Introduction
Ekklhsia is the
Greek word translated as church or assembly and means
a called-out company (from
ek—out
of—and
klesiV —a
calling). The simple purpose of this article is to look at how
ekklhsia is used
in the Bible with a view to improving our understanding of God’s
Assembly. Of course, a word study alone cannot provide all that is
needed, but without it, we cannot hope to make genuine progress.
Matthew’s Gospel
As is
well-known, the Lord uses
ekklhsia in
Matt. 16: 18 and Matt. 18: 17. However, we must not take what we
know from later Scriptures, and force that knowledge on these two
verses. Instead, we need to understand what the disciples in the
Gospels would have made of the word assembly when they
heard the Lord use it. Now the disciples were all Jews and
therefore steeped in the OT.
Ekklhsia occurs
with some frequency in the Greek translation of the OT, but we
should not imagine, for example, that when Joshua read before the
ekklhsia in Josh.
8: 35 that what we now call ‘the Church’ is in view! Clearly, the
context of Joshua 8 is the nation of Israel (comp. Acts 7: 38).
Hence, when the Lord Jesus declared in Matt. 16: 18 His intention to
build His own assembly, the disciples would have no thought of this
as Christ’s body on earth as taught in Col. 1: 24,
connected to Christ as Head in heaven (see Eph. 4: 15, 16)—a
truth, in any case, not revealed until after the Lord’s death (see
Eph. 3: 5, 6). All would be understood as within a Jewish
framework—particularly since the Lord had commanded them earlier to
preach exclusively “to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt.
10: 6). Not only was Christ’s Assembly a new thing that had not
existed before (“I will build”—Matt. 16: 18, my
emphasis) but the disciples at the time could not know
what was revealed later concerning it.
Certainly, the new
assembly had a very different foundation from any that had gone
before, for on the revelation to Peter by the Father that Jesus was
“the Son of the living God” (v16), the Lord confirmed that he would
“build my assembly, and hades’ gates shall not prevail against it”
(v18). Hence this
ekklhsia was to be
founded on victory over death, and accordingly, could not be formed
until the Lord rose triumphant from the grave. Neither Mark nor Luke
uses the words ‘Son of the living God’ (see Mark 8: 27-30; Luke 9:
18-21) and so neither speak of the Assembly. However, there is no
suggestion that the disciples grasped the necessity of what was
being said as to death and resurrection, for when the Lord went on
to speak of how He must “be killed, and the third day be raised”
(Matt. 16: 21), Peter “began to rebuke him” (v22). Furthermore,
while the resurrection is recorded in Matthew, the Lord’s ascension
into heaven is conspicuous by its absence, and Matthew leaves the
Lord with His disciples on earth “until the completion of the age”
(Matt. 28: 20). Clearly, the disciples (as presented in Mathew) had
no reason at this point to conceive of the
ekklhsia as being
anything other than rooted on the earth—in line with their Jewish
outlook. A Scripture like Eph. 2: 6 (“and has made [us] sit down
together in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus”) would have made no
sense to them.
Similar comments
can be made about Matt. 18: 15-20, and particularly v17, “tell it to
the assembly”. The Lord’s promise to those gathered unto His name to
be “in the midst of them” (Matt. 18: 20) would surely recall to the
disciple’s minds how God had said He would “dwell in the midst of
the children of Israel” (Exod. 29: 45) and how “in all places where
I shall make my name to be remembered, I will come unto thee, and
bless thee” (Exod. 20: 24). There was no reason for them to think
that
ekklhsia in
Matthew 18 meant any more that a called-out Jewish company from an
apostate nation. That this is the case is seen in the exclusion of
the offender, such that he “be to thee as one of the nations
and a tax-gatherer” (v17, my emphasis). This is Jewish language that
regards the Gentiles as both distinct and separate and is clean
contrary to Eph. 2 where Jew and Gentile are formed “into one new
man” (v15), reconciled “in one body to God by the cross” (v16) and
“built together for a habitation of God in [the] Spirit” (v22).
The Other Gospel Writers
The Assembly is not mentioned in Mark, although
there is an account of the first episode of Christian evangelism in
Mark 16: 20. Nor is the Assembly referenced in Luke’s Gospel—which
may seem remarkable in the light of Luke’s authorship of the book of
Acts. However, it only surprising because it has been assumed that
Acts was written to describe the early history of the Assembly. That
early history is described, but the purpose of Acts is
to explain how the kingdom was reoffered to Israel and rejected in
line with Luke 13: 6-9; 19: 11-27. There is really nothing in Luke
or Acts that is out of keeping with a Jewish concept of the
Assembly. While the kingdom was still on offer, there was no
instruction to totally abandon Judaism and to “go forth to him”
(Heb. 13: 13), and the Assembly was simply a “way” (see Acts 9: 2;
19: 23; 22: 4; 24: 14, 22) within Judaism (or a “sect”—Acts 24: 5;
28: 22). The Gentiles were brought into blessing (see Acts 11: 18)
as Luke had foretold (see Luke 2: 32) but this was in line with OT
prophecy (see Is. 42: 6; 49: 6) rather than the new revelation that
“the nations should be joint heirs, and a joint body, and joint
partakers” (Eph. 3: 6).
John’s Gospel
presupposes Christianity in its outlook (see John 4: 23; 10: 16
etc.) but the word
ekklhsia is
absent. Why is it not there? I think the reason is perhaps because
John wrote when the Christian profession had grown large, and there
was a danger of losing sight of the necessity for individual
spiritual reality (see John 20: 31). The same emphasis is evident in
his epistles, where
ekklhsia is used
three times (see 3 John vs. 6, 9, 10). Two of these epistles are, of
course, written to individuals, while the other is written to
“children” (1 John 2: 1; 5: 21 etc.) and employs the word brother
(stressing the individual nature of the relationship) frequently.
Of course, the
apostle John also wrote Revelation, in which the assemblies in seven
cities are taken up in their responsibility as before the Lord to
shine in testimony—“the seven lamps are seven assemblies” (Rev. 1:
20). Hence, “all the assemblies shall know that I am he that
searches [the] reins and [the] hearts; and I will give to you each
according to your works” (Rev. 2: 23). Each assembly was answerable
for its own state, but an assembly is not some nebulous abstract
entity but people (see 1 Pet. 2: 5) and hence it is
individuals that must respond to the divine assessment. Certainly,
some are less responsible for the state than others (see Rev. 2: 24)
but this does not remove the duty of all to be overcomers.
There is also a
responsibility incumbent on “He that has an ear” to “hear what the
Spirit says to the assemblies” (see Rev. 2: 7 etc., my
emphasis), a charge repeated to all seven assemblies. Thus when John
writes “to the seven assemblies which [are] in Asia” (Rev. 1: 4; see
also Rev. 22: 16) they are not only written to as individual
localities but collectively, for each message has relevance for all.
Local responsibility never equates to absolute independence—judgment
begins “from the house of God” (1 Pet. 4: 17, my
emphasis) not from the houses of God! No assembly can
say that the state another assembly is nothing to do with
them. What, for example, would Philadelphia do with visitors from
its near neighbour Laodicea, seeing as their Lord had charged His
own there to repent (see Rev. 3: 19)? To say that Philadelphia could
receive such simply as Christians (as some say) without any
reference to that call to repentance is outrageous. Nobody
can be received simply as a Christian—he is also a representative of
the assembly from whence he comes. No company exists in a bubble:
“And when the letter has been read among you, cause that it be read
also in the assembly of Laodiceans, and that ye also read
that from Laodicea” (Col. 4: 16).
The Book of Acts
The
book of Acts refers to the assembly in very simple terms, typically
the assembly in a city (for example, “the assembly which was in
Jerusalem”—Acts 8: 1), or those in an area (for example, “the
assemblies then throughout the whole of Judaea and Galilee and
Samaria had peace”—Acts 9: 31). Other local assemblies besides
Jerusalem are referenced (see Acts 13: 1; 18: 22; 20: 17) and a
definite connection is made between a ‘city’ and its ‘assembly’
(compare Acts 15: 36 with v41 and Acts 16: 4 with v5).
The use of the plural form of
ekklhsia (see also
Rom. 16: 4; 1 Cor. 16: 1, 19; 2 Cor. 8: 1, 18, 23, 24; 11: 28; Gal.
1: 2 etc.) indicates a connectiveness between them. See, for
example, how one individual was chosen “by the assemblies” as Paul’s
“fellow-traveller” (2 Cor. 8: 19). Of course, once the Assembly had
spread beyond the bounds of Jerusalem, it became impractical for it
to gather together as one, and so each city had its own local
gathering. This did not, however, break the collective unity. Paul
writes, for example, not
only to “the assembly of God which is in Corinth” but “with all that
in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 1:
2).
Now although
geography necessitates many local assemblies, it is clear from Matt.
16: 18 that, essentially, there really is only one.
Generally speaking, however, Luke does not refer to this universal
aspect (even his use of the plural form of
ekklhsia is
invariably restricted to a district). There are allusions to the
Assembly as the body of Christ in Acts 9: 5; 22: 7; 26: 14), but
nothing comparable to, for example, Col. 1: 18: “And he is
the head of the body, the assembly”. This is in keeping with Luke’s
purpose in writing, which is to trace God’s long-suffering towards
Israel, even after they had put Christ to death and spurned God’s
subsequent re-offer of the kingdom (see Acts 3: 19-21; 7: 1-60; 28:
23-31 etc.). It is left to the apostle Paul to “complete the word of
God” (Col. 1: 25) and to bring out the fulness of the truth of the
Assembly as a distinct body from Judaism. Interestingly, Paul is the
only writer in the NT to use the expression
Assembly of God (see 1 Cor. 1: 2; 10: 32; 11: 22; 15: 9; 2 Cor.
1: 1; Gal. 1: 13; 1 Tim. 3: 5) as well as assemblies of God
(see 1 Cor. 11: 16; 1 Thess. 2: 14; 2 Thess. 1: 4) and assemblies
of Christ (see Rom. 16: 16). Acts 20: 28 might seem to be an
exception to this, but although it is from Luke’s pen, it is in
Paul’s words. Acts, however, is a transitional book,
and while Paul’s ministry to the saints brought out the
distinctiveness of “the assembly of God” from “Jews, or Greeks” (1
Cor. 10: 32), there is no indication that the fulness of the truth
was arrived at from the start (and, indeed, it could not be, seeing
as the kingdom was still being offered to Israel).
The Assembly of God and other Expressions
Some say that while assemblies of God has
the collective in view, assembly of God is always restricted
in its scope to a specific assembly in a city. This is not true. In
Gal. 1: 13 Paul speaks of how he “persecuted the assembly of God,
and ravaged it”. However, in vs. 22, 23 he recalls that “I was
unknown personally to the assemblies of Judaea which
[are] in Christ; only they were hearing that he who persecuted us
formerly now announced the glad tidings of the faith which formerly
he ravaged” (my emphasis). Clearly the assembly of God in v13 is
synonymous with the assemblies of Judaea in v22. Again, (referring
to the aftermath of the same persecution), Luke says, “The
assemblies then throughout the whole of Judaea and Galilee and
Samaria had peace” (Acts 9: 31). Many Greek manuscripts have
‘assembly’ here instead of “assemblies”, in which case the singular
would refer to a district of many assemblies. It is rather silly to
try and evade this by saying that v31 refers back to the assembly as
it was in Jerusalem and from which it had been so recently scattered
(see Acts 8: 1) for Gal. 1: 22 speaks of distinct assemblies in
their own right, not merely remnants of the assembly in Jerusalem.
Indeed, when it says Paul “ravaged the assembly” (Acts 8: 3)
why assume that only the assembly in Jerusalem is meant? Verse 1
tells us that a great persecution arose in Jerusalem in which Paul
participated (see Acts 26: 10). The effect of this was that most of
the saints “were scattered into the countries of Judaea and Samaria”
(Acts 8: 1). Then, it says, “Saul ravaged the
assembly” (v3) and since only the apostles remained in Jerusalem,
Paul’s persecution of Christians necessarily expanded beyond the
capital “even to cities out [of our own land]” (Acts 26: 11). When,
years later, Paul recounts his past life, he does not say
‘persecuting the assembly in Jerusalem’ but simply “persecuting the
assembly” (Phil. 3: 6)! The same applies in 1 Cor. 15: 9: “I have
persecuted the assembly of God”. Here it cannot be the assembly in
Jerusalem because then Paul would surely have said ‘I have
persecuted an assembly of God’ (or named the
location).
Why then does Paul
use the plural “assemblies of God” in, for example, 1 Cor. 11: 16?
Account must always be taken of the context. The point the apostle
is making is that wherever the Corinthians might look, no other
Christian assembly shared their customs around headship: “But if any
one think to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor the
assemblies of God”. If Corinth wished to be different from what Paul
taught, then it was setting itself against what was universally
held. The same principle is seen elsewhere: “thus I ordain in all
the assemblies” (1 Cor. 7: 17) and “according as I teach everywhere
in every assembly” (1 Cor. 4: 17; see also 1 Cor. 14: 33)—consistent
teaching everywhere produced consistent practice.
Necessarily, assembly of God supposes
other assemblies not of God (comp. Acts 19: 32, 39, 41) but the
sense of the term can hardly be limited to mere contrast. I would
suggest that the force of assembly of
God is responsibility and accountability.
God is holy and righteous, and the Assembly called out to Him must,
accordingly, be of the same character for “If any one corrupt the
temple of God, him shall God destroy, for the temple of God
is holy, and such are ye” (1 Cor. 3: 17). Hence the
Corinthians were reminded of their status as “the assembly of God
which is in Corinth” (1 Cor. 1: 2) before Paul critiques their moral
and doctrinal errors. He reprimands them for despising “the assembly
of God” (1 Cor. 11: 22) when they came together and warns them to
“Give no occasion to stumbling, whether to Jews, or Greeks, or the
assembly of God” (1 Cor. 10: 32). As we have already seen,
responsibility was also laid on the Ephesian elders to “shepherd the
assembly of God” (Acts 20: 28)—they were stewards of that which God
had purchased at great cost to Himself. Similarly, “if one does not
know how to conduct his own house, how shall he take care of the
assembly of God?” (1 Tim. 3: 5).
The language used
in Thessalonians is subtly different, where the saints are uniquely
addressed as being “in God [the] Father and [the] Lord
Jesus Christ” (1 Thess. 1: 1, my emphasis; see also 2 Thess. 1: 1).
Here the thought is not so much responsibility but security, for the
saints there needed reassurance—and what greater reassurance is
there than to be both in God the Father and in
the Lord Jesus Christ (comp. John 10: 28, 29)?
The expression
“the assemblies of Christ” (Rom. 16: 16, my emphasis)
is certainly more elevated terminology than “the assemblies of the
nations” (v4) and emphasizes the focal point of the company rather
than its constituents. A slightly different term occurs in 1 Thess.
2: 14 where persecuted assemblies are not only said to be located
“in Judaea” but also “in Christ Jesus” (see also Gal. 1: 22). To be
‘in Christ Jesus’ refers to the place of blessing that
saints have as associated with Christ in glory.
The Assembly as Come Together
Now it
is sometimes said that an assembly is not an assembly if it never
assembles, but while containing truth, this statement is misleading.
The Greek words translated assemble (or gathered together)
in the NT are not related to
ekklhsia and have
the sense of bring together or come together. An
assembly, by contrast, is a called-out company and never
ceases to be called out, even though it may not always be publicly
brought together.
Now the convening
of an assembly is not just a congregation. The word is not simply
“when ye come together” but “when ye come together in assembly”
(1 Cor. 11: 18). The AV has “when ye come together in the church”,
which lends itself to the false idea of the ‘church’ as a building
to be visited. In this regard, it is interesting that houses
are the only locations definitively linked to God’s Assembly (see
Rom. 16: 5; 1 Cor. 16: 19; Col. 4: 15; Philemon v2; see also Rom.
16: 23). Why the stress on houses? Could it be that the Spirit of
God anticipated the development of sanctified ‘places of worship’
and inserted these references as a guard? To “come together in
assembly” (1 Cor. 11: 18) is to come together in assembly
character. It is a company convened in the conscious
awareness of being called-out to the Lord, and seeking His spiritual
presence (see Matt. 18: 20; John 14: 28). It follows that in a true
meeting of the assembly, the Lord is the focus—not just as the
subject matter (as might be the case in a Bible study) but as
personally before the saints. Characteristically, our place
is “with those that call upon the Lord out of a pure heart” (2 Tim.
2: 22)—a calling that connects us (by the Spirit) with Christ at
God’s right hand. Thus the assembly, as properly convened, is
characterised by prayer, praise and worship.
Other things
necessarily flow from this assembly character. It is “[the] assembly
of [the] living God” (1 Tim. 3: 15, my emphasis), and
necessarily has an order connected with it that God Himself has
ordained. Thus, for example, 1 Cor. 11: 3, “I wish you to know that
the Christ is the head of every man, but woman’s head [is] the man,
and the Christ’s head God” (v3). This underpins what is laid down in
vs. 4-16, but also in 1 Cor. 14: 35—“it is a shame for a woman to
speak in assembly”—an injunction widely flouted today. Certainly,
the world (and worldly Christians) do not like these instructions,
but we have been called-out from the world. To ignore
what the apostle says is essentially to give up assembly character.
However, the
Assembly is not just characterised by persevering in the teaching of
the apostles (see Acts 2: 42) but it is also a vessel filled with
the Spirit of God (see 1 Cor. 3: 16). Indeed, the NT is written for
people indwelt by the Holy Spirit rather than those following a
rulebook. Thus while there are examples of ‘assembly practice’
recorded for us in the Scriptures much is left unsaid. Certainly, we
can learn from what is said concerning “whenever ye come together”
(1 Cor. 14: 26) but despite this and other examples, it is
undeniable that there is a relative dearth in assembly practice
preserved for us. This means that there are many things not
prescribed in apostolic doctrine and practice which need to be
‘worked out’ in a godly way as subject, by the Spirit, to the
leading of the Lord. The ‘formalisation of procedure’, so beloved in
some circles, is really man attempting to legislate where God has
not.
Headship and the Body
Although they would deny it, the problem with some
today is that while they may concede the doctrine of Christ as “head
of the body, the assembly” (Col. 1: 18), they do not see it as
having practical relevance, since their concept of the Assembly is
really only a body that has been left on earth by God to ‘get on
with it’. They are like the Colossians, who had not held fast the
truth of Christ’s headship (Col. 2: 19) and were being directed by
philosophy (see Col. 2: 8) and by the teachings of men (see v22). In
response, Paul urged them to “Let the word of the Christ dwell in
you richly” (Col. 3: 16), for it is only as “holding fast the head”
that the body “increases with the increase of God” (Col. 2: 19) and
that saints are enabled to “stand perfect and complete in all [the]
will of God” (Col. 4: 12). Indeed, Christ is “head over all
things to the assembly, which is his body” (Eph. 1: 22, my
emphasis)—the sense of which is that even now we not
only recognise Him as head of the body, but also as in that
universal headship in which He will be publicly acclaimed in a
coming day.
It is in the
Ephesians that Paul is able to develop, in a very full way, the
relationship between Christ and the Assembly. Two great things are
presented in Eph. 5: 22-33: the love of Christ and the subjection of
the Assembly.
Now when the
Lord said, “I will
build my assembly” (Matt. 16: 18) the clear inference is that it was
going to be a company exclusively belonging to Him. What we learn
from Ephesians is what Christ would do in order to
make it doubly His: “even as the Christ also loved the assembly and
has delivered himself up for it” (Eph. 5: 25) with a view to
presenting it “to himself glorious, having no spot, or wrinkle, or
any of such things; but that it might be holy and blameless” (v27).
Furthermore, this loving attention of Christ on the Assembly was not
confined to His death (precious as that is) but is ongoing, and with
a view to union with Him: “For no one has ever hated his own flesh,
but nourishes and cherishes it, even as also the Christ the
assembly: for we are members of his body … and the two shall be one
flesh. This mystery is great, but I speak as to Christ and as
to the assembly” (vs. 29-32).
Then just as “a
husband is head of the wife” so “also the Christ [is] head of the
assembly” (v23) and “even as the assembly is subjected to the
Christ, so also wives to their own husbands in everything” (v24). Do
not pass over those words in everything because they explain
what Paul means by “even as the assembly is subjected to the
Christ”—just as the wife is to be subject to her husband in
everything, so the Assembly is subjected to Christ in
everything. In the light of this, we might seriously ask
ourselves: ‘Where or who do we really take direction
from?’ It is very disturbing to see ‘churches’ aping contemporary
culture when it is in the Assembly that “the
all-various wisdom of God” is to be made known to “the
principalities and authorities in the heavenlies” (Eph. 3: 10)!
Conclusion
Space
precludes any more being said but having briefly surveyed the divine
thoughts concerning the Assembly, it is fitting to conclude with a
doxology to God: “to him be glory in the assembly in Christ Jesus
until all generations of the age of ages. Amen” (Eph. 3: 21).
