Jesus’ use of the term á¼ÎºÎºÎ»Î·Ïƒá¼±Î± (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 á¼ÎºÎºÎ»Î·Ïƒá¼±Î±. 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 á¼ÎºÎºÎ»Î·Ïƒá¼±Î±.
So let’s see what the New Testament has to say about the á¼ÎºÎºÎ»Î·Ïƒá¼±Î± when it refers to Israel and keep in mind that á¼ÎºÎºÎ»Î·Ïƒá¼±Î± now refers to the Church which includes believing Jews and Gentiles. 2Simply looking at it linguistically, the word á¼ÎºÎºÎ»Î·Ïƒá¼±Î± 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 á¼ÎºÎºÎ»Î·Ïƒá¼±Î± 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 á¼ÎºÎºÎ»Î·Ïƒá¼±Î± 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.
| ↩1 | Ugh, 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. |
|---|---|
| ↩2 | Simply looking at it linguistically, the word á¼ÎºÎºÎ»Î·Ïƒá¼±Î± 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. |
8 Comments
I had a discussion relating to “who is the church” with a a dispensational type that does believe we were grafted in, but believes the church has not always been the church. As if to say that there was the OT church and there is a NT church. Both are God’s people, but one group by their race ( Jews ) and the other by their faith ( Gentiles, everyone else who believes ). I believe there is/was/has always been one people of God, one church if you will. I think of Galatian 3 and Romans 4:13.
The distinction you make in the different time periods is too separate for me (maybe you’re being dispensational, which I didn’t think you were).
All of these are aspects of each one, even at the different ages.
-feared the Lord
-allied themselves with him rather than showing him apathy or hatred
-those who have faith in Jesus (I know “jesus” hadn’t died and risen yet, but think of it in terms of having faith God will make a way for redemption)
In the OT, fearing the Lord included allying your life with God, and trusting Him to make a way to redemption and restoration.
When Jesus was alive, those who truly feared the Lord would have responded, don’t you think? Fearing the Lord isn’t removed.
Same in the NT and church now. We still have to fear the lord (understanding that there is quite a different nuance to “fear of the Lord” other than being “scared”). You have to follow (ally your life with him). You have to still believe in His way as sufficient in all ways.
Are you making a dispensational argument in this?
No, not at all Matt! It is a very un-dispensational thing to say “In it, the congregation of Israel is the á¼ÎºÎºÎ»Î·Ïƒá¼±Î±.” Same thing when I said “the Church didn’t begin at Pentecost but in the Exodus.”
Did I word this post so poorly that it could be understood that the church only existed in the NT? Egads, I’m going to have to re-read and edit it!!
I didn’t read that closely…so don’t take it too serious…
Could one argue (well, yes, one can always argue; but could one argue reasonably) that the church began with God’s proclamation in Genesis chapter 3? In confronting the fact of sin in His creation, the Creator promised children to the woman, culminating with the one who would crush the serpent’s head. From that point, God’s people were differentiated from the condemned by their faith in God to fulfill that promise and redeem his elect. If I am not completely off (please keep your response to that charitable, bro!) then Noah and his family, Abraham and his line through Isaac, and all of God’s people before, during, and after the lives of those saints, would be the church. The principle differences over time would be what, how much, and to whom within His church God was pleased to reveal the nature of redemption; the Lord Jesus being the pinnacle of that revelation.
Hey David, I’m always charitable, you idiot! :)
I guess it depends on what one means by “church”. If by that you mean what we refer to as the invisible church, all true believers throughout time, then sure, yea. But that is taking a systematic theology category and applying it very early in redemptive history. It might be better to say that in Genesis 3 we have a “proto-church” or something. At that point in redemptive history the concept just wasn’t developed that much.
While it is fine to see the patterns early on, I feel like I’m on safer ground to use the term when and how the Bible does. That was my point in this post. Dispensationalists err by saying that the Church didn’t being until Pentecost in Acts, some even put it later. That simply isn’t the Biblical pattern. I think we can stand on pretty firm ground in saying that the church began with Israel.
Another meaning of á¼ÎºÎºÎ»Î·Ïƒá¼±Î± is congregation of called out ones. A gathering of God’s people didn’t really get going until the Exodus. Before Abraham, the faithful (the Church Universal) were disbursed. So if we look for a called out, unified, defined people, we just don’t see that until the Exodus. The Abrahamic covenant was really setting that up (Gen 15:13-14). Abraham was father to the Old Testament Church, Israel and the New Testament Church, Jew and Gentile together.
Whatcha’ think? Am I off base?
Re: “Hey David, I’m always charitable, you idiot! :),” I think you have been spending a little too much time in the Luther at the Movies blog.
I find your phrase “proto-church” attractive, similiar semantically to calling the Lord’s words to Adam and Eve in Genesis 3:15 the ptotoevangelon (spelling? Hey, you’re the seminary student!). Like all things in Genesis, we do not find any of the essential or cardinal doctrines developed there, but do find the roots from which the revelations of all of the essential and cardinal doctrines ultimately arise. Looking back from our vantage point on this side of the resurrection and the completion of scripture, the fact that God had a called and redeemed people from Genesis 3:15 to this moment is inescapable. However, it is gratuitous to impose our perspective, or our categories, on the ancients. The dispensationalists do have it partly right; God’s corporate people do take on different earthly forms throughout time. (At one time, they consisted of eight people in a large wood box full of animals!) Where they go terribly wrong is in looking for different means of salutary grace at different moments in God’s redemptive plan.
Yes David, I think you’re right. I hadn’t thought about the protoevangelon but that fits very well. Systematic theologians don’t necessarily call it the gospel but the beginning of the gospel. The gospel in seed form.
Same thing with the Church, I think. The beginnings are there but we don’t see the Bible refer to that as the Church so I think we need to take care, especially since it is such a loaded word.
Genesis is the seedbed of doctrine. We need to make sure we don’t look at the acorn and call it an oak.