1 Peter 1:10-11 Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Nature of the Church, OT and NT
- Thread starter John of Japan
- Start date
- Status
Brother Rice had a unique view on the church, one which I don't think I had ever heard before reading his little book Churches and the Church. Nevertheless, I do not see the church in the Old Testament as in the new.
Last edited:
First. Israel is a type of the church, both called out assemblies, one out of Egypt , the other sin. We often type Egypt as the world or sin.
Second, In the OT we know of those who believed and those who did not and are classified "evil"
Third, Those who believed, in FAITH are saved in the same manner as current Christians, Jesus Christ.
Fourth, God does not have favorites, Faith of Heb 11 is honored by God as a repentant sinner today.
The difference is the sinner today has more information on the Savior, the OT believer did not during their lifetime
Second, In the OT we know of those who believed and those who did not and are classified "evil"
Third, Those who believed, in FAITH are saved in the same manner as current Christians, Jesus Christ.
Fourth, God does not have favorites, Faith of Heb 11 is honored by God as a repentant sinner today.
The difference is the sinner today has more information on the Savior, the OT believer did not during their lifetime
First, how did Demosthenes of Syracuse define the word ekklesia when he read it in 72 A.D.? Or better heard it read? Not how did Murray of Newburyport defines it in 2018 when he reads or hears the word church.
From the past, the late Richard Weeks, Professor of Baptist Polity and History at MBBC defined the New Testament church thusly:
Brother Weeks was a local church-only man.
From the past, the late Richard Weeks, Professor of Baptist Polity and History at MBBC defined the New Testament church thusly:
The New Testament Church is
an organized autonomous band of immersed Believers, having New Testament officers, practicing New Testament ordinances, an actively carrying out the Great Commission.
Brother Weeks was a local church-only man.
To expand on my comments in #44, to have a proper idea of the meaning of ekklesia one should look at how the word was used and comprehended in the first century A.D. In doing so, we need to understand a few matters.
- The Greek of the NT is Koine Greek. As archeologists have sifted through the Mediterranean world in the late 19th and into the 20th centuries, it was discovered that the Greek of the NT was not some kind of theological dialect. Koine Greek was found to be the everyday language of the then Greek-speaking world. Ekklesia was found to be in common usage.
- Besides its use for a governmental body of a Greek city-state (the riotous Ephesian ekklesia), it was also used for any organized band gathered together for a given purpose. Examples were found of funerary ekklesias. These were organized to pay for the funerals of its membership. And there were ekklesias organized for other purposes.
- Considering the above besides the direct translation of assembly, depending on the context, the synonyms lodge, club, or association might be used. Just because two groups are referred to lodges, it doesn't mean they are the same kind of lodge. One might be a Moose Lodge and the other an Elks.
A church is the people described in Acts 2:41-47. They have gladly received the word of God, been baptized, and now they meet together, learning more of the faith, joining together in the Lord’s supper and in prayer, looking to each other’s needs, having joy in their hearts and praising God together.
A church is the people described in 1 Cor 1:2-8. They have been set apart in Christ, called in holiness, have received undeserved favour and peace from God; their knowledge of God and their witness to Him comes from the Holy Spirit, who has given them corporately all the gifts they need to function as a church, as they eagerly await the return of their Lord who will preserve them in Him until that day.
In other words, a church is Christians.
Did the Church exist in the Old Testament? Well, yes and no. In the sense that the Church is the people of God, then, yes. There were true believers in Christ before Christ. But they did not assemble together as believers. Israel was not the Church. Presbyterians point to Acts 7:38, which describes Israel as the ekklesia in the wilderness, but all that this means is that the Israelites assembled together as a body before the Tabernacle. But Israel was a ‘mixed multitude’; some indeed were truly the Lord’s people, but the large majority knew nothing of the Lord experientially (e.g. Isaiah 1:9; Jeremiah 5:1-2 ). Israel by no means met the definitions of a church that we have seen above.
In the first appearance of ekklesia in the Bible, the Lord Jesus declared, ‘I will build My church’ (Matt 16:18 ). The tense is future. Our Lord laid the foundations of His Church during His time on earth. Ephesians 2:20 tells us that this foundation is that of the ‘apostles and prophets’, and whether we believe that the prophets were of the Old or New Testament, clearly there were no apostles before the time of Christ. If there was a church in Old Testament times, then it can have had only half a foundation! In fact it is clear that Paul is speaking of the New Testament prophets since he couples apostles and prophets a little later in the letter (Eph 4:11 ) in a context that is obviously New Testament.
The Lord Jesus is continuing to build her even at this present time (Ephesians 2:21-22 ); she is His Church, His bride; He has purchased her with His own blood and she is a chaste virgin. As it is written, ‘In that day there shall no longer be a Canaanite in the house of the Lord of Hosts’ (Zech 14:21 ). It is the duty of the leadership of each individual church to seek to make the assembly in its charge as pure as possible (2 Cor 11:2 ).
The Church is composed of those who have come out of the world to join it. They are no longer what they were (Ephesians 5:8 ). Peter speaks of them as ‘sojourners and pilgrims’ (1 Peter 2:11 ). Therefore Abraham would have fitted into it rather well.
[Taken from my blog article What is a Church? However, the article was written some years ago and I'm not sure I would write everything exactly the same today]
A church is the people described in 1 Cor 1:2-8. They have been set apart in Christ, called in holiness, have received undeserved favour and peace from God; their knowledge of God and their witness to Him comes from the Holy Spirit, who has given them corporately all the gifts they need to function as a church, as they eagerly await the return of their Lord who will preserve them in Him until that day.
In other words, a church is Christians.
Did the Church exist in the Old Testament? Well, yes and no. In the sense that the Church is the people of God, then, yes. There were true believers in Christ before Christ. But they did not assemble together as believers. Israel was not the Church. Presbyterians point to Acts 7:38, which describes Israel as the ekklesia in the wilderness, but all that this means is that the Israelites assembled together as a body before the Tabernacle. But Israel was a ‘mixed multitude’; some indeed were truly the Lord’s people, but the large majority knew nothing of the Lord experientially (e.g. Isaiah 1:9; Jeremiah 5:1-2 ). Israel by no means met the definitions of a church that we have seen above.
In the first appearance of ekklesia in the Bible, the Lord Jesus declared, ‘I will build My church’ (Matt 16:18 ). The tense is future. Our Lord laid the foundations of His Church during His time on earth. Ephesians 2:20 tells us that this foundation is that of the ‘apostles and prophets’, and whether we believe that the prophets were of the Old or New Testament, clearly there were no apostles before the time of Christ. If there was a church in Old Testament times, then it can have had only half a foundation! In fact it is clear that Paul is speaking of the New Testament prophets since he couples apostles and prophets a little later in the letter (Eph 4:11 ) in a context that is obviously New Testament.
The Lord Jesus is continuing to build her even at this present time (Ephesians 2:21-22 ); she is His Church, His bride; He has purchased her with His own blood and she is a chaste virgin. As it is written, ‘In that day there shall no longer be a Canaanite in the house of the Lord of Hosts’ (Zech 14:21 ). It is the duty of the leadership of each individual church to seek to make the assembly in its charge as pure as possible (2 Cor 11:2 ).
The Church is composed of those who have come out of the world to join it. They are no longer what they were (Ephesians 5:8 ). Peter speaks of them as ‘sojourners and pilgrims’ (1 Peter 2:11 ). Therefore Abraham would have fitted into it rather well.
[Taken from my blog article What is a Church? However, the article was written some years ago and I'm not sure I would write everything exactly the same today]
1689Dave
Well-Known Member
The Church in both covenants.
(1.) Its unity. God has ever had only one church on earth. We sometimes speak of the Old Testament Church and of the New Testament church, but they are one and the same. The Old Testament church was not to be changed but enlarged (Isa. 49:13–23; 60:1–14). When the Jews are at length restored, they will not enter a new church, but will be grafted again into “their own olive tree” (Rom. 11:18–24; comp. Eph. 2:11–22). The apostles did not set up a new organization. Under their ministry disciples were “added” to the “church” already existing (Acts 2:47).
Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers.
(1.) Its unity. God has ever had only one church on earth. We sometimes speak of the Old Testament Church and of the New Testament church, but they are one and the same. The Old Testament church was not to be changed but enlarged (Isa. 49:13–23; 60:1–14). When the Jews are at length restored, they will not enter a new church, but will be grafted again into “their own olive tree” (Rom. 11:18–24; comp. Eph. 2:11–22). The apostles did not set up a new organization. Under their ministry disciples were “added” to the “church” already existing (Acts 2:47).
Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers.
Well said. But don't expect any interaction from individuals who have already convinced themselves (in their ignorance
).
I agree with this except the "calling together" definition. Ekklesia is not a "calling together," which would be the etymological fallacy.
No, it does not answer the OP directly. In the OP I noted a number of things that are done in the church that were never done in the OT. Your verse says nothing about the things "peculiar to the age of grace": baptism, the Lord's supper, a saved membership, and many other things.
JoJ, did I get it more right than wrong?
The whole point of this thread is that there are things peculiar to the church (and therefore the age of grace), and therefore the church itself is peculiar to the age of grace. No one has yet answered the OP. Here is the brief list again of things not in the "church in the wilderness":
Church at Jerusalem--Evangelism, preaching, baptism, membership ("added to them" in vv. 41 & 47), regular meetings, etc.
This is exactly how I came to agree with the doctrinal statement of my mission board. I began to see that the distinctives of the church (read Baptist distinctives) were quite different from anything in the OT, by and for the OT saints: the ordinances (baptism & the Lord's Supper), meeting on Sunday, the Great Commission and worldwide evangelism, the offices of the church (pastor and deacon), membership (a Jew being saved was not "added to the church"), etc. The mission board candidate committee thereupon acknowledged that I now agreed with the doctrinal statement, and I was appointed.
Until someone explains how OT saints did all of these things, the OP stands alone, unanswered and completely logical.
Church at Jerusalem--Evangelism, preaching, baptism, membership ("added to them" in vv. 41 & 47), regular meetings, etc.
This is exactly how I came to agree with the doctrinal statement of my mission board. I began to see that the distinctives of the church (read Baptist distinctives) were quite different from anything in the OT, by and for the OT saints: the ordinances (baptism & the Lord's Supper), meeting on Sunday, the Great Commission and worldwide evangelism, the offices of the church (pastor and deacon), membership (a Jew being saved was not "added to the church"), etc. The mission board candidate committee thereupon acknowledged that I now agreed with the doctrinal statement, and I was appointed.
Until someone explains how OT saints did all of these things, the OP stands alone, unanswered and completely logical.
Last edited:
You nailed it, brother. Dr. Weeks was brilliant.
In linguistics, contemporary usage (how the word is used at the time of the document) is vital in determining meaning. So your mention of Demosthenes was right on target.
What happened with the NT documents was that an old word (representing the ruling body of male citizens in a Greek city state) was invested with new meaning: an assembly of Christians. The word ekklesia was a brilliant choice by the Lord (through Matthew, Luke, and Paul) to describe the new body: it was local, it had membership, it met regularly, it had purpose.
Until someone deals with these things (as expressed in the OP), the OP stands unrefuted. So far, no one has even tried.
Does the church contain those believers who have passed?
This is called the etymological fallacy in linguistics. See Post #15, where I defined this as "The notion that the 'true meaning' of a word is the one to be expected from its etymology" (P. H. Matthews, Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics, p. 128).
The ekklesia in the NT (the first century AD) was not a "called out assembly" in the original, etymological sense, but a voting assembly with an agenda that met regularly. There was no "calling out" unless you mean when someone came to your door as a city-state male citizen and said, "The ekklesia is meeting tomorrow."
He had a unique view on a lot of things! He was somewhat of a theological maverick. In the case of the church, though, I think his view was pretty much what he was taught at Baylor U. and Southwestern BTS back in the 1920's.
I'm a local church man, so no. If a man dies who is a member of our church, he is no longer a member since he can't vote, meet, or practice the ordinances. However, he will meet someday with all of the saints: "To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect" (Heb 12:23).
so not the local church but The CHURCH, Jesus' Church.
They are in THE Church,
Same as those who will believe in the future, They will belong to the universal church of believers.
so clearly the church is not complete,
From what I gathered from Dr. Weeks, the early Greek City states were ruled by what we in America would term a New England township meeting. Criers would go through the streets calling out the citizenry for a town meeting (ekklesia). In the same period, the town's military was more or less a militia. So, in times of danger, the militia would get called out. From these usages, the word spread into other areas of life.
- Status