I started to use the common word "church" but since I believe it is a terrible choice (just check Webster's definition) I have chosen ekklesia for this topic.
That said, the reason for this post is that some of the calvinists I have read, and perhaps others, assert that there has always been only one "church", that the Old Testament saints were members of the same "church" as Christians. What biblical proof is there to support this idea?
I believe the ekklesia of Christ is a new body. When Peter confessed who Jesus was, our Lord said He would build HIS ekklesia upon this rock. The metaphor Jesus used does not seem to indicate He was remodelling an existing building. I believe many proofs can be adduced to support the idea of the body of our Lord being a new people, not just a continuation of another, but it is difficult to know what to say not knowing with any certainty what the thinking is of those who have a contrary opinion.
What is the nature of the ekklesia? Who were and who are in it? What made them partakers in it? What is the purpose and how did our Lord intend for it to function?
Nature of the Ekklesia
Nature of the Ekklesia
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
A Berean
Hi Homer,
The word "ekklesia" was used in the Old Testament (LXX) to refer to "the congregation" of the children of Israel, and Stephen used this same word to refer to the Israelites whom Moses led in the wilderness (Acts 7:38). The word itself means "called-out ones" and was probably used to indicate that they had been called out of Egypt to be a people separate from all other nations, for the Lord.
The use of this word for the Christian community in the New Testament suggests that the New Testament writers saw some kind of conceptual continuity between the Old Testament people of God and those of the New Covenant, but what the exact nature of that continuity was is unclear.
Covenant theology, as I understand it, teaches that there has only been one church, from the time of Abel to the present, made up of all who, like Abraham, are justified by faith. They believe in only one covenantal people and only one covenant throughout time, which has sometimes been emmended or expanded upon at various times. The "Newness" of the new covenant is strictly a newness in quality and detail, that is, a modification or expansion of the old, rather than something altogether different.
Dispensational theology, as I was taught it, teaches that there are seven different covenantal epochs in history, governed by seven separate covenants, essentially unique and independent of each other. Some of these covenants (e.g., the Abrahamic, the Sinaitic and the Davidic)relate to ethnic Israel alone, and some (like the "noahic" covenant, and the New Covenant) to a wider constituency, including Gentiles.
The covenantal view is likely to see the birth of the "church" in the Old Testament, whereas the Dispensational view finds the birth of the "church" at Pentecost. I am inclined to see the gestation of the church in the Old Testament, and the actual birth of the church at the resurrection of Christ. I see this imagery as justified by passages like Isaiah 66:7ff; John 16:21-22 and Revelation 12:1-5.
I believe that the Old Testament uses the word "ekklesia" of the whole body that came out of Egypt, regardless of their spiritual standing. What Jesus refers to as "my church" is, I believe, defined more narrowly, and is comprised of the believing remnant within the larger Jewish race. With the institution of Christ's "New Covenant" with the remnant of Israel and Judah, a new, but not entirely new, entity came to be defined as "the ekklesia." This new entity emerged as a portion of and separated from the old entity. As Old Testament Israel had been "called out" of Egypt, so the New Testament Israel (the church) was "called out" of the Old Testament Israel, which had itself become a new "Egypt" (Rev.11:8). Thus, the New Testament ekklesia (Christ, along with all who are in Him) was birthed from the womb of the Old Testament ekklesia.
As Paul (e.g., Eph.2:11-19) and Jesus (John 10:16) both point out, this new ekklesia was not destined to remain primarily Jewish in composition or in orientation, but was to include "the fullness of the Gentiles" who would be brought in, or grafted in, like wild branches onto a cultivated olive tree (Romans 11:16-25). History has certainly borne out this prediction, as we would have expected it would.
This is my understanding of the relationship of the present ekklesia to the nation of Israel. I suppose it has more affinity to the Covenant theology than it does to Dispensationalism, but that is not due to my loyalty to one system or another. It is just how I see the scriptures playing this theme out.
The word "ekklesia" was used in the Old Testament (LXX) to refer to "the congregation" of the children of Israel, and Stephen used this same word to refer to the Israelites whom Moses led in the wilderness (Acts 7:38). The word itself means "called-out ones" and was probably used to indicate that they had been called out of Egypt to be a people separate from all other nations, for the Lord.
The use of this word for the Christian community in the New Testament suggests that the New Testament writers saw some kind of conceptual continuity between the Old Testament people of God and those of the New Covenant, but what the exact nature of that continuity was is unclear.
Covenant theology, as I understand it, teaches that there has only been one church, from the time of Abel to the present, made up of all who, like Abraham, are justified by faith. They believe in only one covenantal people and only one covenant throughout time, which has sometimes been emmended or expanded upon at various times. The "Newness" of the new covenant is strictly a newness in quality and detail, that is, a modification or expansion of the old, rather than something altogether different.
Dispensational theology, as I was taught it, teaches that there are seven different covenantal epochs in history, governed by seven separate covenants, essentially unique and independent of each other. Some of these covenants (e.g., the Abrahamic, the Sinaitic and the Davidic)relate to ethnic Israel alone, and some (like the "noahic" covenant, and the New Covenant) to a wider constituency, including Gentiles.
The covenantal view is likely to see the birth of the "church" in the Old Testament, whereas the Dispensational view finds the birth of the "church" at Pentecost. I am inclined to see the gestation of the church in the Old Testament, and the actual birth of the church at the resurrection of Christ. I see this imagery as justified by passages like Isaiah 66:7ff; John 16:21-22 and Revelation 12:1-5.
I believe that the Old Testament uses the word "ekklesia" of the whole body that came out of Egypt, regardless of their spiritual standing. What Jesus refers to as "my church" is, I believe, defined more narrowly, and is comprised of the believing remnant within the larger Jewish race. With the institution of Christ's "New Covenant" with the remnant of Israel and Judah, a new, but not entirely new, entity came to be defined as "the ekklesia." This new entity emerged as a portion of and separated from the old entity. As Old Testament Israel had been "called out" of Egypt, so the New Testament Israel (the church) was "called out" of the Old Testament Israel, which had itself become a new "Egypt" (Rev.11:8). Thus, the New Testament ekklesia (Christ, along with all who are in Him) was birthed from the womb of the Old Testament ekklesia.
As Paul (e.g., Eph.2:11-19) and Jesus (John 10:16) both point out, this new ekklesia was not destined to remain primarily Jewish in composition or in orientation, but was to include "the fullness of the Gentiles" who would be brought in, or grafted in, like wild branches onto a cultivated olive tree (Romans 11:16-25). History has certainly borne out this prediction, as we would have expected it would.
This is my understanding of the relationship of the present ekklesia to the nation of Israel. I suppose it has more affinity to the Covenant theology than it does to Dispensationalism, but that is not due to my loyalty to one system or another. It is just how I see the scriptures playing this theme out.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
IMHO, correctly understanding the term "ekklesia" is impossible without an understanding of how ethnic Israel fits into God's plan and purpose. If we get the understanding of the one mixed up, then the other will by default be mixed up.
I can begin, without too much difficulty, by addressing what Christ meant when He said to Peter that He would build His Ekklesia &etc. We have the following important elements here:
1. Jesus named Peter in this passage: "You are Peter." Naming in the bible has a very important connotation: that of authority over the person or creature named. For instance, in the Creation account God told Adam to take dominion over the earth, and Adam in part did so by naming all of the creatures that God brought to him. Jesus is here claiming that He has authority over Peter, so the general subject of this passage is authority.
2. "The gates of hades shall not prevail against it [the Ekklesia]. And I [Jesus] will give you [Peter] the keys of the Kingdom of heaven..." This isn't a reference to the Ekklesia enduring tribulation, but rather that the Ekklesia would not be bound in the grave forever. In other words, the grave would have no authority to hold them. Moreover, Jesus would give Peter the keys of the Kingdom of heaven. That is, the Ekklesia would not only be resurrected, but granted entrance into the Kingdom.
3. "Whatever you bind on earth has already been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth has already been loosed in heaven." Peter wasn't calling the shots here, but on the other hand, he wasn't taking direction from God as to what to bind and loose. That kind of authority belongs to a special kind of prophet who has been tested to such a degree that their faith is sure and rock-solid. God therefore grants them authority because He knows that they will act in accordance with His will. Thus, His will is decreed in heaven before it's carried out on earth, although from an earthly perspective it's the prophets themselves who are decreeing what is to be bound and loosed.
To sum up, the Catholic position on this passage isn't completely right, but neither is it completely wrong. At this point in time in Matthew 16 as we're following Jesus' life, Peter's faith had not yet been tested to the point where he was ready to handle this kind of authority. Nevertheless, he was granted this kind of authority after Christ's resurrection! And moreover, there was a succession of prophets who had this authority on earth, as "vicars of Christ" as it were. BUT...this succession was broken when a Gentile bishop was chosen to head the Ekklesia. So technically speaking, the Catholics correctly preserve the institution of authority, but don't quite understand where it comes from and why it was given.
And to reiterate, there were Old Testament precedents for the authority that was given to Peter. For instance, Jacob was given this authority (Gen. 32:28 ). This authority will also be given to the two end-time prophets who preach in Jerusalem (Rev. 11:1-6).
With that in mind, who is the Ekklesia? Since the subject is that of authority, then it could be very easily defined as those who fall under God's authority. Technically speaking, all of humanity are under God's authority, but not all of them submit to that authority at this point in time. Those who do are part of the Ekklesia.
Now, to return to the question of whether Jesus was building something new or continuing something already in existence, Jesus said that "upon this rock I will build My Ekklesia." What rock?
ON THE "ROCK" OF THE AUTHORITY OF A PROPHET WHO ACTS UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF GOD.
Yes, a "rock" can represent a foundation (Job 38:6; Isa. 28:16), an ancestor (Isa. 51:1-2), a witness (Gen. 31:44-45; Josh. 24:25-27), etc. But none of these would be meaningful apart from authority. Right?
Question. When God gave Jacob this authority, did He at that time differentiate how He dealt with Jacob and his descendants from how He dealt with any other saints who had come before him or lived at the same time? Not at all. (Jacob's descendants were given the Mosaic Law later, that is.) So at that time, they were all under the same authority.
In fact, the whole symbolism of repairing the "tabernacle of David" in the person of Jesus Christ is so that EVERYONE might seek Him and draw near to Him, submitting to His authority! (Acts 15:15-17) Therefore, we cannot differentiate from national Israel as the Ekklesia and the Body of Christ as the Ekklesia. We are all His sons in His house, unless we choose not to submit to His authority and cast ourselves out.
I hope that all makes sense.
Damon
I can begin, without too much difficulty, by addressing what Christ meant when He said to Peter that He would build His Ekklesia &etc. We have the following important elements here:
1. Jesus named Peter in this passage: "You are Peter." Naming in the bible has a very important connotation: that of authority over the person or creature named. For instance, in the Creation account God told Adam to take dominion over the earth, and Adam in part did so by naming all of the creatures that God brought to him. Jesus is here claiming that He has authority over Peter, so the general subject of this passage is authority.
2. "The gates of hades shall not prevail against it [the Ekklesia]. And I [Jesus] will give you [Peter] the keys of the Kingdom of heaven..." This isn't a reference to the Ekklesia enduring tribulation, but rather that the Ekklesia would not be bound in the grave forever. In other words, the grave would have no authority to hold them. Moreover, Jesus would give Peter the keys of the Kingdom of heaven. That is, the Ekklesia would not only be resurrected, but granted entrance into the Kingdom.
3. "Whatever you bind on earth has already been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth has already been loosed in heaven." Peter wasn't calling the shots here, but on the other hand, he wasn't taking direction from God as to what to bind and loose. That kind of authority belongs to a special kind of prophet who has been tested to such a degree that their faith is sure and rock-solid. God therefore grants them authority because He knows that they will act in accordance with His will. Thus, His will is decreed in heaven before it's carried out on earth, although from an earthly perspective it's the prophets themselves who are decreeing what is to be bound and loosed.
To sum up, the Catholic position on this passage isn't completely right, but neither is it completely wrong. At this point in time in Matthew 16 as we're following Jesus' life, Peter's faith had not yet been tested to the point where he was ready to handle this kind of authority. Nevertheless, he was granted this kind of authority after Christ's resurrection! And moreover, there was a succession of prophets who had this authority on earth, as "vicars of Christ" as it were. BUT...this succession was broken when a Gentile bishop was chosen to head the Ekklesia. So technically speaking, the Catholics correctly preserve the institution of authority, but don't quite understand where it comes from and why it was given.
And to reiterate, there were Old Testament precedents for the authority that was given to Peter. For instance, Jacob was given this authority (Gen. 32:28 ). This authority will also be given to the two end-time prophets who preach in Jerusalem (Rev. 11:1-6).
With that in mind, who is the Ekklesia? Since the subject is that of authority, then it could be very easily defined as those who fall under God's authority. Technically speaking, all of humanity are under God's authority, but not all of them submit to that authority at this point in time. Those who do are part of the Ekklesia.
Now, to return to the question of whether Jesus was building something new or continuing something already in existence, Jesus said that "upon this rock I will build My Ekklesia." What rock?
ON THE "ROCK" OF THE AUTHORITY OF A PROPHET WHO ACTS UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF GOD.
Yes, a "rock" can represent a foundation (Job 38:6; Isa. 28:16), an ancestor (Isa. 51:1-2), a witness (Gen. 31:44-45; Josh. 24:25-27), etc. But none of these would be meaningful apart from authority. Right?
Question. When God gave Jacob this authority, did He at that time differentiate how He dealt with Jacob and his descendants from how He dealt with any other saints who had come before him or lived at the same time? Not at all. (Jacob's descendants were given the Mosaic Law later, that is.) So at that time, they were all under the same authority.
In fact, the whole symbolism of repairing the "tabernacle of David" in the person of Jesus Christ is so that EVERYONE might seek Him and draw near to Him, submitting to His authority! (Acts 15:15-17) Therefore, we cannot differentiate from national Israel as the Ekklesia and the Body of Christ as the Ekklesia. We are all His sons in His house, unless we choose not to submit to His authority and cast ourselves out.
I hope that all makes sense.
Damon
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason: