vii] Others, in what may be excessive zeal to keep the two distinct, claim that there are two “new” covenants, one for Israel and one for the church. [viii]
It seems more likely, however, that there is only one New Covenant to which both groups are related in the larger purposes of God. The pattern is already set in the Abrahamic covenant. In its national promises, Israel's future, elaborated in the New Covenant as set forth in Jeremiah 31:31-34, is set forth, while in its universal promises God's provision for the Gentiles is anticipated (which provision is also elaborated upon in the New Covenant as it relates to the church, Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25; 2 Cor. 3:5-6; Heb. 8:6-13; 9:15-18; 10:15-18).
Saucy observes,
The Scriptures ... do not reveal a separate new covenant. The blessings for the church of the indwelling spirit and the inward law (2 Cor. 3:3-6) are the same as those promised to Israel (Jer. 31:33-34). Moreover … Jeremiah's prophecy is directly applied to believers in the book of Hebrews. The fact of only one new covenant does not, however, necessitate that the church is fulfilling Israel's prophecy in her place. Rather, both Israel and the church share in this covenant, as in the Abrahamic Covenant, for the new covenant is the realization of the salvation of the Abrahamic promise. [ix]
As he continues his discussion of the new covenant Saucy points out several significant factors. As to time, Old Testament prophecy connected it “with a coming person” (see e.g., Isa. 42:6-7; cf. 49:8; Mal. 3:1). Jesus Christ unmistakably presented himself as that person (Luke 22:20). The writer to the Hebrew Christians affirmed the same truth (Heb. 8:6; 9:15-18). He then concludes by noting,
To be sure, Israel as a nation has not entered into the provision of Jeremiah 31 and therefore the specific national fulfillment of the covenant to the 'house of Israel' and the 'house of the Judah' awaits their future conversion. But the 'messenger of the covenant' has come, and those who receive Him receive the salvation of the new covenant. [x]
b) Points of similarity
While there is no support for the oft claimed concept that the church has supplanted Israel and today is fulfilling the promises originally given to her, nonetheless, there are certain things commonly shared by both. Consequently, a passage like Hosea 2:23, which clearly relates to Israel in its Old Testament context, can be applied by Paul to both Jews and Gentile in Romans 9:24-25.
Neither represents the ultimate or the sum-total of God's program. For both there is one God (Yahweh), one sacrifice (Jesus Christ), and one company of the redeemed. Both share in the larger kingdom program of God although from different vantage points. Both are designed to glorify God, one as a national entity and the other as an extra-national entity.
It is sometimes stated that to insist that God has two distinct programs, both of which are related to Christ, is to destroy the divinely intended continuity between the Old and New Testaments. This is to overlook the fact that there is indeed a continuity between the two, but, but that it is one of revelation and ultimate purpose (God's glory) rather than of organization.
2. The church and the kingdom
It is not at all uncommon among theologians to approach this issue with other than a balanced view. There are those who are so jealous to preserve the distinctiveness of the church they deny any significant relationship to the kingdom at all, even to the point of claiming that Christ's kingly office relates to Israel only.
On the other hand, some equate the church with God's kingdom on earth; or, others see it as charged with the responsibility of establishing that kingdom. As will be demonstrated, certain distinctions between church and kingdom must be maintained, but it is readily apparent that some relationship between the two is intended by our Lord’s own words (see the juxtaposition of terms in Matt. 16:18-19). A better approach would be to understand the church as an aspect of God’s comprehensive kingdom program.
a) The kingdom concept
As indicated in Chapter 32, the term "kingdom" is understood in its comprehensive sense to mean "sphere of sovereignty." This encompasses the three ideas of reign (where the emphasis is upon God as the ruler); realm (which may be either universal, including all intelligences; national, i.e. the Jewish nation; organismic, i.e. the Body of Christ; or individual, i.e. the believer); and subjects ruled (either all mankind, Israel, Church saints, or the redeemed in general).
In the sense that there is only one sovereign there is ultimately only one kingdom. This one kingdom, however, has two dimensions, both of which are called kingdoms in scripture. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive and may exist concurrently. For want of better terminology I would describe these two dimensions as non‑political and political. The first is more covert, inward and indirect; the second is overt, manifest, and assumes earthly governmental forms.
1) The non-political dimension
This includes
i. God’s providential governing of the universe (Ps. 103:19; 145:13; 66:i) and
ii. His spiritual governing of believers. This, in turn, may be viewed corporately, relating to the church (1 Thess. 2:12; 2 Thess. 1:5) or individually, relating to the Christian (John 3:3, 5).
2) The political dimension
The three political aspects of the kingdom are:
i. Its Old Testament theocratic form (Exod. 19:6),
ii. Its messianic, millennial theocratic form (Acts 1:6; Rev. 20:4-6), and
iii. Its universal, eternal form (1 Cor. 15:24-28; Rev. 22:3-5).
b) The relationship of church and kingdom
It is apparent from the preceding outline that the terms “church” and “kingdom” cannot be equated nor completely separated from one another. They can, however, be distinguished.
1) Distinctions
The distinctions are most apparent and significant as the church is related to the kingdom, in its yet future messianic form. The following quotation from Saucy (op. cit., pp. 84-85) captures the distinctions.
i. "Not only are the terms (ekklēsia) and kingdom (basileia) never equated in the New Testament, but each has a distinctly etymological and connotational meaning.”
ii. "The introduction of the kingdom and that of the church are entirely different. The kingdom is introduced as something ‘at hand’ from the beginning of Christ’s ministry (Mt. 4:17), while the Church is only the subject of prophecy much later (Mt. 16:18).”
iii. “The coming of the kingdom is the breaking in of the perfect heavenly reign of God. It is not the product of growth and organic development as the church of which Christ said, 'I will build my church' (Mt. 16:18; cf. Eph. 2:21- 22)."
iv. "Finally, the usage of the terms in the New Testament reveals a clear distinction. In the gospels, the term kingdom occurs many times, while church is used only three times and these in a prophetic sense (Mt. 16:18; 18:17). However, in the book of Acts which forms the historical transition from the time of the gospels to that of the church, the attention of the disciples is turned away from that of the kingdom by the Lord's statement that it was not for them to know the times and seasons (Acts 1:6-7), and increasing reference is made to the newly established church. This continues in the epistles, which are addressed to the churches or members of the churches but never to the saints of the kingdom. Only in Revelation does the kingdom again become prominent with its establishment at the coming of Christ."
2) Interrelationships
The relationship that "does exist between church and kingdom is obviously based upon what they share in common, namely that both look to the same Lord, Jesus Christ, who is God's King of kings both now (1 Tim. 6:15) and in the future (Rev. 17:14; 19:16).
i. Current relationship. This may be summarized in terms of the common message of church and kingdom, namely the gospel of grace offering salvation in Christ (Acts 20:24-25; 28:23, 31, see also Matt. 13:1-52) as well as in terms of the nature and mission of the church in relation to the kingdom.
These three, message, nature, and mission are intimately related to one another. Since Paul equated his testimony to the “gospel of the grace of God” (Acts 20:24) with “preaching the kingdom” (Acts 20:25), and since it is through the preaching of the gospel that the church is formed, it may be said that “concerning her nature, the church is first the fruit of the kingdom" (ibid., p. 87).
Further, as members of his kingdom, those who constitute the church must acknowledge him as lord (Rom. 14:9) and king (Co. 1:13; cf. Phil. 3:20).
Finally, “the church, as citizens of the kingdom, is called into the service of the kingdom as ambassadors for Christ the King (I Cor. 5:20) with the mission of representing 'its heavenly government in this world as in a foreign land'." [xi]
ii. Future relationship. Likewise, due to her relationship to Christ as King, the church anticipates a future relationship to the kingdom as well (2 Thess. 1:5; 2 Pet. 1:11; 2 Tim. 2:12; Rev. 20:6; 22:3-5). Each of these passages views the kingdom as something yet to be realized, an inheritance yet to be received (Rom. 8:17-25; 1 Cor. 6:9; James 2:5).
B. The Church in Its Own Context
Although the issue has not been addressed in so many words up to this point, it is apparent that the view of the church herein set forth is that determined by divine revelation. It is my conviction that the nature of the church has been settled by God and any study thereof must be basically biblical and theological. It is not history, even of the apostolic age, nor sociology that determines what the church is or should be.
As Erickson has pointed out, however, it is increasingly popular today to view the church as a dynamic entity. "It is not thought of in terms of its essence, but of its existence—an openly existentialist interpretation. It is an event, not an already complete, realized entity. The church is not a fixed form, but a project, a continuing task." [xii] As he goes on to point out, "the major problem with attempting to define the church in terms of its dynamic activity is that such a definition avoids making any kind of statement regarding the nature of the church." [xiii]
As an entity called and commissioned by God and placed in a particular historical and spiritual milieu, the church has certain specific responsibilities.
1. Vis-à-vis the kingdom
As something of an interim arrangement in the larger kingdom purposes of God the church is responsible to advance the causes of the present mystery form of the kingdom to both Jew (Rom. 11:13-15) and Gentile (Eph. 3:1-10); and, to anticipate and prepare the saints for future forms of the kingdom (see Rom. 8:16-18; 2 Tim. 2:10-13; Rev. 20:6; cf. 1 Cor. 6:1-11).
2. Vis-à-vis the world
The responsibility of the church to the world may be set forth in a word—witness (Acts 1:8; Luke 24:46-48). This witness is to have a specific objective content—the gospel of the grace of God in Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 15:1-11); it is to lead to a specific goal—the securing of adherents (disciples) who are identified with (by baptism) and instructed concerning Jesus Christ (Matt. 28:19-20); it is to be impelled by divine energy—the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:8); and is to be characterized by, and thus given credence by, compassion for the needy (James 1:26-27; 2:15) and love for the brethren (John 13:34-35; 1 John 3:14, 16-18; 4:19-21).
3. Vis-à-vis itself
As far as its in-house responsibilities are concerned the church has one major task. The believers are to be stimulated to growth in Christian living through the exercise of the gifts of both leadership and laity (Eph. 4:1-16). This edification process may take a more formal direction such as public preaching or an informal approach such as private counsel. It will evidence itself in a variety of ways including exhortation, consolation, encouragement, admonition, reproof and rebuke (1 Cor. 14:3; 1 Thess. 2:11-12; 5:14-15; 2 Tim. 4:2).
One particular aspect of this edification task which needs special notice is that of discipline. If she is to grow as God desires, the church must keep herself pure. From a preventative standpoint the discipline of a consistent, sensitive and forthright application of the written Word of God is essential (John 15:2-3; 17:17; Col. 3:16; 2 Tim. 4:1-4; James 1:21-25). On the other hand, from a remedial standpoint church discipline must likewise be exercised to preserve the integrity of the body, the felicity of each member, and the honor of Christ's name (Matt. 18:15-20; 1 Cor. 5:1-13; 2 Thess. 3:6-15; see later discussion in Chapter 46 for more full development of this subject).
4. Vis-à-vis God
The primary responsibility of the church of Jesus Christ is to glorify God (1 Cor. 10:31; Eph. 1:3-14; 1 Pet. 4:10-11). By this is meant that believers are called upon to display the great moral perfections of God’s character in word and deed (Phil. 1:9-11; 1 Pet. 2:9-10).
[i] Robert Saucy, The Church in God’s Program, pp. 11-12
[ii] Ibid., p. 13
[iii] Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, p. 874)
[iv] Sauce, op. cit. p. 13
[v] F. J. A. Hort, The Christian Ecclesia, p. 4
[vi] Earl D. Rodmacher, What the Church is All About, p. 131
[vii] See e.g., O.T. Allis, Prophecy and the Church, p. 42
[viii] See e.g., L. S. Chafer, Systematic Theology, VII, 98-99
[ix] Saucy, op. cit. p. 78
[x] Ibid., p. 80
[xi] Saucy, ibid., quoting from Erich Sauer, From Eternity to Eternity, p. 92
[xii] Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, III, 1029
[xiii] Ibid., . 1030
|
Copyright © 2007 by
AncientPath Network
and the authors. All rights reserved. |
12.13.07