All Doves:
In my August 17, 2014 post, I did a compare and contrast between Israel and the Church and Israel. For normal people that should have been adequate in our identity as the church. In thirty ways we can clearly see that they are not the same, and the Church began on Pentecost. It would have been an evidential fact that the Church did not begin until Pentecost in Acts 2:47. It is important to differentiate the fact that the word "church" ("ecclesia") is the Greek word for "the called out ones".
When I did my original post August 17th, I differentiated between Israel, Gentiles, and the Church. God's Master Plan identifies three bodies of people - Israel, Gentiles, and the Church. All other peoples/nations in the Bible are in the sight of God are referred or defined to as being Gentiles. Israel or the Jews, whichever term are mentioned appear nearly 3,000X. Interestingly, even the word "synagogue" is not mentioned in the Old Testament. Its differentiation and distinction in the Bible does not begin by being mentioned until Matthew 12:9.
I noted the clear distinction between Israel and the Church, Israel is mentioned 2,566X times in 2,294X verses, and the word "Church" is found 77X in 76X verses (all in the New Testament). This numerical occurrence and distinction and its specific location in the Bible should be a recognized fact that the Church began at Pentecost in Acts 2. No it did not begin in the Old Testament with the Hebrew word "kaleo" or "sunagoge".
The sophists over at the "Pre-Wrath-Rapture-Bible" site are the kind of folks that like to engage, combining a command of the language and excellent diction with a vast vocabulary of $100 words that they throw around to impress their weak-minded targets. I began to spot their 'sophistry' style several months ago as they played with their readers, by splitting hairs, straining gnats, relying on the Geneva Bible, etc. For those of you unfamiliar with their style of intimidation and arrogance which others, Charles Holler and several others have noted. They use a rhetorical art form known as "Sophistry". It is sort of an ingenious logic that relies on fallacies and specious effectiveness rather than soundness of argument . A 'sophist' (in the modern day sense of the word) is therefore a person who debates adroitly but reasons superficially. In some cases, sophistry is used to cover up one's underlying ignorance of the subject matter. They put down higher education or expertise that comes from formal learning. Other times, the purpose of sophistry is to deliberately mislead others. What distinguishes the sophist from the run-of-the-mill ignoramus or liar is his/her ability to display sound reasoning and deep knowledge on a given topic. But when an ignorant sophist opines on matters which he/she does not understand, his/her bloated ego compels him/her to "fake it". Whether he or she is a cunning liar or simply a puffed-up fool, the tactics of the sophist are the same.
The New Testament "Church" or the Greek ("ecclesia") is not the same as the two Hebrew words ("kaleo" or "sunagoge") used to describe the holy people of God. As you will see the early Christians distanced themselves from the Jews on this matter.
In Matthew 16:18 where Jesus first mentions the word Church, He was using the occasion to respond to Peter's great confession as a moment to reveal a mystery hidden even from the Old Testament prophets. The Church ("ecclesia") ("assembly") ("called out ones") was in God's plan and in His eternal purpose from the beginning -(Ephesians 3:9-11). But it could not be revealed until Jesus was recognized as its Divine Head -(Ephesians 1:22; Colossians 1:15-18).
Jesus began by pointing out that Peter's confession made him truly Peter, a piece of rock or a stone ("petros"). Then Jesus added, "Upon this rock (this great, solid rock, ("petra") I will build my church". Some suggest that Peter is the rock (Roman Catholicism), claiming that the Aramaic form of his name ("Cephas") does not show the same gender distinction found in Greek, but the Aramaic does have another word for a great, solid rock, so Jesus must have made the same distinction the Greek does. Thus, it is better to take it that the rock upon which Christ builds His church is Peter's great confession or, even better, it is Christ Himself -(1st Peter 2:6-8).
It was Peter's great confession which made him a rock. I have been debating this issue with two local Roman Catholic priests two blocks away for weeks. Jesus did not single Peter out for a special position here, He merely used him as an example of what can happen to everyone who makes the same confession -(Romans 10:9,10). Christ Jesus alone is the solid Rock. He alone is the foundation of the Church. (See 1st Corinthians 3:11; 10:4). In the latter verse "petra" ("the great, solid Rock") is used of Christ. Peter himself declared that Jesus is the Living Stone -(1st Peter 2:4). In coming to Jesus, all believers become living stones and are built into a spiritual house (temple), the Church, the assembly of all who have joined Peter in his great confession.
The fact that Jesus is the Living Rock gives assurance that "the gates of hell", that is, the power of Satan and of death itself, will never prevail against His church -(See Revelation 6:8; 9:5; 20:7).
As a clue to the method of Jesus would use in building His Church, the body of believers, Jesus promised to give the keys of the Kingdom (the authority of God's rule) to Peter that others might be brought under the rule and reign of God. This was really a commission to preach the Gospel and was first fulfilled on the Day of Pentecost. Jesus, however, did not intend to limit this to Peter. Later He gave the same commission to all the disciples (Matthew 18:18; 28:18-20). This preaching would have heaven's authority behind it because it would be true to the Word of God. By preaching the Gospel they would declare that those who rejected it would be bound and those who accepted it would be loosed and set free. When they declared this, the work would have already been done and ratified in heaven. The Greek word for "already" means "shall have been bound".
At this point, it should be amply clear that the New Testament word "Church" ("ekklesia") is a noun that means "Assembly, Congregation, Church" From this point on it is going to become evident that while similar to the Hebrew word, it is vastly different, both in meaning and context.
"Ekklesia" translates only one Hebrew word, i.e., "qahal", and four other terms from the root "Qahal" principally conveys the idea of a group of people assembling for a variety of purposes:
1. mutual defense -(Esther 8:11)
2. to make war -(Joshua 22:12)
3. to worship -(2 Chronicles 20:26)
4. to request an idol to be built -(Exodus 32:1)
5. to transport the ark -(1st Kings 8:2)
6. the elders and officers to receive instruction -Deuteronomy 31:28)
The Septuagint translators limited the use of "ekklesia" almost exclusively to religious contexts. On one of its most significant occasions in its history, referring to as the "day of the ekklesia" by the Septuagint, Israel received the Law -(Deuteronomy 9:10; 18:16 and where it appears in the Septuagint there is no Hebrew equivalent). The qualifier "ekklesia ton kuriou/theo" also lends credence to the supposition that "ekklesia" was beginning to take on much more of a religious tone -(Deuteronomy 23:1,3; Judges 20:2; 1st Chronicles 28:8; Micah 2:5).
The assembly ("ekklesia", or Hebrew "qahal") never stands for a pagan religious gathering. In comparing the two Hebrew terms "qahal" (ekklesia) and "edhah" (sunagoge), we can draw a number of conclusions and observations that become significant in how the New Testament draws differences.
First, the broad semantic range of both words makes drawing strict lines of distinction between them difficult and unwarranted at best.
Second, "edhah" occurs primarily in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, while "qahal" appears primarily in Deuteronomy and the books of Chronicles.
Third, the primary use of "edhah" is to designate the congregation of Israel as an entity, while "qahal" often indicates the assembling of people for religious purposes. Of special importance here is the phrase "congregation of the Lord," which is the closest to the "church of the Lord"
In summary, "qahal" maintains stronger religious connotations. The Septuagint never translates "edhah" by "ekklesia" but uses "sunagoge" instead. From the Septuagint it becomes clear that "ekklesia" was primarily used as an equivalent for "qahal", a term which to some degree was itself a particular group within the people of God, even when it was translated by "sunagoge" found in Genesis 35:11; 48:4; and Numbers 20:6. "Ekklesia" was used only infrequently for nonreligious assemblies.
Here is an important point that is never made in the "pre-Wrath-Rapture-Babble" post on the Ekklesia. The attitudes of exilic and post-exilic Jewish religion and the early Christian community polarized in their identification with these terms and their related concepts. The congregation of Judaism identified itself with the institutional "edhah", while the ancient Christian assembly identified with "qahal" and adopted the same "ekklesia". To understand how this polarization developed, it is necessary to understand the context out of which it developed.
From the inception of the Covenant at Sinai, it was said of Israel that they were a "kingdom of priests, and a holy nation" -(Exodus 19:6). It would be in the midst of the people that God's presence would be manifested, and He ordered that the Tabernacle be erected in the midst of the camp where His glory ("kavodh") might be revealed.
Later this special presence of the Lord was transferred to the Temple. In the Psalms the congregation of Israel expressed joy for the grace which they experienced in the presence of the Lord. At their festivals and celebrations in the Temple, they declared "Lord, I have loved the habitation of thy house, and the place where thine honor dwelleth" -(Psalm 26:8; 84:2).
As the nation fell into deeper and deeper apostasy, a concept developed of a separation within the congregation, although from the earliest days of the covenant the rebellious were removed from the midst of the congregation -(Numbers 16:33). Through the ministry of the later prophets however, the message was clear that a total breach of the covenant had taken place. As a result, the nation was carried into exile.
During the apostasy that characterized the later monarchies of both the Northern and Southern Kingdoms, a major development began to take place in the concept of the congregation as the place where God revealed His glory. As the nation fell into spiritual, moral, and ethical decline, the glory of God which one had been so evident became absent. This situation became even more apparent after the destruction of the Temple and during the post-exilic period. It was at this time that the concept of the "holy remnant" fully developed. The salvation of Israel as a congregation was dependent on this remnant and their faithfulness to God.
I hope I have not been too technical heretofore; however, it becomes clear shortly as to why the "Pre-Wrath-Rapture-Babble" folks are totally wrong when they say the church began in the Old Testament. Their attempts are an example of where people lack total understanding of what the Old Testament is really all about. This is how they can justify their understanding of what the Church really is. In their way of thinking, they can come to the conclusion of Supersessionism, or what is more commonly referred to as "Replacement Theology". In their warped understanding of the Bible, the Church has "replaced" Israel.
At this point I am moving from the Septuagint period of the Old Testament to the use of the word "Ekklesia". This apparently has not been part of the thinking of the Sophists at the "Pre-Wrath-Rapture-Babble" site. It may be omission by ignorance, and then again, it may be omission by intention, I'm not sure of their motives.
After the period of the exile it was the synagogue which dominated the religious life of the Jews. It was in the Greek Diaspora that the synagogue became accepted as the new designation for the "edhah". The name applied not only to the house of the synagogue but to the congregation of the synagogue as well.
Having this background in mind, it is very interesting that the Gentile Christian congregations did not use the designation of synagogue for their signifiicance or identity. The members of these first early Christian congregations came in a large degree from the Jewish synagogues which consisted of both Jews and proselytes. These believers claimed to represent the true Jewish religion -(Romans 2:28,29) and the true Israel of God -(Romans 9:6). Although these ancient Christian congregations were patterned primarily after the Jewish synagogues, they avoided using the term synagogue. In fact, the term synagogue is used only one time in the New Testament as a designation for a Christian congregation -(James 2:2).
The best explanation for this strong aversion by the earliest Christians to adopting the term synagogue seems to be an intense desire to avoid being identified with the Jewish synagogues. In the Roman Empire the synagogues stood as symbols of Jewish law and religion, and the new Christian faith. However, Christian congregations avoided association with this term. Instead, they adopted the term "Ekklesia" which had fallen out of usage in Jewish circles.
As well as avoiding associations with the Jewish religion, the early Christians also chose "ekklesia" as a way of distancing themselves from the terms utilized by the pagan Greek cults. Here a multitude of terms would have been at the disposal of the early Christian congregations by the pagan term "thiasos". More amazing than this though, the early Church historian Eusibus, a Jew, used this term for the Church.
The reasons these first Christians chose the neutral term "ekklesia" are many as much as they are profound. One popular suggestion contends that there is a certain phonetical resemblance between consonants of the Hebrew
"qahal" and the Greek ekklesia". This might correspond with the usual use among Jews of the Diaspora and combine its Hebrew name with a similar Greek or Latin name, like (Saul and Paul). The congregation of the New Testament is thus a continuation of the old congregation of Israel, the true Israel, while at the same distancing itself from the Jewish religion. They are merely similar, but that is the end of it as far as being considered the "ekklesia".
Although it is tempting, it is violating sound interpretive principles to draw upon the etymology of the word (in this case "ek-kaleo") to make the member of the "ekklesia" the "called-out ones". This is true even if the Septuagint translators may have seen the potential. The fact remains that for the New Testament it is the already developed sense of the Septuagint (and Hebrew as well) plus the new understanding of God's community which shapes the meaning of "ekklesia".
The meaning of "ekklesia" (translated "church" in the New Testament except in Acts 19:32,39,41, where it is translated "assembly") becomes problematic for two reasons, and these are very important distinctions:
1. The New Testament speaks of the "Church" in a universal sense of the body of believers who are in Christ; and,
2. The New Testament also uses "ekklesia" to describe the early gatherings of believers in various geographical locations.
Thus, the "ekklesia" is both an event of the assembling (worldwide) of God's people, and it is also a particular local "church, congregation", or "assembly".
The first striking observation to be made regarding "ekklesia" in the New Testament is its absence in the Gospels, except for the two references in Matthew 16:18 and 18:17, which are themselves "at odds". This absence cannot be explained away by saying that at the time of their writing the concept was not in current use, since the Gospels received their literary form contemporary with or later than the Paul's Epistles.
One must conclude that the expression was seen as appropriate after the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord. The future "oikodomeso" ("I will build") hints at this in Matthew 16:18 (a reference to the worldwide assembly). But what about Matthew 18:17? It is neither a scene of worldwide unity nor a post-resurrectional setting, unless one considers the context in light of Matthew 18:1 which does suggest a future setting, confirmed in Matthew 18:14.
It becomes quite apparent from the Gospels that Jesus considered it part of His mission as the Messiah to gather together the eschatological people of God as the prophets had foretold -(Matthew 9:36-28; John 10:16; 11:52). As the Messiah would restore the true congregation of Israel.
The importance of the concept of this congregation in the ministry of Jesus is also evident in the parables, similies, metaphors and analogies He used, as example, the shepherd and the flock, found in Luke 12:32 and John 10:16. Furthermore, Jesus instituted a new covenant meal -(Matthew 26:28). The supper was to be as a meal which abolished that of the Old Testament Passover. The Great Commission of Jesus Christ and His institution of water baptism served as the consecration rites of the new covenant -(Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:16). The institution of these rites was the necessary preparation for the birth of the coming congregation on the Day of Pentecost.
A significant element of the thought of Jesus is the relationship of the congregation to the kingdom of God. These are two distinct threads which are woven together in a most intimate way. The congregation is the manifestation of and a piece of the eschatological reality of the kingdom of God, representative of the royal power of God through the world. The congregation is the people to whom God, by His Messiah, has promised the blessings of the latter times -(Matthew 5:3-11); the forgiveness of sins -(Matthew 26:28); the gift of the Spirit -(Luke 24:49; John 14:26; 15:26; 16:7); the right to address God as "Abba" or "Father" -(Matthew 6:9); victory over the power of Satan -(Luke 11:20-22); and participation in the gift of eternal life -(John 5:24-27). All of these are confirmation of distinctive gifts to the "church" or "ekklesia" never before revealed to the Jews in the Old Testament.
Acts makes it abundantly clear that Luke, (Luke is author of both Luke and Acts) indicative of the New Testament writers, and understood "ekklesia" to be an eschatological term for the New Community of God. The congregation appeared as part of salvation history on the Day of Pentecost, and not prior to Pentecost in Acts 2. By faith and baptism into the name of Jesus both Jew and Gentile experienced the eschatological gifts of salvation.
This new expression of the kingdom of God was characterized by several distinct traits:
1. The unifying of the people around the doctrine of the apostles -(Acts 2:42),
2. The participation in the daily prayers -(Acts 2:42);
3. The breaking of bread together -(Acts 2:42);
4. A unique love and sense of brotherly fellowship created by the Holy Spirit resulting in a sharing of property -(Acts 2:44 and following);
5. The powers of the coming world which were mightily active in the healing of the sick -(Acts 3:2; 4:29; 5:15), the raising of the dead -(Acts 9:36-40), and victory of demonic powers -(Acts 19:11,12).
The early fellowship of believers became the "Church" in the local geographical sense. (Simply look at Acts 5:11; 8:1,3; 11:22; 16:5; and 20:17). Congregations soon appeared throughout Palestine and Asia Minor, including Samaria, Syrai, and Antioch, the center of Paul's mission to the Gentiles -(Acts 13:1). Throughout the book of the Acts of the Apostles and the rest of the New Testament, each local congregation was considered the congregation of God in the proper sense as well. Throughout the New Testament "ekklesia" expresses both the local and universal dynamics of the Community of Faith under the New Covenant.
Paul's writings deserve much of the credit for forming present-day ecclesiologies (he uses "ekklesia" over 60 times). They show the nature of the Church as being both local and worldwide. Paul wrote of local assemblies as "ekklesia" citing in (1st Corinthians 1:2; 2nd Corinthians 1:1; Galatians 1:2; 1st Thessalonians 1:1), composed of saints and the elect, i.e, the people of God -(Romans 1:7; 1st Corinthians 14:33; and note Paul avoided "laos" as a term for God's people or that of the laity.
They were typically gatherings of people inside the homes of believers -(Romans 16:5; Colossians 4:15; Philemon 2; 1st Corinthians 16:19; 1st Timothy 3:15). The assemblies are God's that is, God has created these various meetings, and He is in their midst -(1st Corinthians 11:22; 12:28; Ephesians 1:22; 3:21; and confirmed in Matthew 18:20). He is also the chief administrator of the Church through Christ as the head of the Church -(Ephesians 5:23).
Yet Paul also spoke of "the Church" as a worldwide entity made up of smaller churches which share certain principles and teachings -(1st Corinthians 15:9; Galatians 1:13; Philippians 3:6, and confirmed in Romans 16:4,16; 1st Corinthians 4:17; 7:17; and 11:10).
The idea of an "invisible" church would not have been Paul's view. This concept, albeit "valid" in the sense that the "Lord knows who belongs to Him", was first introduced by Augustine and perpetuated by Wycliff, Luther, and Calvin. I don't see a need to quote their words on this. To do so would be simply to belabor the unique distinction of the church as the "ekklesia". The Church consists of believers, but it is not a particular quality of life which draws these individuals together and forms them into a congregation. Rather, it is nothing less than the reality of the resurrected Christ Jesus by which they came into existence, by which they live, and around which they gather.
It is this internal, divine mystery of the Church's unity along with the reality of the risen Christ Jesus which Paul referred to when he spoke of the congregation a the Body of Christ -(1st Corinthians 10:17; 12:13,27; Ephesians 1:23; 2:16; 4:12,16; 5:23,30; Colossians 1:18,24; 2:19; 3:15). The intimacy of this union is further illustrated by Paul's analogy of marriage as a picture of the relationship between the Church and Christ -(Ephesians 5:25-32).
The depth of the unity between the Church and Christ Jesus becomes the catalyst for a deep, heartfelt fellowship between believers. This solidarity includes Jews and Gentiles -(Ephesians 2:11-22) and receives its fullest expression in 1st Corinthians 12:12-27.
In the remainder of the New Testament one is struck with the absence of "ekklesia" in any of the Apostle Peter's material writings, which is itself replete with a sense of "community" -(1st Peter 5:1-5). Peter also proclaimed the unity of believers as God's people but in other imagery -(1st Peter 2:9,10).
Hebrews 2:12 mirrors the Old Testament assembly of God and actually cites Psalm 22;22. The scene, too, in Hebrews 12:23 is one of the believers' encounter with the living God in the assembly. Here "ekklesia" is not so much of a local congregation as it is a sign of the arrival of the new covenant.
The three references in the Third Epistle of John reveal the writer's familiarity with the idea already encountered. The "ekklesia" was the locus point of the new people of God. It especially occurred on the local level -(3rd John 6,9,20).
The book of Revelation knows only of "churches". The church is the congregation of the new people of God in particular places. Therefore, "ekklesia" appears to have been appropriated from the language of the Old Testament (especially the Hebrew word "qahal"), because it represented the assembly of the people of Israel for religious purposes as God's people. The New Testament writers modified the concept only to assign the term a more technical character. The "Church" is the visible geographically identifiable congregation of the new people of God - wherever they are. God operates in and through the local church with Christ as its head.
We can be assured that the early believers saw themselves as God's new people - the eschatological community of God. Their gatherings rapidly became incompatible within the synagogue context. The growth of the "ekklesia" necessitated leadership and direction, although few are ever outlined, and not even in the pastoral Epistles. The early churches were diverse geographically, ethnically, culturally, and perhaps in their local practices and theories. Nevertheless, a single thread - the Lordship of Christ Jesus the Son of God - bound them together into a Body with Christ Jesus as its head.
I realize this has been a longer than normal amount of detail coverage showing the clear path from how the Septuagint period used the word "ekklesia" and how the New Testament defines the "mystery" of the Church. The Church was born on Pentecost in Acts 2, with the giving of the Holy Spirit. I thought this was perfectly obvious in my original posting, never thinking that I would have to do a word-study to refute the fools at the "Pre-Wrath-Rapture-Babble" site that mislead folks to believe their warped Replacement Theology.
Jesus warned us numerous times to be not deceived. The only way that can be averted is to be Biblically literate. Know the Word, inside and out, and remember the adversary can manifest his lies in deceptive ways, using aberrant theologies, twisting the Word to say something that it does not say, etc, etc.
God bless and keep listening for the trumpet call,
Pastor Bob