While we do not agree
with Bro. Carroll on his view that in Heaven all will be in the Church, we
believe this scholarly old Southern Baptist ought to be heard and commend the
article other than this one thing.
Ecclesia – The Church
by B.H. Carroll
Lecture
1
"And I say unto thee, lhat
thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church;
and the
This passage,
The most important of these divisive questions are:
1. What is the church?
2. Who established it and when?
3. What the foundation?
4. What the "gates of hell?"
5. What the "keys?"
6. What the "binding and loosing?"
In this lecture there will be time for answer to the first
question only:
What
is the Church?
From the given
list of passages, taken from the Englishman's Greek Concordance, and which you
Our Lord and the
New Testament writers neither coined this word nor employed it in any unusual
To simplify and
shorten the work before us, we need not leave the New Testament to find
examples
What, then, etymologically, is the meaning of this word?
Its primary
meaning is: An organized assembly, whose members have been properly called out
from
(1) This meaning,
substantially, applies alike to the ecclesia of a self-governing Greek
state (Acts
When, in this
lesson, our Lord says: "On this rock I will build MY ecclesia" while
the "my"
Indeed, even when
by accommodation, it is applied to an irregular gathering (Acts
Of the 117
instances of use in the New Testament certainly all but five (Acts
Commonly, that
is, in nearly all the uses, it means: The particular assembly of Christ's
baptized
To this class
necessarily belong all abstract or generic uses of the word, for whenever the
abstract or
This follows from
the laws of language governing the use of words.
For example, if
an English statesman, referring to the right of each individual citizen to be
tried by
Or if a law
writer should say: "In trials of fact, by oral testimony, the court shall
be the judge of the
big judge, nor of all juries into one big jury, nor of all
witnesses into one big witness. Hence we say
that
As examples of
the abstract use of ecclesia that is in the sense of an institution, we
cite Matthew
just one, as the church at
As when Paul
says: "The husband is the head of the wife," the terms
"husband" and "wife" are not to
But while nearly
all of the 113 instances of the use of ecclesia belong to the particular
class, there
Here are three
indisputable and very significant facts concerning Christ's general assembly:
(1) Many of its
members, properly called out, are now in heaven.
(2) Many others
of them, also called out, are here on earth.
(3) An indefinite
number of them, yet to be called, are neither on earth nor in heaven, because
they
It follows that
if one part of the membership is now in heaven, another part on earth, another
part
And if a part are
as yet non-existent, how can one say the general assembly exists now?
We may, however,
properly speak of the general assembly now, because, though part of it yet
In God's purposes
and plans, the general assembly exists now, and also in our conceptions or
Commenting on our lesson, Broadus says:
The object of the
gospel, committed to the particular assembly in time, is to call out or summon
When the calling
out is ended, and all the called are glorified, then the present concept of a
general
But the only existing
representation or type of the ecclesia in glory (i.e., the general
assembly) is the
And because each
and every particular assembly is the representation, or type, of the general
particular assemblies collectively.
There is no
unity, no organization, nor gathering together and, hence, no ecclesia or
assembly of
either to the particular assembly now or the general
assembly hereafter.
A man once said
to me, "How dare you apply such broad terms as 'The house of God,' 'The
body of
Here the Word of God:
In the letter to
the Ephesians, Paul says: "In whom each several building, fitly framed
together,
Here are two distinct afirmations:
First – Each
several building or particular assembly growth into a holy temple of the Lord.
That is
Second – What is
true of each is true of the church at
Just before this
he had written of the church as an institution, or abstractly, in which
Jew and Gentile
To the elders of
this same particular church at
This flock, this
church of the Lord, purchased by His own blood, is a particular assembly.
Again to the
particular church at
When concerning
the body of Christ he says: "And whether one member suffereth
all the members
Again concerning
the particular church at
It may be asked,
but why, if already filled, pray that each particular congregation might be
filled
But though the
fullness is there, the church is so dim-eyed – so weak in faith – so feeble in
graces –
In a great
revival of religion we see Paul's prayer fulfilled in the particular body of
Christ. Gradually
This leads to
another conclusion: All teaching in the direction that there now exists a
general
More than once
when I have inquired of a man, are you a member of the church? The reply has
To make faith the
exclusive qualification of admission into the general assembly is more than
The general
assembly, by all accounts, includes all the saved. But infants, dying in
infancy, are a
Nor does complete
sanctification of soul go far enough. There must also be glorification of body.
Enoch, Elijah and probably those who rose from the dead
after Christ's resurrection are the only ones as
yet qualified for membership in the general assembly. And
they must wait until all whom God has called
and will yet call have arrived with the like qualifications,
before there can be a general assembly in fact.
As has been
intimated, all organized assemblies have prescribed terms or conditions of
membership.
In the Greek state Ecclesia membership was limited to
a well-defined body of citizens. Not all residents
of the territory could participate in the business of the
ecclesia. So with the Old Testament ecclesia or
national convocation of carnal
become a proselyte and be circumcised. Correspondingly the
conditions of membership in the church on
earth are regeneration and baptism.
But for the church in glory the conditions of membership are
justification, regeneration and
sanctipcation of soul and gloripcation of body.
We submit another conclusion:
Some terms or descriptives commonly applied to the church by writers and
speakers are not only
extra-Scriptural, that is, purely human and post-apostolic,
but may be so used as to become either
misleading or postively
unscriptural. For example, to put visible, referring to the particular
assembly
alone, over against spiritual as referring to the general
assembly alone, as if these terms were opposites or
Ecclesia - The Church
file:///C|/WINDOWS/Desktop/pdf files ready for CD/2.html (5
of 28) [
incompatible with each other.
The particular assembly or church that now is, is both
visible and spiritual.
To confesss Christ before men, to let our light shine before
men, to be baptized, to show forth the
Lord's death in the Supper, are both visible and spiritual
acts of obedience. And when the general
assembly becomes a reality instead of a prospect, it, too,
will be both visible and spiritual.
Speaking of the
general assembly, John says: "I saw the holy city, the New
Jerusalem, coming down
out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for
her husband."
When the king
came to the earth in His humiliation He was visible. And when He appears in
glory
every eye shall see Him.
A city set upon
an earthly hill cannot be hid. And the New Jerusalem on
living God, will be the most conspicuous and luminous object
the universe ever saw.
The confusion
wrought by these human appellatives is manifest in the growth of what is
commonly
mis-called
"The Apostle's creed. " In its earliest historic forms it says:
"I believe in the holy church."
Later forms say: "l believe in the holy catholic i.e.,
universal church." Still later: "in the holy catholic
and apostolic church." Still gathering increment from
other creeds it becomes: "The holy Roman catholic
and apostolic church." Then comes "visible vs.
invisible," or "visible, temporal, universal vs. invisible,
spiritual, universal," and so ad infinitum. But the Bible in its simplicity knows nothing of
these
scholastic refinements of distinction. In that holy book the
existing church is a particular congregation of
Christ's baptized disciples, and the prospective church is
the general assembly. But mark you:
These are not co-existent.
ASSEMBLY COMES THE PARTICULAR ASSEMBLY WILL HAVE PASSED
AWAY.
To impress more
deeply the scripturalness of these reflections, let
us consider the subject from
another viewpoint:
A house is built
for an inhabitant. Unless the tenant is hard pressed, he will not move in until
the
building is completed. God is never hard pressed.
A long time may
be consumed in getting out and gathering together and preparing the material of
a
house. It is not a house, however, except in purpose, plan
or prospect, until it is completed and ready for
its occupant.
In this light let us take a look at some Bible houses:
(a) The house that Moses built.
This was the
Tabernacle of the Wilderness, or tent for God. The 40th chapter of Exodus tells
of the
completion of this house. When it was finished and all
things ready for the occupant it became a house,
and then the cloud, that symbol of Divine glory, moved in
and filled the tabernacle.
(b) The house that Solomon built.
The 6th, 7th and
8th chapters of 1 Kings tell us about this house. When it was finished and
furnished
and dedicated, it also being now a house, then the cloud
symbol of divine presence and glory, that had
inhabited the tabernacle, left the tent as no longer useful
and moved into and filled the new house.
(c) The house that Jesus built.
Ecclesia - The Church
file:///C|/WINDOWS/Desktop/pdf files ready for CD/2.html (6
of 28) [
The gospel
histories tell us about it. John the Baptist prepared much material for it.
Receiving this
material from John, and adding much of His own preparation,
Jesus built a house. That is, He instituted
His ecclesia on earth. At His death the veil of
Solomon's restored house was rent in twain from top to
bottom. Henceforward, it was tenantless, and, being useless,
soon perished. But though the new house
was built, it was empty
until our Lord ascended into heaven, and fulfilled His promise to send the Holy
Spirit as the indweller of this new habitation.
The only house of God now existing on earth is the
particular ecclesia of our Lord. But it in turn must
have a successor in the general assembly.
(d) The house Jesus will build.
The tabernacle,
the temple and the church on earth are all forecasts of the coming church in
glory.
The work of gathering and preparing material for the general
assembly has been in progress for six
thousand years. But material, much of it yet in the quarry
or forest and much of it fully prepared, does
not constitute a house. God is not hard pressed. His
patience is infinite. Millions and millions have
already been called out to be members of this prospective
assembly. God is calling yet and will continue
to call throughout the gospel dispensation. His mind is
fixed on having a general assembly indeed – a
great congregation – "a great multitude that no man
could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and
people, and tongues, to stand before the throne, and before
the Lamb, clothed with white robes and with
palms in their hands."
The time of the
constitution of this assembly is at the second coming of Christ and after the
resurrection of the dead and the glorification of the bodies
of Christians then living. The processes of
constitution are clearly set forth in
It has now indeed
become a church – a glorious church, or church in glory – to be presented to
himself. When He comes He will be glorified in His saints
and admired in all them that believe.
That ecclesia,
like the one on earth, will be both visible and spiritual.
Recurring to the
figure of a house,
At last completed God Himself inhabits it, for says the
Scripture, "Behold the tabernacle of God is with
men, and he shall be with them, and they shall be his
people, and God himself shall be with them and be
their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their
eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither
sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain;
for the former things are passed away." Mark
that, brethren, "The former things are passed
away." Former and latter things are not co-existent. The
tabernacle of the wilderness passes away for the more
glorious
passes away for the still more glorious church on earth. In
like manner the church on earth must pass
away for the infinitely glorious church in heaven. There is
a
yet. The church on earth, the
house that Jesus has already built, the house of the living God, which is the
pillar and ground of the truth – this house has the right
of way just now. It is the only existing assembly.
Honor the house that now is.
Quite naturally,
if tabernacle and temple had been co-existent; one then living would have
preferred
the temple and discredited the tent.
Equally so if the
particular assembly and general assembly are now co-existent, side by side on
earth, could you seriously blame a man for resting content
with membership in the greater and more
honorable assembly?
Ecclesia - The Church
file:///C|/WINDOWS/Desktop/pdf files ready for CD/2.html (7
of 28) [
But as the
Scriptures represent these two assemblies, one existing now on earth, the
other
prospective in heaven, if
a man on earth and in time, not qualified by either sanctification of spirit or
glorification of body for the heavenly assembly, shall
despise membership in the particular assembly
because claiming membership in the general assembly, is not
his claim both an absurdity and a pretext?
Does he not hide behind it to evade honoring God's existing
institution, and the assuming of present
responsibilities and the performing of present duties? Yet again, if one believes that there are co-existent
on earth and in time, two churches, one only visible and
formal, the other real, invisible and spiritual, is
there not danger that such belief may tend to the conviction
that the form, government, polity and
ordinances of the inferior church are matters of little
moment? Has not this belief oftentimes in history
done this very thing? And is it not an historical fact that,
since Protestant Pedobaptists invented this idea
of a now-existing, invisible, universal, spiritual church,
to offset the equally erroneous Romanist idea of
a present visible, universal church, reverence and honor for
God's New Testament particular church have
been ground to fine powder between them as between the upper
and nether millstones? Today when one
seeks to obtain due honor for the particular assembly, its
ordinances, its duties, is he not in many cases
thwarted in measure, or altogether in some cases, by
objections arising from one or the other of these
erroneous views?
And when some,
endeavoring to hedge against the manifest errors of both these ideas, have
invented
middle theories to the effect that the church on earth is
composed either of all professing Christians
living at one time, considered collectively, or of all real
Christians so living and so considered, or of all
existing denominations considered as branches of which the
church is the tree, have they not multiplied
both the absurdities and the difficulties by their assumed
liberality of compromise?
Finally, replying to some of your questions:
1. When our Lord
says, On this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not
prevail
against it, does He refer to the church on earth or to the
church in glory? My answer is, to the particular
assembly on earth, considered as an institution. The
church in glory will never be in the slightest danger
of the gates of hell. Before it becomes an assembly, both
death and hell, gates and all, are cast into the
lake of fire (Rev. 20: 14;
21:4). It is the church on earth that is in danger, from the fear of which this
glorious promise is a guaranty.
2. Does your idea
of a "general assembly" depend exclusively upon that phrase of
doubtful
application in Hebrews 12:23, which many good scholars,
including prominent Baptists, construe with
"myriads of angels" instead of with "the
church of the First Born?" Certainly not. Though I myself
strongly hold with our English versions in referring both
the panegyros (general assembly) and
the
ecclesia (church) of that passage to
saved men and not to angels. The idea of general assembly is clearly
in other passages as Ephesians 5:25-27; Revelation 7:9;
21:2-4).
3. If the figure,
"body" applies to each particular church, does not that teach that
Christ has many
bodies? My answer is, first, that your objection, or
supposed difficulty, lies not against my view, but
against the express teaching of many Scriptures. What the
Scriptures teach is true, and difficulties and
objections may take care of themselves. But, second, the
objection is specious and the difficulty only
apparent, since each particular assembly is a
representation or type of the general assembly, and
therefore the broadest figures of the antitype may be
applied to all its types without being obnoxious to
the criticism. There may well be many representations of the
body of Christ.
4. Do you dis-fellowship your Baptist brethren who teach the present
existence of "an universal,
invisible, spiritual church?"
Most certainly
not so long as they duly honor the particular assembly and its ordinances, as
Ecclesia - The Church
file:///C|/WINDOWS/Desktop/pdf files ready for CD/2.html (8
of 28) [
multitudes of them do, in spite of the natural tendency of
their theory to discredit it. Many of them,
known to me personally, are devoted to the particular church
and its ordinances, responsibilities and
duties.
It will take a
wider divergence than this to make me disfellowship a
Baptist brother, though I
honestly and strongly hold that even on this point his
theory is erroneous and tends practically to great
harm. Yes, I do most emphatically hold that this theory is
responsible for incalculable dishonor put upon
the
churches of Christ, one formal and visible, the other real,
invisible and spiritual, with different terms of
membership, is exceedingly mischievous and is so
confusing that every believer of it becomes muddled in
running the lines of separation. Do let it sink deep in your
minds that the tabernacle on Moses had the
exclusive right of way in its alloted time and the
allotted time – so the
way and is without a rival on
earth or in heaven – and so the general assembly in glory, when its
allotted
time arrives, will have exclusive right of way.
Had I lived in
the days of Moses I would have given undivided honor to the tabernacle – in the
day
of Solomon to the
living now I must honor the house that Jesus built. It is
the house of the living God, the pillar and ground
of the truth. To it are committed the oraces
and promises of God. To it is given the great commission. It
is the instructor of angels and in it throughout all the
ages of time is the glory of God. If I move out of this
house, I must remain houseless until Jesus comes. It is the
only church you can join in time.
5. What is the
distinction, if any, between the kingdom and the church?
My answer is that
the kingdom and church on earth are not co-terminous. Kingdom, besides
expressing a different idea, is much broader in
signification than a particular assembly or than all the
particular assemblies. The particular church is that
executive institution or business body, within the
kingdom, charged with official duties and responsibilities
for the spread of the kingdom.
In eternity and
glory, church and kingdom may be co-terminous. Like the church, the kingdom in
both time and eternity has both visible and spiritual
aspects.
6. As a
sufficient reply to several other questions:
Let it be noted
that this discussion designedly avoids applying certain adjectives to the noun
"church," not merely because the New Testament
never applies them to Ecclesia, but because they are
without distinguishing force when contrasting the particular
assembly with the general assembly.
For example: "Local," "visible,"
"spiritual."
Locality inheres
in Ecclesia. There can be no assembly now or hereafter without a place to meet.
When existing in fact, both the particular assembly in time,
and the general assembly in eternity, are both
visible and spiritual. Why attempt to distinguish by terms
which do not distinguish?
Katholikos (Catholic or
Universal) is not a New Testament word at all and hence is never applied
by
inspiration to Ecclesia. Nor is it a Septuagint word
at all.
In post-apostolic
times it crept without authority into the titles of certain New Testament
letters, as
"The First Epistle General (Katholikos)
of Peter." And even there it could not mean "universal,"
since
Peter, himself, four times limits his address:
(a) First to Jews (not Gentiles).
(b) Then to "elect" Jews (not all Jews).
(c) Then to elect Jews of the Dispersion (not to
Jewish Christians in
(d) Then to elect Jews of the Dispersion in "
Ecclesia - The Church
file:///C|/WINDOWS/Desktop/pdf files ready for CD/2.html (9
of 28) [
comparatively small district of Asia Minor (not in the rest
of
sense of every place, nor of every person in the universe,
can the English word "universal" be applied to
Ecclesia.
Lecture
2
It was not the
original purpose to extend the discussion of the question, What is the Church,
into a
second lecture. It was supposed that you would be able of
yourselves to classify all New Testament uses
of ecclesia under the several heads of abstract,
generic, particular and prospective, by applying the
principles of the first lecture.
But the nature
and variety of your new questions constrain me to enlarge the discussion
somewhat
and to supply you with a wider usage of the word than the
New Testament affords. Of the great number
of instances from the classics, read to you, at my request,
by Mr. Ragland, our Professor of Greek, your
attention is recalled to a few, specially pertinent.
(1) Those which
so clearly show the distinction between ecclesia as an organized
business body and
all unofficial gatherings, e.g., "Pericles seeing them
angry at the present state of things – did not call
them to the ecclesia or any other meeting." –Thucydides.
Again, "When
after this the ecclesia adjourned, they came together and planned – for
the future still
being uncertain, meetings and speeches of all
sorts took place in the market. They were afraid the
ecclesia would be summoned suddenly.
" – Demosthenes. Compare this distinction with the town-clerk's
statement in Acts 19:39, 40.
(2) Those
concerning the ecclesias of the several
petty but independent Greek states,
and others, bringing out clearly the business character of
these assemblies, their free and democratic
deliberations, their final decisions by vote, and reminding
us so forcibly of the proceedings of
independent Baptist churches of our day.
(3) Those showing
the discriminating character of the Greek mind in the use of panyegyros, as
distinguished from ecclesia. Ecclesia was the
particular and independent business assembly of any Greek
state, however small. Panegyros
was the general assembly of the people of all the Greek states. It was a
festive assembly looking to rest, joy, peace, glory, and not
to business and war. Let not the
Lacedaemonians come up
armed to this assembly.
It was a happy
Greek conceit that all the Heavenly beings were present at these Olympian
meetings.
How felicitiously does the
inspired author of the letter to the Hebrews adapt himself to this
discrimination, when in contrast with the particular ecclesia
on earth, he writes of the general assembly
and church of the first born in glory – panegyros
kai ecclesia. There, not Zeus, but God the judge.
There
not a pantheon or inferior deities and demi-gods,
but myriads of angels, and the spirits of just men made
perfect. There war and toil have ceased, and peace and rest reign
forever. There are bestowed not fading
laurels, but everlasting crowns of life, righteousness, joy
and glory. (See 1 Cor. 9:25; 2 Tim. 4:8; Jas.
That general
assembly is not bound by the limitations of the one Greek nation but infinitely
transcends the Olympian gatherings in a countless multitude
out of every nation, tribe, tongue and
kindred. Jew, Greek, Roman, Scythian, barbarian, bond and
free mingle in one tide of brotherhood (Rev.
7:9).
Ecclesia - The Church
file:///C|/WINDOWS/Desktop/pdf files ready for CD/2.html (10
of 28) [
Septuagint Usage
Some of your
questions induced me to supply you with the entire Septuagint usage. You
have
before you now all the instances of this use of ecclesia,
including the readings of the several texts, in
both the canonical books and Apocrypha. To these have been
added the additional instances from other
Greek versions of the Old Testament,
193), et al; i.e., so far as they are cited in the
concordance of Abraham Trommius (A.D. 1718) and the
new mammoth concordance of Hatch & Redpath,
nearly equal the New Testament number, giving us a total of
about 230 uses of the word not counting the
classics. This is every way sufficient for inductive study.
Of course the post-apostolic versions of
Aquilla, Theodotion and Symmachus had no
influence in determining the earlier New Testament usage,
but as the work of Jews in the second century they confirm
that usage.
It was to the
classic and Septuagint usage the first lecture referred in saying that the New
Testament
writers neither coined the word nor employed it in an
unusual sense.
They wrote in
Greek, to readers and speakers of Greek, using Greek words in their common
acceptation in order to be understood. With this usage
before us let us seek an answer to your new
questions:
I. As in the
Septuagint ecclesia translates the Hebrew word qahal,
does it not mean, "All
whether assembled or unassembled?"
My reply is, I
see not how this question could have risen in my mind from a personal,
inductive
study of all the Septuagint passages, since in every
instance of the 114 cited the word means a gathering
together – an assembly.
You can see that
for yourselves by the context of your English
version. The Septuagint usage is as
solidly one thing as the
become so preoccupied with the loose generalizations of the
great Pedobaptist scholars, Harnack,
Hatch,
Hort, Cremer and others, that we unconsciously neglect to
investigate and think for ourselves. Let not
admiration for distinguished scholarship blot out your
individuality. Accept nothing blindly on mere
human authority.
In determining
this question, have nothing to do with the meaning of qahal
in its other connections.
Rigidly adhere to the passages where ecclesia translates
it. Because a word sometimes serves for another,
do not foist on it all the meanings of the other word.
It is well enough
to illustrate by synonyms, but do not define by them. Definition by supposed
synonyms was the curse of the Baptismal controvery.
Because a question about purifying arose between
a Jew and John's disciples, Edward Beecher must write an
illogical book to show that Baptizo means
only to purify, and, of course, by any method. Study
the principles of accurate definition.
II.
"But," another question asks, "do not some of these Septuagint
passages justify the meaning of
unassembled?" While I
accepted Pedobaptist ideas, I thought so, but never
since I looked into the matter
for myself. I do not know of even one such passage. I
never heard of a definite claim being set up to more
than four out of 114. Turn now to these four in your Revised
English Bibles. They are 1 Kings 8:65; 1
Chronicles 28:8; Ezra 10:8; Ezekiel 32:3.
The first two settle
themselves by a mere reading. In Ezra "the assembly of the
captivity" might be
supposed to refer, in a loose way, to the people while
captives in
reference as the context shows. It simply means the 42,360
who returned from captivity as a definite
Jerusalem assembly, repeatedly called together. In Ezekiel
32:3, an unreliable reading has ecclesia for
Ecclesia - The Church
file:///C|/WINDOWS/Desktop/pdf files ready for CD/2.html (11
of 28) [
the English word company. But even then the idea is
the same. "Many peoples" in that sentence signify
nothing against the usual meaning of the word. They do not
constitute an ecclesia until gathered into a
company. Xerxes, Timour, Napoleon,
the White Tzar, and many others have formed a great
company out
of the contingents of many people.
Heretofore the
advocates of the present existence of "an universal, invisible, spiritual,
unassembled
church" have boldly rested their case on the Septuagint
usage. The premise of their argument was, that
the New Testament writers must have used the word in the
sense that a Jew accustomed to the Greek Old
Testament would understand. A fine premise, by the way. But
to save the theory from total collapse some
new line of defense must be invented. And that is intimated
in your next question:
III. "As
Christ was establishing a new institution, widely different from the Greek
state ecclesia,
was not ecclesia in the New Testament used in a new,
special and sacred sense? Does not the word in the
New Testament commonly mean the same as the Kletoi, or the called, without reference to
either
organization, or assembly?"
On many accounts
I am delighted with the opportunity to reply to this question. The reply is
couched in several distinct observations:
(1) This question
demonstrates hopeful progress in the controversy and prophesies a speedy and
final settlement. It not only necessarily implies a cleancut surrender of the old line of defense, but also
narrows a hitherto broad controversy into a single new
issue, susceptible of easy settlement. If this new
position proves untenable there is no other to which the
defense can be shifted. This is the last ditch. And
the fact that it is new indicates the extremity of its
advocates.
(2) Like the
former contention, this, too, is borrowed from the Pedobaptists.
They tried hard and
long to make it serve in the Baptismal controversy. Their
contention then was that though Baptizo meant
to dip or immerse in classic Greek, yet in the Bible it was
used in a new and sacred sense. The
scholarship of the world rebuked them. Words are signs or
ideas. To mean anything they must be
understood according to the common acceptation in the minds
of those addressed. I know of no more
dangerous method of interpretation than the assumption that
a word must be taken to mean something
different from its real meaning. Revelation in that case
ceases to be revelation. We are at sea without
helm, or compass, or guiding star.
(3) There is
nothing in the difference between Christ's ecclesia on the one hand, and
the classic or
Septuagint ecclesia on the other hand, to justify a
new sense in the word. The difference lies not in the
meaning of the word, but in the object, terms of membership
and other things.
(4) This proposed
new sense destroys the two essential ideas of the old word, organization and
assembly, and thereby
leaves Christ without an institution or official, business body
in the world. From
the days of Abel the Kletoi,
or called, have been in the world. If therefore, the New Testament ecclesia
means only the "called," then what did Christ
establish in His time?
(5) If by ecclesia,
only the called in their scattered capacity are meant, why use both ecclesia
and
Kletoi? How can there be a body of Kletoi
if the essential ideas of ecclesia are left out? If there be no
organization, no assembly, how can there be a body? Micellaneous, scattered, unattached units do not
make a body.
(6) Finally there
is not the slightest evidence that ecclesia has any such arbitrary
meaning. But this
will more clearly appear if you examine the usage passage by
passage.
IV. "But
when Paul says, I persecuted the church, surely that can only mean that he
persecuted the
disciples?"
But it does mean
much more. It means exactly what it says. The mere individuals as such counted
Ecclesia - The Church
file:///C|/WINDOWS/Desktop/pdf files ready for CD/2.html (12
of 28) [
nothing with Paul. It was the organization to which they
belonged, and what that organization stood for.
As proof of this our Lord arrested him with the question:
"Why persecutest thou me? I am Jesus whom
thou persecutest." Jesus was
not persecuted in person by Saul.
So when
"Herod the King put forth his hand to afflict certain of the church"
he aimed at the
organization, in what it stood for, though directly his
wrath fell only on James and Peter.
V. "But if
the church means assembly does not that require it to be always in
session?" No ecclesia,
classic, Jewish or Christian, known to history, held
perpetual session. They all adjorned and came
together again according to the requirements of the case.
The organization, the institution, was not
dissolved by temporary adjournment.
VI. "But if
the earthly ecclesia exists now, though many of its members forsake the
assembling of
themselves together, and if it continually receives new
members, why may we not say the general
assembly exists now, though all be not actually assembled,
nor all its members yet born?" This is the
most plausible objection yet offered, and one that greatly
perplexes some minds. Your rigid attention,
therefore, is called to the reply. It is admitted that the
particular assembly on earth is not always in
session either as a worshiping or business body. The word ecclesia
never did require perpetual session.
Nor does it now. There has been no change of requirement in
that respect from the days of Pericles till
now. Nor does the word require that all its Kletoi or members shall be present at every
session. Nor does
the word itself forbid the accession of new members.
Moreover, a
particular ecclesia might continue as an historic institution so long
that there might be
an entire change in the personnel of its members many
times. There are particular Baptist churches now
existing in which these changes have actually occurred.
Seldom does the roll of members remain the
same even one year. Some die, some are excluded, some move
away into other communities, new
members are received. The attendance upon the sessions for
worship and business continually varies.
Some are sick, some travel, some backslide. Conditions of
weather, politics or war affect the attendance.
Yea, more, storms, plagues, or persecution may for the time
being scatter the members of a particular
church over a wide area of territory. None of these things
in the slightest degree affect the meaning of the
word.
Ecclesia remains throughout an organized assembly whose members are
properly called out from
their private homes or business to attend to public affairs.
The difference
between the earthly and heavenly ecclesia in regard to the foregoing
mutations does
not arise at all from the word but from the nature of the
case.
By its very
nature the earthly ecclesia is imperfect. It is a time institution. By
the conditions of its
earthly existence there are fluctuations in attendance and
membership. By its location in a world of lost
people and by its commission to save them, there is constant
accession of members.
The changed
nature of the case and of the conditions make these things different with the general
assembly. It can not
increase in members because there is no salvable material from which to gain
accessions. Character has chrystalized
and probation ended. The lost then, are forever lost, and Hell
admits of no evangelism. The word would not forbid
evangelism but the nature of the case does.
Not only the
word, but the nature of the case renders present existence of the general
assembly
impossible. Into the earthly house material enters according
to credible evidence of regeneration as men
judge. There is no absolute guaranty against self-deception
or hypocrisy. Moreover, this material even
when the profession of faith is well founded, is never in a
perfect state, but must be continually made
better by progressive sanctification of soul. The earthly ecclesia
is a workshop in which material is being
prepared for the Heavenly house. Death is the last lesson of
discipline for the soul. The resurrection and
Ecclesia - The Church
file:///C|/WINDOWS/Desktop/pdf files ready for CD/2.html (13
of 28) [
glorification of the body, its last lesson. No rough ashlar goes into the Heavenly House – no unhewn,
un-polished, unadorned cedar timber. No half-stone or broken
column would be received. If a soul, even
one of the spirits of the just made perfect, were now put
into that wall, the building would have to be
reconstructed and readjusted to admit the body-part of that
same living stone after the resurrection. There
is no sound of hammer, axe, or chisel when that building
goes up. AIl preparatory work of every
stone in
that building, and of every timber, must be completed before
that building goes up.
It was this
heavenly ecclesia, which as a coming event, cast its shadow before David
and Solomon
and constituted their inexorable plan for the typical
temple. Because the plan given them was a shadow
of better things to come they were not allowed to vary a
hair's-breath from the pattern of the Divine
Architect.
There is nothing
in the word ecclesia itself to forbid its application to "the
Spirits of the just made
perfect" now in heaven and continually receiving
accessions. They are an assembly in fact. And Thayer
seems to so understand Hebrews 12:23. I do not agree with
him in making "general assembly and church
of the first born" synonymous with "the spirits of
the just made perfect." To my mind, they represent two
very distinct ideas. But he is certainly right in supposing
that the assembled spirits of the righteous dead
may be called an ecclesia. But when one defines the
general assembly to be the aggregate of all the elect,
and then affirms its present existence, he does violence to
philology, common sense and revelation. The
earthly eccIesia is
an organization now, an assembly now, though not always in session. The general
assembly is not an organization now, is not an assembly now,
and therefore exists only as a prospect.
VII. You ask for
a particular explanation of several Scriptures which seem difficult to
harmonize
with the contentions of the first lecture, all of which in
turn will now receive attention:
(1) Acts
edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord and in the
comfort of the Holy Spirit, was multiplied" (R.V.)
To my mind, this is the only use of ecclesia in all
Biblical or classic literature that is difficult of
explanation. The difficulty is frankly confessed. Nor am I
sure that such explanation as I have to offer
will be satisfactory to you. In any event, nothing is ever
gained for truth by lack of candor. Judging from
the uniform use of the word elsewhere one would naturally
expect here a plural noun with plural verbs as
we have in the King James Version. And this expectation
would be entirely apart from a desire to serve a
theory. The difficulty here does not help the theory of
"the now-existing universal, invisible, spiritual
church."
It is quite easy
to explain it so far as any comfort would accrue to that theory. The difficulty
lies in
another direction entirely, and seems to oppose a Baptist
contention on another point, in whose
maintenance my Baptist opponents in the present controversy
are fully as much concerned as myself. On
its face the passage seems to justify the provincial or
state-wide – or national use of the word church on
earth which all Baptist deny. That is the only difficulty I
see in the passage. All the context shows that
the reference is to the earthly church and not to the
heavenly. The limits of this lecture forbid a
discussion of the text question. The texts vary. Some
manuscripts and versions have the very plural noun
with its plural verbs that one would naturally expect from
the uniform usage elsewhere. The King James
Version follows these. The oldest and best manuscripts,
however, have the singular noun with
corresponding verbs. The Revised Version follows them.
Now for the explanation:
(1) The reading,
"Churches," followed by the common version may be the right one,
leaving nothing
to explain. In all other cases, whether in Old or New
Testament, where the sense calls for the plural, we
have it in the text. Not to have it here is an isolated,
jarring exception. See Acts 15:41; 16:5; Rom. 16:4,
Ecclesia - The Church
file:///C|/WINDOWS/Desktop/pdf files ready for CD/2.html (14
of 28) [
6; 1 Cor. 7:17: 11:26; 14:33, 34;
16:1, 19; 2 Cor. 8:1, 18, 23; 11:8, 28; 12:23; Gal.
1:2, 22; 1 Thess. 2:14;
2 Thess. 1:4; Rev. 1:4, 11, 20;
2:7, 11, 17, 20, 23; 3:6, 13, 22; 22:16; Psa. 26:12;
68:26; Ecclesiasticus
24:2. It is well to note that Murdock's translation of the Peshito Syriac cites a Greek
plural in the margin.
(2) But accepting
the singular, according to the Revised Version, then, says Broadus, "the
word
probably denotes the original church at
throughout
the one original organization. When Paul wrote to the
Galatians nearly twenty years later, these
separate meetings had been organized into distinct churches;
and so he speaks (Gal.
to that same period, of the churches of
the church which Saul persecuted and of which he made havoc.
Concerning the effect of this persecution
the record says "they were all scattered abroad
throughout the regions of
"Now they which were scattered abroad upon the
persecution that arose about Stephen traveled as far as
Phenice, and Cyprus,
and Antioch, preaching the word" – Acts
preceding our Scripture, there is an account of Saul, as a
convert, worshiping and preaching with the
church he had formerly persecuted, we may not be surprised
at the statement "So the church throughout
all
history in vv. 3:30: in consequence of the conversion of the
former chief enemy and his transformation
into the zealous apostle."
But you may say,
when they are thus scattered does not that break up the assembly idea in
the word?
This question has been previously answered in this lecture.
It has been said that a storm, like that which
swept
between the states, or persecution, as in this case, might
scatter far and wide, for the time being, the
members of a particular church, but that would not change
the meaning of the word church. When
Tarleton made a dash
at the
on
from these cases a change of meaning in legislature or
congress? Under the advice of Themistocles the
entire Athenian ecclesia abandoned their sacred city
and sought safety from Persian invasion on their
ships, but ecclesia retained its meaning.
(3) There is a
third explanation possible. You may like it better than I do. It is not in
harmony with
one statement of my first lecture. It certainly, however,
excludes comfort from the theory of the invisible
general church.
Meyer understands
ecclesia in Acts 9:31 in a collective sense, not of Christians
collectively, but of
churches collectively. His language
is: "Observe, moreover, with the correct reading ecclesia (singular
number) the aspect of unity under which Luke, surveying
the whole domain of Christendom comprehends
the churches which has been already formed, and were in
process of formation."
Note that he says
that the word church "comprehends the churches," not
Christians. Some Baptists
follow Meyer. Hovey, in Hackett on
Acts, seems to quote Meyer approvingly. This explanation
necessarily implies the existence, at this time, of many
organized assemblies in
churches, if only the record would say as much. If Meyer be right,
of course, I was wrong in saying that
ecclesia could not be used in the
collective sense of comprehending many particular churches.
My own
explanation is given in (1) and (2). Now, if a theory harmonizes all of 231
uses of a word
but one, and gives a possible explanation of that one, the
theory is demonstrated.
VIII. The next
class of Scriptures which you wish explained is represented by Ephesians 1:22,
23;
Ecclesia - The Church
file:///C|/WINDOWS/Desktop/pdf files ready for CD/2.html (15
of 28) [
Colossians 1:18; 1 Peter 2:5; Hebrews 3:6; John 10:16.
My first remark
is that the epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians were circular letters,
meant to
be read to other churches with equal application. Hence the
use of the term church in a more general way
than in other letters. The general use, however, does not
forbid, but even requires, specific application to
any one particular church, as Ephesians
written to Jewish saints of the dispersion in
Hence, when he says, "Ye, also, as living stones are
built up a spiritual house," he does not mean that all
the Jewish saints in
unbaptistic idea. It
also contradicts the record in Acts showing the planting of many particular
churches
in this section, made up of Jews and Gentiles, and also
ignores the seven churches of Revelation, all in
the same section. But Peter means, using the word
"house" in a generic sense, that whenever and
wherever enough of you come together to form a particular
church, that will be a spiritual house in which
to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God through
Jesus Christ. Just as in Ephesians 2:21, 22
R.V., the apostle in the same breath converts the general or
abstract idea of church into particular
churches. Murdock's translation of the Syriac
Peshito reads: "And ye also, as living stones,
are builded
and become spiritual temples" in 1 Peter 2:5.
It is
characteristic of circular letters to use terms in general form that must find
concrete expression
in particular forms. A man writing a circular to
common sense of each particular church for making specific
application. It is a matter of congratulation
that since the circular, called the letter to the
Ephesians, employs more of these general terms than any
other letter, we have been so thoroughly safeguarded from
misconstruction of its generalities by three
distinct instances of specific application, in Acts
this
The epistle to
the Hebrews is even more general in its address than the two just considered,
and we
have only to apply the same principles of interpretation
heretofore set forth to understand Hebrews 3:6 –
"Whose house are we." The writer certainly never
intended to convey the impression that all Hebrew
Christians constituted one church. That also, to say the
least of it, is an unbaptistic idea. We know it to be
an unscriptural one, because it contradicts Paul in
Galatians
Hebrews 3:6 or 1 Peter 2:5 for examples of the so-called
"universal church" idea. If the advocates of this
idea insist on denying the particular church in these cases
because one letter was addressed to all the
Hellenist converts of Asia Minor, and the other was
addressed to all the converted Palestinean Hebrews,
then I demand that they also stick to the text, and claim
for either case Jews and Jews only. This not only
shuts them off from the general assembly in which Jew and
Gentile form one new man, but forces them
to the absurdity of having on earth one Jewish church big as
other big as
Jews of the dispersion, and puts them in conflict with
Scripture history which shows many particular
churches in these sections. To show you the difference
between the general use of the term "church" in a
circuIar of miscellaneous address and its direct and particular use
in a document addressed to specific
churches, compare the use of church in Revelation with the
use of church in the letter to the Ephesians.
In the twenty times of Revelation we have more than one-sixth
of the New Testament usage.
A few words will
dispose of John
must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and they shall
become one flock, one shepherd." This passage
is strong confirmation of my first lecture. Considering the
church abstractly, that is, in the sense of an
institutiton, Christ
purposed to make of twain, Jew and Gentile, one new man. In each particular
church
where Jew and Gentile blend, Christ's purpose is partially
fulfilled. But in the general assembly in glory
Ecclesia - The Church
file:///C|/WINDOWS/Desktop/pdf files ready for CD/2.html (16
of 28) [
it is completely fulfilled.
When in some of
the foregoing Scriptures, Christ is represented as head over all things to the
church
– His body, you easily meet all the requirements of the
language by saying:
(1) He is head over all things to His earth church as an
institution.
(2) He is head over all things to any particular earth
church.
(3) He is head over all things to His general assembly in
glory.
There remain for
consideration only two other Scriptures and then all your questions are
answered,
Ephesians 5:25-27; Hebrews 12: 18-24. And these will receive
particular attention because they were
cited in the first lecture as referring to the general
assembly. On Hebrews
the tense of the verb "Ye are come... to the general
assembly, etc.," prove the present existence of the
general assembly? How else can it be said, ye are come to
it?
To wich I reply:
In Galatians 4,
Paul says that Hagar and Sarah, under an allegory, represent the two covenants.
Hagar, or Mt. Sinai, in Arabia, answering to the Jerusalem
that now is, is the law-covenant gendering to
bondage. Sarah, or Mt. Zion, answering to the Jerusalem above,
is the grace-covenant gendering to
freedom.
So, when in
Hebrews 12 it says, "Ye are not come unto the mount that might be
touched" (i.e., Mt.
Sinai), it simply means ye are not under the law-covenant,
with its threats and horrible outlook. And
when it adds: "Ye are come to
grace-covenant with its promises and glorious outlook. In
other words, what we have actually reached is
a covenant, a regime, a standard of life, and are
under its requirements and incited by its glorious
prospects.
But an exegesis,
based on the tense of that verb, which claims that Christians have already
attained
unto all the alluring elements of the outlook of the
grace-covenant, enumerated in that passage, is as mad
as a March hare.
That
city and country set forth in the preceding chapter, toward
which the faith and hope of the patriarchs
looked. It was a possession to them only in the sense that
they were the heirs of a promised inheritance
reserved in Heaven. Abraham, with the other heirs of that
promise, patiently dwelt in tents, "for he
looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and
maker is God." And all the patriarchs "died
in faith, not having received the promises, but
having seen them and greeted them afar off, yea, promises,
but having seen them and greeted them afar off, yea,
"and these all, having had witness borne to them
through their faith, received not the promise, God having
provided some better things for us, that apart
from us they should not be made perfect" (Heb. 11). And
so we also (Heb. 12:1) run the race set before
us, not yet having attained the goal or received the prize
(Compare 1 Cor.
4:6-8).
Our Lord Himself
held out the promise, "The pure in heart shall see God." But not yet
have we
actually come "to God, the judge." But John, in
his apocalypse of the
assembly, tells the time of attainment: "And they shall
see his face" – Revelation 22:4.
The imagery of
Hebrews 12, is that of the Olympic races. A goal marked the terminus of the
race.
There sat the judge, who, when the races were over, awarded
the prize to the victor. In the Christian race
the goal is the resurrection and then only comes the prize
(See Phil. 3:7-14 and 1 Tim. 4:6-8). It is then
we come to God the judge who awards the prize.
The example of
our Lord is cited, Hebrews 12:2, "The joy set before him" was
prospective and
Ecclesia - The Church
file:///C|/WINDOWS/Desktop/pdf files ready for CD/2.html (17
of 28) [
reached when he sees the travail of his soul and is
satisfied.
The angels of
that category, make unseen visits to us now in our earthly home, but
then we shall in
fact go to the myriads of shining ones in their celestial
home.
Now, on earth,
with the blood of Christ, our consciences, are cleansed from dead works to
serve the
living God. But there, we enter the true Holy of Holies, and
behold where Jesus, the mediator of the new
covenant, did place the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things for us than the blood of Abel, on
the true Mercy-seat to make atonement for sin. As our fore-runner,
the Lord, Himself, has passed
through the veil. But to us, this safe passage, is as yet
only a glorious hope set before us; which we have
as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and
steadfast" – Hebrews
We, yet in our
bodies, have not joined "the spirits of the just made perfect" nor
entered "the general
assembly and church of the first born, who are written in
heaven." When we read Revelation 21 and 22,
we sing: "O when, thou city of my God, shall thy courts
ascend!"
Your question on
Ephesians 5:25-27 is similar. "Verse 29 decalres
that Christ nourishes and
cherishes the church,
as a husband does his wife. Does not this demand the present existence of the
general assembly?"
To which I reply:
(1) The
nourishing and cherishing of verse 29 refer to after marriage conduct, as the
context shows,
and Christ's marriage with the bride is far away in the
future (See Rev. 19:7-9; 21:2, 9, 10).
But let it be
misapplied to the prenuptial state – it matters not. The force of any argument
in the
question is all in the tense of the verbs "nourisheth
and cherisheth." Let us turn that argument loose and
see what it proves. In the whole passage, Christ and the
church come before us under the figures of
bridegroom and bride. The church is conceived of as a unit,
a person, and all the verbs employed,
namely, "loved – gave himself for – might cleanse –
might present-nourishment and cherisheth" follow
the requirements of the figure. But when we come to
historical facts we find:
(1) That the
love, in eternity, preceded the existence of any part of the church.
(2) The giving
Himself preceded the existence of the greater part of the church.
(3) The cleansing
(and the nourishing and cherishing if misapplied) applies to the process of
preparing the members, as each in turn comes upon the stage
of being throughout the gospel dispensation
from Adam to the second advent.
(4) The presentation
of the completed and perfected church follows the second advent.
(5) The
nourishing and cherishing (rightly applied) of the perfected church follows the
presentation.
Now if the
present tense of the nourishing proves present existence of the general
assembly, does
not the past tense of "loved" prove past existence
of the general assembly before man was created? Why
should the tense of one of the verbs have more proof force
in it than another in the same connection? To
grant this, however, proves too much and so the argument
based on tense is worthless in this case.
Appendix
The object of
this appendix is to enable the "average" preacher with few books, and
who knows
nothing of Greek, to form his own conclusions as to the
meaning of ecclesia, based upon an inductive
study of the usage of the word. A few instances only are
cited from the classics, out of the great number
read to my class in second lecture, but enough for the
purpose. These citations will be particularly helpful
Ecclesia - The Church
file:///C|/WINDOWS/Desktop/pdf files ready for CD/2.html (18
of 28) [
in showing the distinction between the particular ecclesia,
or business body of even the smallest Greek
state, and panegyros (general,
festive assembly) when the people of all the Greek states assembled. By
this means even an uneducated preacher may understand the
fitness of calling the great heavenly
gathering in glory the "general assembly and church of
the firstborn" (panegyros kai
ecclesia) in
contra-distinction to the particular business assembly on
earth.
The New Testament
usage is given entire because so few country preachers have the Englishmen's
Greek Concordance.
The Septuagint
usage is also given entire so far as the Tromminus
Concordance (A.D. 1718) cites
instances. This usage is regarded as particularly valuable
for three reasons:
(1) Only about
one preacher in a thousand has access to a Septuagint concordance.
(2) Nearly all
their ideas of the meaning of the word in the Greek Old testament have been
derived
from the loose generalizations of the great Pedobaptist scholars, Harnack,
Hatch, Hort, Cremer, et.
al.,
who seeing that ecclesia sometimes translates the
Hebrew word "qahal," foist upon ecclesia
all the
meanings of qahal in
other connections. You have nothing to do with qahal
except where ecclesia
translates it.
By an inductive
study of all the ecclesia passages, you will see for yourselves that in
the Septuagint
it never means "all
gathering together, and assembly.
(3) This classic,
and particularly this septuagint usage, are specially
valuable to you, because as the
first lecture states, the New Testament writers neither
coined this word nor employed it in an unusual
sense. The apostles and early Christians were more familiar
with the Septuagint than with the Hebrew
Version. From it they generally quoted. They wrote in Greek
to a Greek-speaking world, and used Greek
words as a Greek-speaking people would understand them.
It is a fiction
of Pedo-baptists that they used "baptizo" in a new and sacred sense. Equally is it
a
fiction that Ecclesia was used in any new, special
sense. The object of Christ's ecclesia, and terms of
membership in it, were indeed different from those of the
classic or Septuagint ecclesia. But the word
itself retains its ordinary meaning. In determining this
meaning we look to the common, literal usage. If
occasionally we find it used in a general or figurative way,
these few instances must be construed in
harmony with the common, literal signification.
Classic
Use
Ecclesia. Primary meaning. An organized assembly of citizens,
regularly summoned, as opposed to
other meetings.
Thucydides 2:22:
– "Pericles, seeing them
angry at the present state of things... did not call them to
an assembly (ecclesia) or any other meeting."
Demosthenes 378, 24: – "When after this the assembly (ecclesia) adjourned,
they came together and
planned... For the future still being uncertain, meetings
and speeches of all sorts took place in the
marketplace. They were afraid that an assembly (ecclesia)
would be summoned suddenly, etc." Compare
the distinction here between a lawfully assembled business
body and a mere gathering together of the
people in unofficial capacity, with the town-clerk's
statement in Acts 19:35, 40.
Now some
instances of the particular ecclesia of the several Greek states –
Thucydides 1,87: – "Having said such things, he himself, since he
was ephor, put the question to
vote in the assembly (ecclesia) of the
Spartans."
Ecclesia - The Church
file:///C|/WINDOWS/Desktop/pdf files ready for CD/2.html (19
of 28) [
Thucydides 1,139: – "And the Athenians having made a house (or
called an assembly, ecclesia)
freely exchanged their sentiments."
Aristophanes Act 169: – "But I forbid you calling an assembly (ecclesia)
for the Thracians about
pay."
Thucydides 6,8: – "And the Athenians having convened an assembly (ecclesia)...
voted, etc."
Thucydides 6,2: – "And the Syracusans
having buried their dead, summoned an assembly
(ecclesia)."
This historical
reading concerning the business assemblies of the several petty but
independent,
self-governing Greek states, with their lawful conference,
their free speech, their decision by vote,
whether of Spartans, Thracians, Syracusans
or Athenians, sounds much like the proceedings of particular
and independent Baptist churches today.
Panegyros – A general,
festive assembly of the people of all the Greek states.
Decret. ap. Demos 526,16: – "Embassies to the festal assemblies (panegyros) in
Plato, Hipp. 363: – "Going up to
Pindar: – "The
general assembly (panegyros) in honor of Zeus
(Jupiter)."
Isocrates 41 A: –
"I often wondered at those who organized the general festivals (panegyros).
Aeschylus Theb. 220: – "May this
goodly, general company (panegyros) of gods
never fail the city
in my life time."
Thucydides 5, 50: – "And fear was produced in the general assembly
(panegyros) that the
Lacedaemonians would come
in arms." Upon this usage note how bright and discriminating the Greek
mind.
This general
assembly was not for war but peace. Let not the Spartans come to it with arms
in their
hands. It was not for business but pleasure – a time of
peace, and joy and glory.
In the happy Greek
conceit all the heavenly beings were supposed to be present. How felicitously
does an inspired apostle adapt himself to the Greek use of
the word, and glorify it by application to the
final heavenly state. God the judge, not Zeus, is there.
Myriads of angels, not Greek demi-gods and
inferior deities, are there.
There is a
general assembly in magnitude, multitude and constituency, transcendantly
above the
poor limitations of a small Greek nation – this is made up
of every tribe and tongue and kindred, Jew,
Roman, Greek, barbarian, Scythian, bond and free. Here
warfare is over and rest has come. Here crowns
are awarded, not of fading wreaths of time, but crowns of
life, righteousness, joy and glory.
Ecclesia
– Usage in Septuagint
Cited in the
concordance of Abraham Trommius (1718). Chapters and
verses here given according
to Revised Version for Canonical books; and according to Haydock's Douay Bible for Aprochryphal
books.
Greek text used
for verification Henry Barclay Sweet – Cambridge, 1891.
The English word
in italics is the translation of Ecclesia.
Lev. 8:3 – "Assemble
thou all the congregations."
Here the verb
(ecclesiazo) is used. Though Trommius cites a reading which has the noun.
Ecclesia - The Church
file:///C|/WINDOWS/Desktop/pdf files ready for CD/2.html (20
of 28) [
Deut.
Deut. 23:1, 2, 3,
8 – "Shall not enter into
the assembly of the Lord." Here four times used to
proscribe certain specified classes from admission into the
Lord's assembly."
Deut. 31:30 –
"And Moses spake in the ears of all the assembly
of
Josh.
Judges 20:2 –
"And the chiefs of all the people presented themselves in the assembly of
the people
of God." The place of this assembly was Mizpah.
Judges 21:5 –
"And the children of
not up in the assembly unto the Lord."
Judges 21:8 –
"There came none to the camp from Jabesh-Gilead
to the assembly."
1 Sam.
1 Sam.
1 Kings
– "blessed all the congregation"
– "and all
1 Chron. 13:2, 4 – "David said unto all the assembly of
1 Chron. 28:2 – "David stood up upon his feet – (in the
midst of the assembly)." Nothing in Hebrew
text for the words in parenthesis, and hence nothing in
English version.
1 Chron. 28:8 – "In the sight of all
1 Chron. 29:1 – "The King siad
unto all the congregation."
1 Chron. 29:10 – "David blessed the Lord before all the congregation."
1 Chron. 29:20 – "David said to all the congregation."
2 Chron. 1:3, 5 – "Solomon, and all the congregation with
him." "Solomon and the congregation
sought unto it" (the altar).
2 Chron. 6:3, 12, 13 – "The King turned his face and
blessed all the congregation." "He stood... in
the presence of all the congregation." "He
kneeled down...before all the congregation."
2 Chron. 7: 8 – "Solomon held the feast... and all
2 Chron. 29:5, 14 – "Jehosaphat stood in the congregation."
"Then upon Jahaziel... came the spirit
of the Lord in the midst of the congregation."
2 Chron. 23:3 – "And all the congregation made a
covenant with the King."
2 Chron. 28:14 – "So all the armed men left all the
captives and the spoil before the princes and all
the congregation."
2 Chron. 29:23, 32 – "And they brought...the sin
offering before the King and the congregation" –
Ecclesia - The Church
file:///C|/WINDOWS/Desktop/pdf files ready for CD/2.html (21
of 28) [
"And the number of the burnt offerings which the congregation
brought."
2 Chron. 30:2, 4, 13, 17, 23, 24, 25 – "The King, his
princes and all the congregation." "In the eyes
of the king and all the congregation." "A
very great congregation." "Many in the congregation who
had
not sanctified themselves." "And the congregation
took counsel." "Hezekiah did give to the
congregation." "And all
the congregation."
Ezra 2:64 –
"The whole congregation together was 42,360."
Ezra 10:1 –
"There is gathered together a very great cong regation."
Ezra 10:9 –
"That whosoever came not within three days... should be himself separated
from the
congregation of the
captivity."
Ezra
Ezra
Neh. 5:7 – "And I held a great assembly against
them."
Neh.
Neh. 7:66 – "The whole congregation together
was 42,360."
Neh. 8:2 – "Ezra brought the law before the congregation."
Neh.
Neh. 13:1 – "An Ammonite and Moabite shall not enter
the congregation."
Job 39:28 –
"I stand up in the assembly and cry for help."
Psa.
Psa.
Psa. 26:5 – "I have hated the congregation of
evildoers."
Psa. 26:12 – "In the congregations will I bless
the Lord."
Psa. 35:18 – "I will give thee thanks in the great congregation.
Psm. 49:9 – "I have published thy righteousness in the
great congregation."
Psa. 68:26 – "Bless ye God in the congregations."
Psa. 89:5 – "Thy faithfulness in the assembly of
the holy ones."
Psa. 107:32 – "Let them exalt him in the assembly of
the people."
Psa. 149:1 – "Sing his praise in the assembly of
the saints."
Prov.
Jer. 31:8 – "A great assembly" – instead
of "company" is a variant reading.
Ecclesia - The Church
file:///C|/WINDOWS/Desktop/pdf files ready for CD/2.html (22
of 28) [
Lam.
Ezek. 32:3 –
"Here Codex A. has assembly (ecclesia) instead of
"company."
Joel
Mic. 2:5 – "Cast the line by lot in the congregation
of the Lord."
Apochrypha
Judith
6:2 – "Ozias
took him from the assembly to his house."
14:6 – "Saw
the head of Holofernes in the hand of one of the assembly."
(A reading.)
Ecclesiasticus
15:5 – "In
the midst of the assembly she shall open his mouth."
24:2 –
"Wisdom shall open her mouth in the assemblies of the Most
High."
26:6 – "My
heart hath been afraid of the assembly of the people."
31:11 – "And
the assembly shall declare his alms."
33:19 –
"Hear me, ye rulers of the assembly."
38:37 –
"They shall not go up to the assembly."
39:14 – "The
assembly shall show forth his praise."
44:15 – "Let
the assembly declare his praise."
50:15 –
"Before all the assembly of
50:22 –
"Lifted up his hands over all the assembly of the children of
I Maccabees
Ecclesia - The Church
file:///C|/WINDOWS/Desktop/pdf files ready for CD/2.html (23
of 28) [
2:56 –
"Caleb for bearing witness before the congregation."
3:13 –
"Judas has assembled a company of the faithful."
4:59 –
"Judas, his brethren and all the assembly."
5:16 – "A
great assembly met."
14:19 –
"Read before the assembly in Jerusalem."
Remark on Septuagint Usage
The testimony
here is univocal. It is as solid as the Macedonian phalanx. Some have tried to
make it
appear that four of these ninety-two instances refer to an
unassembled ecclesia. Look at them, read the
context and judge for yourselves. The four passages are: 1
Kings 8:65; 1 Chron. 28:8; Ezra 10:8; Ezek.
32:3. The first two settle themselves.
In Ezra "the
assembly of the Captivity" simply means the 42,360 that returned from the
captivity
and are repeatedly gathered together.
In Ezek. 32:3 an
unreliable reading has ecclesia in the place of company. But
whether company or
ecclesia the idea is the same. The
"many peoples" signify nothing, they do not constitute an ecclesia
until
formed into one company. Xerxes, Timour,
Napoleon and many others formed one great company out of
the contingents of many nations.
Observe
prescribed conditions of membership in Deuteronomy 23 and Nehemiah 13.
The new and
mammoth Septuagint Concordance of Hatch and Redpath,
five folio volumes,
Oxxford, 1893, gives
the following additional instances (not cited by Trommius)
from one text or
another:
Canonical Books
Deut. 4:10; 9:10;
1 Kings 12:3 (from Codex A.); 2 Chron. 10:3; 29:28,
31; 30:25; all rendered
assembly in our Revised Version,
Ezek. 32:23 (from Codex A.) rendered company.
Apochryphal Books
Judith 6: 19, 21 assembly.
I Maccabees 14:9 (assemblies instead of streets).
From Other Greek Versions
of the Old Testament
Ecclesia - The Church
file:///C|/WINDOWS/Desktop/pdf files ready for CD/2.html (24
of 28) [02/03/2000 14:06:37]
Lev. 4:14, 21;
16:17; Psa. 40:9, 10; Prov.
26:26; Jer. 26:17; 44:14. All rendered assembly in
our
Revised Version. And Ezk. 23:47,
26:7; 27:27; 32:22, all rendered company.
This makes the
Old Testament usage amount to about 114 cases, nearly equal in number to New
Testament usage. In no one of the 114 instances does it mean
an unassembled ecclesia.
New Testament Usage of
Ecclesia
(Common Version)
Matt. 16:18 –
"I will build my church."
Matt. 18:17 –
"Tell (it) unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church."
Acts 2:47 –
"the lord added to the church daily."
Acts 5:11 –
"fear came upon all the church."
Acts 7:38 –
"he, that was in the church."
Acts 8:1 –
"the church which was at Jerusalem."
Acts 8:3 –
"He made havoc of the church."
Acts 9:31 –
"Then had the churchesrest."
Acts 11:22 –
"the church which was in Jerusalem."
Acts 11:26 –
"assembled themselves with the church."
Acts 12:1 –
"to vex certain of the church."
Acts 12:5 –
"without ceasing of the church unto God."
Acts 13:1 –
"Now there were in the church."
Acts 14:23 –
"elders in every church, and had."
Acts 14:27 –
"had gathered the church together."
Acts 15:2 –
"on their way by the church."
Acts 15:4 –
"they were received of the church."
Acts 15:22 –
"elders, with the whole church."
Acts 15:41 –
"confirming the churches."
Acts 16:5 –
"so were the churches established."
Acts 18:22 –
"gone up, and saluted the church."
Acts 19:32 –
"for the assembly was confused."
Ecclesia - The Church
file:///C|/WINDOWS/Desktop/pdf files ready for CD/2.html (25
of 28) [02/03/2000 14:06:37]
Acts 19:39 –
"determined in a lawful assembly."
Acts 19:41 –
"thus spoken, he dismissed the assembly."
Acts 20:17 –
"called the elders of the church."
Acts 20:28 –
"to feed the church of God."
Rom. 16:1 –
"is a servant of the church."
Rom. 16:4 –
"all the churches of the Gentiles."
Rom. 16:5 –
"the church that is in their house."
Rom. 16:16 –
"The churches of Christ salute you."
Rom. 16:23 –
"mine host, and of the whole church."
1 Cor. 1:2 – "Unto the church of God which."
1 Cor. 4:17 – "I teach everywhere in every church."
1 Cor. 6:4 – "least esteemed in the church."
1 Cor. 7:17 – "so ordain I in all churches."
1 Cor. 10:32 – "nor to the church of God."
1 Cor. 11:16 – "neither the churches of
God."
1 Cor. 11:18 – "come together in the church."
1 Cor. 11:22 – "or despise ye the church of
God."
1 Cor. 12:28 – "God hath set some in the church."
1 Cor. 14:4 – "that prophesieth
edifieth the church."
1 Cor. 14:5 – "the church may receive
edifying."
1 Cor. 14:12 – "to the edifying of the church."
1 Cor. 14:19 – "in the church I had rather
speak."
1 Cor. 14:23 – "The whole church be come
together."
1 Cor. 14:28 – "keep silence in the church."
1 Cor. 14:33 – "as in all churches of the
saints."
1 Cor. 14:34 – "keep silence in the churches."
1 Cor. 14:35 – "for women to speak in the church."
1 Cor. 15:9 – "I persecuted the church of
God."
Ecclesia - The Church
file:///C|/WINDOWS/Desktop/pdf files ready for CD/2.html (26
of 28) [02/03/2000 14:06:37]
1 Cor. 16:1 – "to the churches of Galatia."
1 Cor. 16:19 – "The churches of Asia salute
you." – "with the church that is in their house."
2 Cor. 1:1 – "unto the church of God which."
2 Cor. 8:1 – "on the churches of Macedonia."
2 Cor. 8:18 – "gospel throughout all the churches."
2 Cor. 8:19 – "was also chosen of the churches.
2 Cor. 8:23 – "the messengers of the churches."
2 Cor. 8:24 – "to them, and before the churches."
2 Cor. 11:8 – "I robbed other churches taking."
2 Cor. 11:28 – "the care of the churches."
2 Cor. 12:13 – "were inferior to the churches."
Gal. 1:2 –
"unto the churches of Galatia.
Gal. 1:13 –
"I persecuted the church of God."
Gal. 1:22 –
"unto the churches of Judea."
Eph. 1:22 –
"gave him (to be) the head over all (things) to the church."
Eph. 3:10 –
"might be known by the church."
Eph. 3:21 –
"glory in the church by Christ Jesus."
Eph. 5:23 –
"Christ is the head of the church."
Eph. 5:24 –
"the church is subject unto Christ."
Eph. 5:25 –
"as Christ also loved the church."
Eph. 5:27 –
"to himself a glorious church."
Eph. 5:29 –
"even as the Lord the church."
Eph. 5:32 –
"concerning Christ and the church."
Phil. 3:6 –
"Concerning zeal, persecuting the church."
Phil. 4:15 –
"no church communicated with me."
Col. 1:18 –
"the head of the body, the church."
Col. 1:24 – "body's
sake, which is the church."
Col. 4:15 –
"the church which is in the house."
Ecclesia - The Church
file:///C|/WINDOWS/Desktop/pdf files ready for CD/2.html (27
of 28) [02/03/2000 14:06:37]
Col. 4:16 –
"in the church of the Laodiceans."
1 Thess. 1:1 – "unto the church of the
Thessalonians."
1 Thess. 2:14 – "followers of the churches of
God."
2 Thess. 1:1 – "unto the churches of the
Thessalonians."
2 Thess. 1:4 – "in you in the churches of
God."
1 Tim. 3:5 –
"take care of the church of God."
1 Tim. 3:15 –
"the church of the living God."
1 Tim. 5:16 –
"let not the church be charged."
Philemon 2 –
"to the church in thy house."
NOTES
1This work is available in
booklet form along with many other books dealing with the Baptist faith and
doctrine from: Challenge Press, P.O. Box 5567, Little
Rock, Arkansas.72215 or send email referenceing
the Challenge Press