Jesus’ use of the term ἐκκλησἱα (ekklesia, congregation or church) is without reference in Matt 16:18; 18:17. He doesn’t ever mention what or who his church is; that gets developed later in the New Testament. When we look for how Jesus might have understood the term, we have to keep in mind that he was familiar with the Greek Old Testament, it was the King James of the day. ¹Ugh, now I have to deal with that. I don’t mean that the King James is the one, true Bible but that it is the Bible we are culturally familiar with. Most people who know the Lord’s Prayer know it in King James English. On a side note, both the Greek Old Testament and the original edition of the King James included the Apocrypha, extra-Biblical books rejected by the Church. Well, except Rome but you can just add that to their errors. In it, the congregation of Israel is the ἐκκλησἱα. It can be assumed that this is what Jesus had in mind, but not without modification. He is the Messiah and King of Israel so Israel that is faithful to him is his ἐκκλησἱα.

So let’s see what the New Testament has to say about the ἐκκλησἱα when it refers to Israel and keep in mind that ἐκκλησἱα now refers to the Church which includes believing Jews and Gentiles. ²Simply looking at it linguistically, the word ἐκκλησἱα in the context of people in relation to God is His people. As I said in the previous paragraph, the coming of Christ modulates the meaning. In the Old Testament, it was those of Israel who feared the Lord. At the time of Christ, it was those who allied themselves with him rather than showing him apathy or hatred. After Jesus it is those who have faith in Jesus, whether Jew or Gentile. According to Acts 7:38, then, the Church didn’t begin at Pentecost but in the Exodus since ἐκκλησἱα is the word for ‘congregation’ there. What happened at Pentecost and in Paul’s ministry was not the creation of the Church but the spread of the Church.

The other New Testament reference to Israel as the ἐκκλησἱα ties together faithful Israel and the Church even more explicitly. The context there is those “he [Jesus] is not ashamed to call…brothers” (Heb 2:11b). It is those “who are sanctified” (2:11a). In the context of the New Testament, that would be the Church, but it is significant that the author of Hebrews cites Ps 22:22 where David is speaking of the congregation of Israel, specifically those who fear Yahweh (Ps 22:23a). These are those who Jesus calls ‘brother’ and whom he sanctifies.

Do you remember a few years ago when Jim Bowers and his family were shot down in Peru? They were missionaries and the government mistook their aircraft for drug runners. Jim’s wife and infant daughter were killed and the pilot was injured. At the funeral service, Jim announced that he and his surviving son would indeed return. Though I can’t find them now, I seem to remember that some of the commentators thought he was wrong and they mildly criticized his decision.

More recently we heard the tragic news of a gunman killing 5 Amish children in their schoolhouse. The Amish community quietly came together and buried their dead and prayed for the one who killed them. I understand that Bill Maher said this week that the Amish were “real Christians”. I know the news media really embraced the Amish and sympathized with them.

Why the different approaches to the tragedies? Why were the Bowers wrong and the Amish right? I won’t pretend to have all the answers or even that there isn’t a difference. But it was Maher’s comment that the Amish seemed like real Christians to him that got me thinking of these two.

The Amish are appealing because they are “quaint”. We like them because they’re different and sequestered. They have their beliefs, strong beliefs at that, and they hold them dearly, but they don’t try to spread them. That’s comfortable for American society. Such religious beliefs are museum pieces we can look at safely displayed behind glass. When we stop thinking of them, they go away. They make no demands on us. But missionary Christians, whoa, that’s another issue. They aren’t safe. They are not museum pieces, they are involved in society. They vote and express their opinions and sometimes make demands of us. They climb outside the glass case and live lives that are compelling. Missionaries who get captured by the Taliban or shot down by the Peruvian government live lives that we can’t just observe from the outside and say “aww, that’s nice.” There is something about those kinds of lives that shout at us. There is something that would lead a person, a seemingly sane and normal person, to go and do those things. The two women captured by the Taliban were especially arresting for our news media because they looked good on camera. That kind of a thing gives instant credibility in the image-based culture of the news media. “Now what are we supposed to do with them?” the news anchors ask, “We can’t make them look crazy, they’re pretty!”

The juxtaposition of these two reactions demonstrate, to me, what Jesus meant when he said “In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.” (Mat 5:16 ESV)

I just got Matthew Smith’s latest CD “All I Owe” because I preordered it. It was signed and numbered. He only did the first 300 and I got number 13. :) Also got a great looking t-shirt.

But forget the signature and the t. The songs are great. Two have captured my heart early on. First, consider these closing lyrics from “The Lord Will Provide”:

When life sinks apace,
And death is in view.
This word of His grace
Shall comfort us through.
No fearing or doubting,
With Christ on our side.
We hope to die shouting,
‘The Lord will provide!’

Oh, it gets me all teary-eyed. The rest of the song is equally as wonderful. It is really hard to resist posting the entire lyric.

The other one that got me is “My Lord, I Did Not Choose You”. Obviously it is strongly Calvinisitic (aka ‘Biblical’) but that isn’t the only reason I love it. Here’s a sample

My heart knows none above you.
For your rich grace I thirst.
I know that if I love you,
You must have loved me first.

My Lord, I did not choose you
For that could never be.
My heart would still refuse you
Had you not chosen me.

But beyond the lyrics, Matthew has set these hymns to some beautiful music and he does a wonderful job singing them. One little aside, I like the title track better on his CD “Even When My Heart Is Breaking”. Then again, I prefer Derek Webb’s unplugged version of “I Want A Broken Heart” to the version on “I See Things Upside Down”.

At any rate, I do recommend the CD. We need the hymns back in our churches and Matthew Smith and Indelible Grace are one way that can happen.

Darned Paulo!! First it was Linerider and now its Double Wires. How am I supposed to ever get any work done???

We sing it all the time. Hallelujah. But what does it mean? Well, first I want to do a little easy Hebrew and then some comments.

The word in Hebrew (see Ps 106:1 for example) is הללויה (without the vowel dots). Don’t let that weird you out, it is pretty straight forward and I’ll unpack it for you. First, the root of the word is הלל halel meaning “to praise or worship”. The second part of the word is ×™×” Yah is the short version of God’s name Yahweh. ¹Jehovah is not and never was God’s name. Jehovah is “Yahweh” with the vowels for Adoni (Lord) transliterated through Latin. Don’t call God Jehovah, it isn’t his name. The root הלל halel is in the imperative form, it is a command. It has the suffix (don’t forget, Hebrew is right to left) of ו which is second person. Literally, it would be “you (plural) worship” and the suffix “God”. So “hallelujah” literally is “You (all) praise Yahweh!” as a command. When it is used in Psalm 106 it is directed to the people commanding them to praise God, not directly to God as a form of praise.

Have you ever sung “hallelujah” over and over again as a form of worship? There is an “updated” version of “All Creatures of Our God and King” which has a bridge inserted that simply repeats “Alleluia” over and over again. But if you consider the hymn in context, the original alleluia portion is connected to the title: all creatures of our God and King, praise God.

It is easy to repeat a word or phrase over and over and have it feel like a form of worship. Our feelings may indeed be worshipful, but let’s consider what we’re repeating.

This video got me thinking about this subject.

Harold Camping is insane. He is a false teacher. He just is. If I’m not mistaken, this is his third prediction of the end of the world. He has also stated that the Holy Spirit has departed from the Church and that believers are to abandon them and spread the gospel through other means. I simply cannot believe that anyone listens to this guy any more. What is it going to take to convince some people that the man is a false teacher?

I would have to say that that was the best Desiring God Conference my wife and I have been to so far and, I would have to say, probably the best conference I’ve ever been to. Every speaker was fantastic and relevant and helpful and challenging. Didn’t make it? The audio is posted here. Let me give you my take on each one.

David Wells – Wells really set the stage for the discussion that followed. His book “Above All Earthly Powers” was the impetus for the conference and we all got a free copy.

Voddie Bauchman – I’d never heard of Bauchman before but I was immediately impressed with him. Very articulate. The only hesitancy I had with his talk was that he tended to address secular humanism and that really isn’t an issue in Post-Modernism. Still, what he said was very good and to the point.

Tim Keller – My favorite speaker of the bunch. His approach to evangelism in a post-modern setting is something we all should be paying attention to. We won’t duplicate it, we’re not ministering in Manhattan, but we can get some clues as to how to reach post-modern, post-Christian minds. I want to be Tim Keller.

Mark Driscoll – Piper said that he had gotten more heat for inviting Driscoll to the conference than anyone else. Ever. I know I had heard murmurings and hesitations and some folks who just didn’t go. By the way, the conference sold out. Anyway, I like Mark Driscoll. He is able to reach the people he’s reaching because of the way he preaches. I expected to be offended at some point by his talk but what bothered me was not what I was expecting. He was making a comparison between Jesus in an Emergent approach and Jesus in a Reformed approach. The Emergents focus too much on his humanity. Probably. But then he said that some Calvinists focus too much on his divinity. “Like who?” I asked myself. My wife said it out loud. I think he did it for the sake of symmetry in the lecture more than because it is an issue we Reformed have to wrestle with. Other than that, his talk was very good on Jesus in a post-modern world. Worth the bandwidth to download.

D.A. Carson – Carson could read instructions for setting up a VCR and make it interesting. He spoke on post-modernism and love from John 17. He was in his element. His commentary on John is the best today and John was what his PhD was on. He knows that book.

John Piper – This year John only spoke once, the closing session. He took John 17:13 and talked about Jesus’ joy in God being ours. He prefaced his talk with some kind words to any post-moderns in the audience and some kind words to Mark Driscoll who had left the day before. There has been some discussion about some tension between John and Mark but that is not so. They respect and admire each other and I admire and respect them both.