Spirit baptism: The
alleged reference
alleged reference
in 1 Corinthians 12:13, part 1
1 Corinthians 12:13 is the lynchpin upon which
the structure of the universal church dispensational (UCD) doctrine of Spirit
baptism is based [i]—deprived
of the verse, it is very difficult to even attempt to defend it
exegetically. The verse reads, “For
by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into
one Spirit.”[ii] UCDs argue that “in this dispensation
those who place their faith in Jesus Christ have been baptized into the body of
Christ, both Jew and Gentile, and are now seen as one in the body of Christ (1
Cor. 12:12–13). . . . According to 1 Corinthians 12:13, it is the Spirit who
baptizes Jew and Gentile into one body.”[iii] “Every believer is baptized by the
Spirit . . . The Spirit forms the church . . . by baptizing all believers into
the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:12, 13).” [iv] However, 1 Corinthians 12:13 teaches
nothing of the kind. In the verse,
Paul teaches that the members of the church at Corinth, led by the Holy Spirit,
were all baptized in water to join the membership of that local assembly—the
particular congregation, not a non-extant universal church, being the body of
Christ—and that all the members of that assembly partook of the common blessing
of the Lord’s Supper. The
theological division between UCDs and historic Baptists on the significance of
1 Corinthians 12:13 may be resolved into the following questions: a.) Is the body of Christ the visible
congregation or a universal, invisible church? b.) Does Christ baptize with the
Spirit, or does the Holy Spirit baptize? c.) Was Spirit baptism a completed
historical phenomenon at the time Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, or is it a event that
takes place regularly throughout the entire dispensation of grace? The following few posts will deal with
these questions.
the structure of the universal church dispensational (UCD) doctrine of Spirit
baptism is based [i]—deprived
of the verse, it is very difficult to even attempt to defend it
exegetically. The verse reads, “For
by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into
one Spirit.”[ii] UCDs argue that “in this dispensation
those who place their faith in Jesus Christ have been baptized into the body of
Christ, both Jew and Gentile, and are now seen as one in the body of Christ (1
Cor. 12:12–13). . . . According to 1 Corinthians 12:13, it is the Spirit who
baptizes Jew and Gentile into one body.”[iii] “Every believer is baptized by the
Spirit . . . The Spirit forms the church . . . by baptizing all believers into
the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:12, 13).” [iv] However, 1 Corinthians 12:13 teaches
nothing of the kind. In the verse,
Paul teaches that the members of the church at Corinth, led by the Holy Spirit,
were all baptized in water to join the membership of that local assembly—the
particular congregation, not a non-extant universal church, being the body of
Christ—and that all the members of that assembly partook of the common blessing
of the Lord’s Supper. The
theological division between UCDs and historic Baptists on the significance of
1 Corinthians 12:13 may be resolved into the following questions: a.) Is the body of Christ the visible
congregation or a universal, invisible church? b.) Does Christ baptize with the
Spirit, or does the Holy Spirit baptize? c.) Was Spirit baptism a completed
historical phenomenon at the time Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, or is it a event that
takes place regularly throughout the entire dispensation of grace? The following few posts will deal with
these questions.
a.)
Is the body of Christ the visible congregation or a universal, invisible
church?
Is the body of Christ the visible congregation or a universal, invisible
church?
The body of Christ, referred to in 1 Corinthians
12:13, is the particular, local assembly.
It is not a universal and invisible church because no such entity is
found in the New Testament. While
a discussion of the many proofs of the unscriptural nature of the universal
church dogma would go beyond the boundaries of the present composition,[v]
and, besides, this blog has elsewhere carefully refuted the universl church
position, it will briefly be noted that the word translated church, ekklesia, never is used for
a universal, invisible entity in any of its 115 appearances in the New
Testament.[vi] The LXX, in accord with the
significance of the word in classical Greek, likewise employs ekklesia of local, visible assemblies, not of anything
unassembled[vii]
and invisible.[viii] While the family of God is a universal, invisible entity that consists of
all believers everywhere (Galatians 3:26), a church is a particular, local, visible congregation. The major metaphors for the church also
demonstrate that the idea of a universal, invisible church is false. The church is Christ’s body (1
Corinthians 12:27), His temple (1 Timothy 3:15), and His bride (2 Corinthians
11:2).[ix] Bodies are very local and visible—a
bunch of flesh and bones scattered around the globe is not a body. A temple is
in one particular location, available for everyone to see; bricks scattered all over the place are
not a building at all. And certainly
every man on his wedding day rejoices that his bride is very local and visible,
not invisible or cut into little pieces which are scattered all over the
earth! Christ’s church is not a
building, a denomination, or something universal and invisible; it is a particular assembly of baptized
saints.
12:13, is the particular, local assembly.
It is not a universal and invisible church because no such entity is
found in the New Testament. While
a discussion of the many proofs of the unscriptural nature of the universal
church dogma would go beyond the boundaries of the present composition,[v]
and, besides, this blog has elsewhere carefully refuted the universl church
position, it will briefly be noted that the word translated church, ekklesia, never is used for
a universal, invisible entity in any of its 115 appearances in the New
Testament.[vi] The LXX, in accord with the
significance of the word in classical Greek, likewise employs ekklesia of local, visible assemblies, not of anything
unassembled[vii]
and invisible.[viii] While the family of God is a universal, invisible entity that consists of
all believers everywhere (Galatians 3:26), a church is a particular, local, visible congregation. The major metaphors for the church also
demonstrate that the idea of a universal, invisible church is false. The church is Christ’s body (1
Corinthians 12:27), His temple (1 Timothy 3:15), and His bride (2 Corinthians
11:2).[ix] Bodies are very local and visible—a
bunch of flesh and bones scattered around the globe is not a body. A temple is
in one particular location, available for everyone to see; bricks scattered all over the place are
not a building at all. And certainly
every man on his wedding day rejoices that his bride is very local and visible,
not invisible or cut into little pieces which are scattered all over the
earth! Christ’s church is not a
building, a denomination, or something universal and invisible; it is a particular assembly of baptized
saints.
Furthermore, the immediate context of 1
Corinthians 12:13 demonstrates that the body metaphor refers to the particular
congregation. 1 Corinthians 12:27,
the only verse in the New Testament that defines the body of Christ, addresses
the particular congregation at Corinth (1 Corinthians 1:2) and states, “Now ye
are the body of Christ, and members in particular.” The Pauline exhortation to unity in 1 Corinthians makes it
evident that the apostle employed the body metaphor to emphasize the need for
real oneness among the brethren in the city of Corinth. His purpose was not to teach some sort
of theoretical church-unity between believers at Corinth, Ephesus, Galatia, and
everywhere else. In 12:14-27, Paul
tells the members of the Corinthian congregation that each of them is required
for the smooth function of the assembly—one is like an eye, the other like a
hand, another like a nose, and their united functionality underneath the
direction of Christ the Head (Ephesians 1:22-23) is necessary for their
congregational “body” to work effectively, just as united functionality of
literal body parts is necessary for a healthy human body. The local sense of “body” in v. 14-27
is directly tied to the statement of v. 13 by the explanatory word “for” and
requires a local sense of the body metaphor in 12:13. Furthermore, universalizing the Pauline image to make
members of the congregation at Corinth into parts of a body cut up into pieces
all over the world would not only violate the necessarily localized nature of a
living body but do nothing to advance Paul’s purpose of promoting Corinthian
unity—rather, a universal body would have further contributed to Corinthian
division, as today the Protestant universal church doctrine, when adopted by
Baptist churches, contributes to a neglect of, disrespect for, and a failure to
adequately strive for genuine, Scriptural unity within particular
assemblies. 1 Corinthians 12:13
cannot refer to the Spirit placing someone into the universal, invisible church
as the body of Christ, because the body of Christ is the local, visible
assembly in the context of 1 Corinthians 12 and in the rest of the New
Testament.
Corinthians 12:13 demonstrates that the body metaphor refers to the particular
congregation. 1 Corinthians 12:27,
the only verse in the New Testament that defines the body of Christ, addresses
the particular congregation at Corinth (1 Corinthians 1:2) and states, “Now ye
are the body of Christ, and members in particular.” The Pauline exhortation to unity in 1 Corinthians makes it
evident that the apostle employed the body metaphor to emphasize the need for
real oneness among the brethren in the city of Corinth. His purpose was not to teach some sort
of theoretical church-unity between believers at Corinth, Ephesus, Galatia, and
everywhere else. In 12:14-27, Paul
tells the members of the Corinthian congregation that each of them is required
for the smooth function of the assembly—one is like an eye, the other like a
hand, another like a nose, and their united functionality underneath the
direction of Christ the Head (Ephesians 1:22-23) is necessary for their
congregational “body” to work effectively, just as united functionality of
literal body parts is necessary for a healthy human body. The local sense of “body” in v. 14-27
is directly tied to the statement of v. 13 by the explanatory word “for” and
requires a local sense of the body metaphor in 12:13. Furthermore, universalizing the Pauline image to make
members of the congregation at Corinth into parts of a body cut up into pieces
all over the world would not only violate the necessarily localized nature of a
living body but do nothing to advance Paul’s purpose of promoting Corinthian
unity—rather, a universal body would have further contributed to Corinthian
division, as today the Protestant universal church doctrine, when adopted by
Baptist churches, contributes to a neglect of, disrespect for, and a failure to
adequately strive for genuine, Scriptural unity within particular
assemblies. 1 Corinthians 12:13
cannot refer to the Spirit placing someone into the universal, invisible church
as the body of Christ, because the body of Christ is the local, visible
assembly in the context of 1 Corinthians 12 and in the rest of the New
Testament.
Furthermore, 1 Corinthians 12:25 states that
there should be no schism in the body (cf. Ephesians 4:3-4). If all believers are the body of
Christ, and unity is commanded in the body, then it would be a sin for a
Bible-believing Baptist to separate from any believer whatsoever, whether he is
part of the church of Rome, one committing the grossest forms of sexual
immorality, or a terribly compromised neo-evangelical, for such separation
would be sowing discord in the body of Christ. Ecclesiastical separation from any believer would be
sin. However, such a conclusion
directly contradicts the Biblical imperative to separate from disobedient
brethren (2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14), and the example within 1 Corinthians itself
of separation from an errant believer (5:1-5). The UCD position cannot consistently apply the Biblical
standard of unity to its universal “church” and practice the Biblical doctrine
of separation.[x] Indeed, an examination of the nature of
the genuine unity in orthodoxy and orthopraxy commanded within the assembly
(Ephesians 4:3-16) demonstrates that the tremendous discord of doctrine and
practice within the alleged universal “church” has very little to do with the
Bible. Since the body of Christ is
the visible and local assembly, the conflict inherent in the UCD view is
removed by the historic Baptist doctrine, for an imperative for unity within an
assembly of the Lord’s people is entirely consistent with the removal of a
disobedient or doctrinally errant brother from a congregation by church
discipline.
there should be no schism in the body (cf. Ephesians 4:3-4). If all believers are the body of
Christ, and unity is commanded in the body, then it would be a sin for a
Bible-believing Baptist to separate from any believer whatsoever, whether he is
part of the church of Rome, one committing the grossest forms of sexual
immorality, or a terribly compromised neo-evangelical, for such separation
would be sowing discord in the body of Christ. Ecclesiastical separation from any believer would be
sin. However, such a conclusion
directly contradicts the Biblical imperative to separate from disobedient
brethren (2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14), and the example within 1 Corinthians itself
of separation from an errant believer (5:1-5). The UCD position cannot consistently apply the Biblical
standard of unity to its universal “church” and practice the Biblical doctrine
of separation.[x] Indeed, an examination of the nature of
the genuine unity in orthodoxy and orthopraxy commanded within the assembly
(Ephesians 4:3-16) demonstrates that the tremendous discord of doctrine and
practice within the alleged universal “church” has very little to do with the
Bible. Since the body of Christ is
the visible and local assembly, the conflict inherent in the UCD view is
removed by the historic Baptist doctrine, for an imperative for unity within an
assembly of the Lord’s people is entirely consistent with the removal of a
disobedient or doctrinally errant brother from a congregation by church
discipline.
–TDR
[i]
In the
words of the UCD John F. Walvoord:
“[T]he Scriptures make it plain that every Christian is baptized by the
Holy Spirit at the moment of salvation. Salvation and baptism are therefore
coextensive, and it is impossible to be saved without this work of the Holy
Spirit. This is expressly stated in the central passage on the doctrine, ‘For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into
one Spirit’” (pg. 423, “The Person of the Holy Spirit Part 7: The Work of the
Holy Spirit in Salvation.” Bibliotheca Sacra 98:392 (Oct 41) 421-447. Indeed, “1 Corinthians 12:13 . . . [is] [t]he major passage,
which may be taken as the basis of interpretation of the other passages . . .
[namely, the] eleven specific references to spiritual baptism . . . Matthew
3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:33; Acts 1:5; 11:16; Romans 6:1-4; 1
Corinthians 12:13; Galatians 3:27; Ephesians 4:5; Colossians 2:12” (pg. 139, The
Holy Spirit: A Comprehensive Study
of the Person and Work of the Holy Spirit, John F. Walvoord).
In the
words of the UCD John F. Walvoord:
“[T]he Scriptures make it plain that every Christian is baptized by the
Holy Spirit at the moment of salvation. Salvation and baptism are therefore
coextensive, and it is impossible to be saved without this work of the Holy
Spirit. This is expressly stated in the central passage on the doctrine, ‘For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into
one Spirit’” (pg. 423, “The Person of the Holy Spirit Part 7: The Work of the
Holy Spirit in Salvation.” Bibliotheca Sacra 98:392 (Oct 41) 421-447. Indeed, “1 Corinthians 12:13 . . . [is] [t]he major passage,
which may be taken as the basis of interpretation of the other passages . . .
[namely, the] eleven specific references to spiritual baptism . . . Matthew
3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:33; Acts 1:5; 11:16; Romans 6:1-4; 1
Corinthians 12:13; Galatians 3:27; Ephesians 4:5; Colossians 2:12” (pg. 139, The
Holy Spirit: A Comprehensive Study
of the Person and Work of the Holy Spirit, John F. Walvoord).
While 1 Corinthians 12:13 is important to the PCP
advocate as well, it is only so as an allegedly supportive element of the PCP
position, not as the central verse for the entire theological construction.
advocate as well, it is only so as an allegedly supportive element of the PCP
position, not as the central verse for the entire theological construction.
[ii]
kai« ga»r e˙n e˚ni« Pneu/mati hJmei√ß pa¿nteß ei˙ß e≠n
sw◊ma e˙bapti÷sqhmen, ei¶te ∆Ioudai√oi ei¶te ›Ellhneß, ei¶te douvloi ei¶te
e˙leu/qeroi: kai« pa¿nteß ei˙ß e≠n Pneuvma e˙poti÷sqhmen.
kai« ga»r e˙n e˚ni« Pneu/mati hJmei√ß pa¿nteß ei˙ß e≠n
sw◊ma e˙bapti÷sqhmen, ei¶te ∆Ioudai√oi ei¶te ›Ellhneß, ei¶te douvloi ei¶te
e˙leu/qeroi: kai« pa¿nteß ei˙ß e≠n Pneuvma e˙poti÷sqhmen.
[iii]
pgs.
193-194, “Does Progressive Dispensationalism Teach A Posttribulational
Rapture?—Part I,” John Brumett. Conservative Theological Journal, 2:5 (June 1998).
pgs.
193-194, “Does Progressive Dispensationalism Teach A Posttribulational
Rapture?—Part I,” John Brumett. Conservative Theological Journal, 2:5 (June 1998).
[iv]
Note on
Acts 2:4, Scofield Reference Bible,
ed. C. I. Scofield. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1945.
Note on
Acts 2:4, Scofield Reference Bible,
ed. C. I. Scofield. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1945.
[v]
Interestingly,
UCD John Walvoord wrote, “The principle cause of disagreement . . . on the
doctrine of the baptism of the Holy Spirit . . . is found in the common failure
to apprehend the distinctive nature of the church” (pg. 138, The Holy
Spirit: A Comprehensive Study of
the Person and Work of the Holy Spirit). The false doctrine of a universal,
invisible church is indeed a tremendous barrier to a recognition of the correct
view of Spirit baptism, the historic Baptist position, and an unsound prop of
the UCD and PCP positions. For
representative refutations of the universal church dogma, see Ecclesia, B. H. Carroll (Emmaus, PA: Challenge Press, n. d.
reprint ed.; also available at
http://thross7.googlepages.com), The Myth of the Universal, Invisible Church
Theory Exploded, Roy Mason (Emmaus, PA:
Challenge Press, 2003), and Landmarks of Baptist Doctrine, Robert Sargent, vol. 4 (Oak Harbor, WA: Bible
Baptist Church Publications, 1990), pgs. 481-542. One notes that even non-evangelical scholars such as “James
Dunn[,] [who] needs no introduction, for his prolific scholarship ensures that
he is one of the most well known NT scholars in the world . . . [believes that]
particular and local assemblies are the church of God in Paul, and any idea of
the universal church is absent” (pg. 99, book review of The Theology of Paul
the Apostle, James D. G. Dunn. Grand
Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1998, by Thomas R. Schreiner. Trinity Journal 20:1 (Spring 1999)).
Interestingly,
UCD John Walvoord wrote, “The principle cause of disagreement . . . on the
doctrine of the baptism of the Holy Spirit . . . is found in the common failure
to apprehend the distinctive nature of the church” (pg. 138, The Holy
Spirit: A Comprehensive Study of
the Person and Work of the Holy Spirit). The false doctrine of a universal,
invisible church is indeed a tremendous barrier to a recognition of the correct
view of Spirit baptism, the historic Baptist position, and an unsound prop of
the UCD and PCP positions. For
representative refutations of the universal church dogma, see Ecclesia, B. H. Carroll (Emmaus, PA: Challenge Press, n. d.
reprint ed.; also available at
http://thross7.googlepages.com), The Myth of the Universal, Invisible Church
Theory Exploded, Roy Mason (Emmaus, PA:
Challenge Press, 2003), and Landmarks of Baptist Doctrine, Robert Sargent, vol. 4 (Oak Harbor, WA: Bible
Baptist Church Publications, 1990), pgs. 481-542. One notes that even non-evangelical scholars such as “James
Dunn[,] [who] needs no introduction, for his prolific scholarship ensures that
he is one of the most well known NT scholars in the world . . . [believes that]
particular and local assemblies are the church of God in Paul, and any idea of
the universal church is absent” (pg. 99, book review of The Theology of Paul
the Apostle, James D. G. Dunn. Grand
Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1998, by Thomas R. Schreiner. Trinity Journal 20:1 (Spring 1999)).
[vi]
The word
appears in Matthew 16:18; 18:17; Acts 2:47; 5:11; 7:38; 8:1,3; 9:31; 11:22, 26;
12:1, 5; 13:1; 14:23, 27; 15:3-4, 22, 41; 16:5; 18:22; 19:32, 39, 41; 20:17,
28; Romans 16:1, 4-5, 16, 23; 1Corinthians 1:2; 4:17; 6:4; 7:17; 10:32; 11:16,
18, 22; 12:28; 14:4-5, 12, 19, 23, 28, 33-35; 15:9; 16:1, 19; 2 Corinthians
1:1; 8:1, 18-19, 23-24; 11:8, 28; 12:13; Galatians 1:2, 13, 22; Ephesians 1:22;
3:10, 21; 5:23-25, 27, 29, 32; Philippians 3:6; 4:15; Colossians 1:18, 24;
4:15-16; 1 Thessalonians 1:1; 2:14; 2 Thessalonians 1:1, 4; 1 Timothy 3:5, 15;
5:16; Philemon 2; Hebrews 2:12; 12:23; James 5:14; 3 John 6, 9-10; Revelation
1:4, 11, 20; 2:1, 7-8, 11-12, 17-18, 23, 29; 3:1, 6-7, 13-14, 22; 22:16. The small minority of uses where an
individual congregation in a particular location is not in view (cf. “Christ is
the head of the church,” Ephesians 5:23; Colossians 1:18) do not prove the
existence of a universal, invisible church any more than “the husband is the
head of the wife” or “the head of the woman is the man” (Ephesians 5:23; 1
Corinthians 11:3; see below) establish that there is a single universal, invisible
husband or a universal, invisible man made up of all individual husbands or men
scattered all over world. Rather,
these verses employ the word church
as a generic noun, as a reference to any or every particular church (or
husband, man, etc.) in the class church (husband, man, etc.). The
common category of the “generic noun . . . focuses on the kind. . . .
emphasizes class traits . . . [and] has in view . . . the class as a whole”
(pg. 244, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New
Testament, Daniel B. Wallace. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996).
The word
appears in Matthew 16:18; 18:17; Acts 2:47; 5:11; 7:38; 8:1,3; 9:31; 11:22, 26;
12:1, 5; 13:1; 14:23, 27; 15:3-4, 22, 41; 16:5; 18:22; 19:32, 39, 41; 20:17,
28; Romans 16:1, 4-5, 16, 23; 1Corinthians 1:2; 4:17; 6:4; 7:17; 10:32; 11:16,
18, 22; 12:28; 14:4-5, 12, 19, 23, 28, 33-35; 15:9; 16:1, 19; 2 Corinthians
1:1; 8:1, 18-19, 23-24; 11:8, 28; 12:13; Galatians 1:2, 13, 22; Ephesians 1:22;
3:10, 21; 5:23-25, 27, 29, 32; Philippians 3:6; 4:15; Colossians 1:18, 24;
4:15-16; 1 Thessalonians 1:1; 2:14; 2 Thessalonians 1:1, 4; 1 Timothy 3:5, 15;
5:16; Philemon 2; Hebrews 2:12; 12:23; James 5:14; 3 John 6, 9-10; Revelation
1:4, 11, 20; 2:1, 7-8, 11-12, 17-18, 23, 29; 3:1, 6-7, 13-14, 22; 22:16. The small minority of uses where an
individual congregation in a particular location is not in view (cf. “Christ is
the head of the church,” Ephesians 5:23; Colossians 1:18) do not prove the
existence of a universal, invisible church any more than “the husband is the
head of the wife” or “the head of the woman is the man” (Ephesians 5:23; 1
Corinthians 11:3; see below) establish that there is a single universal, invisible
husband or a universal, invisible man made up of all individual husbands or men
scattered all over world. Rather,
these verses employ the word church
as a generic noun, as a reference to any or every particular church (or
husband, man, etc.) in the class church (husband, man, etc.). The
common category of the “generic noun . . . focuses on the kind. . . .
emphasizes class traits . . . [and] has in view . . . the class as a whole”
(pg. 244, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New
Testament, Daniel B. Wallace. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996).
[vii]
cf. the
verb e˙kklhsia¿zw, “to hold an assembly, convene, assemble.” (BDAG); “summon to an assembly” (Liddell, H. G.
& Scott, R. Greek-English Lexicon, 9th ed., New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1996); “attend an assembly; attend a church
service” (Patristic Greek Lexicon
ed. G. W. Lampe (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2007, 20th
ed). The verb is always employed
in the LXX and related Koiné
literature (at least until after the time of the post-NT development of the
concept of a catholic church) for a visible and local assembly, not some sort
of invisible and unassembled “assembly.” See Leviticus 8:3; Numbers 20:8;
Deuteronomy 4:10; 31:12, 28; Esther 4:16, LXX; Josephus, Antiquities 4:302; 6:56; 8:277; 10:93; 12:316; 17:161; 19:158; War 2:490; 7:47; Philo, On the Migration of Abraham 1:69; On Joseph 1:73; On the Decalogue
1:39; Freedom 1:6.
cf. the
verb e˙kklhsia¿zw, “to hold an assembly, convene, assemble.” (BDAG); “summon to an assembly” (Liddell, H. G.
& Scott, R. Greek-English Lexicon, 9th ed., New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1996); “attend an assembly; attend a church
service” (Patristic Greek Lexicon
ed. G. W. Lampe (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2007, 20th
ed). The verb is always employed
in the LXX and related Koiné
literature (at least until after the time of the post-NT development of the
concept of a catholic church) for a visible and local assembly, not some sort
of invisible and unassembled “assembly.” See Leviticus 8:3; Numbers 20:8;
Deuteronomy 4:10; 31:12, 28; Esther 4:16, LXX; Josephus, Antiquities 4:302; 6:56; 8:277; 10:93; 12:316; 17:161; 19:158; War 2:490; 7:47; Philo, On the Migration of Abraham 1:69; On Joseph 1:73; On the Decalogue
1:39; Freedom 1:6.
[viii]
Deuteronomy
4:10; 9:10; 18:16; 23:2-4, 9; 31:30; Joshua 8:35; Judges 20:2; 21:5, 8; 1
Samuel 17:47; 19:20; 1 Kings 8:14, 22, 55, 65; 1 Chronicles 13:2, 4; 28:2, 8;
29:1, 10, 20; 2 Chronicles 1:3, 5; 6:3, 12-13; 7:8; 10:3; 20:5, 14; 23:3;
28:14; 29:23, 28, 31-32; 30:2, 4, 13, 17, 23-25; Ezra 2:64; 10:1, 8, 12, 14;
Nehemiah 5:7, 13; 7:66; 8:2, 17; 13:1; Judith 6:16, 21; 7:29; 14:6; 1 Maccabees
2:56; 3:13; 4:59; 5:16; 14:19; Psalms 21:23, 26; 25:5, 12; 34:18; 39:10; 67:27;
88:6; 106:32; 149:1; Proverbs 5:14; Job 30:28; Sirach 15:5; 21:17; 23:24; 24:2;
26:5; 31:11; 33:19; 38:33; 39:10; 44:15; 46:7; 50:13, 20; Solomon 10:6; Micah
2:5; Joel 2:16; Lamentations 1:10.
Deuteronomy
4:10; 9:10; 18:16; 23:2-4, 9; 31:30; Joshua 8:35; Judges 20:2; 21:5, 8; 1
Samuel 17:47; 19:20; 1 Kings 8:14, 22, 55, 65; 1 Chronicles 13:2, 4; 28:2, 8;
29:1, 10, 20; 2 Chronicles 1:3, 5; 6:3, 12-13; 7:8; 10:3; 20:5, 14; 23:3;
28:14; 29:23, 28, 31-32; 30:2, 4, 13, 17, 23-25; Ezra 2:64; 10:1, 8, 12, 14;
Nehemiah 5:7, 13; 7:66; 8:2, 17; 13:1; Judith 6:16, 21; 7:29; 14:6; 1 Maccabees
2:56; 3:13; 4:59; 5:16; 14:19; Psalms 21:23, 26; 25:5, 12; 34:18; 39:10; 67:27;
88:6; 106:32; 149:1; Proverbs 5:14; Job 30:28; Sirach 15:5; 21:17; 23:24; 24:2;
26:5; 31:11; 33:19; 38:33; 39:10; 44:15; 46:7; 50:13, 20; Solomon 10:6; Micah
2:5; Joel 2:16; Lamentations 1:10.
B. H. Carroll’s book Ecclesia provides a number of helpful instances of the
classical use of e˙kklhsi÷a [transliterating the word as ecclesia], documenting that the word, in classical Greek,
signified “an organized assembly of citizens, regularly summoned, as opposed to
other meetings.” Note:
classical use of e˙kklhsi÷a [transliterating the word as ecclesia], documenting that the word, in classical Greek,
signified “an organized assembly of citizens, regularly summoned, as opposed to
other meetings.” Note:
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.”
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.
(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 –
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.”
himself, since he was ephor, put the question to vote in the assembly
(ecclesia) of the Spartans.”
Thucydides 1,139: – “And the Athenians having made a
house (or called an assembly, ecclesia) freely exchanged their sentiments.”
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.”
assembly (ecclesia) for the Thracians about pay.”
Thucydides 6.8: – “And the Athenians having convened an
assembly (ecclesia) … voted, etc.”
assembly (ecclesia) … voted, etc.”
Thucydides 6,2: – “And the Syracusans having buried
their dead, summoned an assembly (ecclesia).”
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 (Ecclesia, B. H. Carroll, pgs. 35-36).
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 (Ecclesia, B. H. Carroll, pgs. 35-36).
Thus,
the uses of the word in the LXX and other pre-Christian works supports the
evidence from the instances of e˙kklhsi÷a in New Testament
itself that the word always signifies a particular, visible assembly. “[A]n inductive study of all the ecclesia passages [in the LXX demonstrates] that in the
Septuagint it never means ‘all Israel whether assembled or unassembled, but
that in every instance it means a
gathering together, and assembly. . . . [T]he New Testament writers neither
coined this word nor employed it in an unusual sense. The apostles and early
Christians . . . wrote in Greek to a Greek-speaking world, and used Greek words
as a Greek-speaking people would understand them. . . . [I]t is a fiction that ecclesia was used in [the New Testament 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 contrast to ecclesia], the word panegyros [was employed to designate] a general, festive
assembly of all the Greek states.
This general assembly was not for war but peace . . . 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 [at the panegyros]. How felicitiously does [Paul] adapt himself to the
Greek use of the word [in Hebrews 12:23], and glorify it by application to the
final heavenly state. . . . [Thus, there] is a general assembly . . . [in
heaven where] warfare is over and rest has come [designated by panegyros, but never by ecclesia].” (pgs. 34-36, Ecclesia, Carroll).
the uses of the word in the LXX and other pre-Christian works supports the
evidence from the instances of e˙kklhsi÷a in New Testament
itself that the word always signifies a particular, visible assembly. “[A]n inductive study of all the ecclesia passages [in the LXX demonstrates] that in the
Septuagint it never means ‘all Israel whether assembled or unassembled, but
that in every instance it means a
gathering together, and assembly. . . . [T]he New Testament writers neither
coined this word nor employed it in an unusual sense. The apostles and early
Christians . . . wrote in Greek to a Greek-speaking world, and used Greek words
as a Greek-speaking people would understand them. . . . [I]t is a fiction that ecclesia was used in [the New Testament 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 contrast to ecclesia], the word panegyros [was employed to designate] a general, festive
assembly of all the Greek states.
This general assembly was not for war but peace . . . 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 [at the panegyros]. How felicitiously does [Paul] adapt himself to the
Greek use of the word [in Hebrews 12:23], and glorify it by application to the
final heavenly state. . . . [Thus, there] is a general assembly . . . [in
heaven where] warfare is over and rest has come [designated by panegyros, but never by ecclesia].” (pgs. 34-36, Ecclesia, Carroll).
[ix]
It is true
that the bride metaphor is employed for the New Jerusalem (Revelation 21:2-3)
as a synecdoche for all the people of God who will inhabit it. However, at that time they will all be
present in the future heavenly festive assembly (Hebrews 12:23). There will indeed be this coming
gathering of all the saints to the eternal heavenly City, but it will still be
quite local and visible, it does not yet exist, and it certainly does not prove
that saved people on earth in the United States, Colombia, Vietnam, and the
Central African Republic are somehow currently members of the same,
never-assembling and invisible congregation, assembly, church, or ekklesia.
It is true
that the bride metaphor is employed for the New Jerusalem (Revelation 21:2-3)
as a synecdoche for all the people of God who will inhabit it. However, at that time they will all be
present in the future heavenly festive assembly (Hebrews 12:23). There will indeed be this coming
gathering of all the saints to the eternal heavenly City, but it will still be
quite local and visible, it does not yet exist, and it certainly does not prove
that saved people on earth in the United States, Colombia, Vietnam, and the
Central African Republic are somehow currently members of the same,
never-assembling and invisible congregation, assembly, church, or ekklesia.
[x]
There are
many other practical impossibilities and ecclesiological errors that come from
the universal church view. Dr.
Thomas Strouse has well explained a number of them:
There are
many other practical impossibilities and ecclesiological errors that come from
the universal church view. Dr.
Thomas Strouse has well explained a number of them:
The ramifications of the biblical teaching that the
local church is the body of Christ, that Spirit Baptism was a temporary
phenomenon, and that the mystical body of Christ does not exist are broad and
serious. If there is no con-current Spirit Baptism and no mystical body then
there is no divine authority for organizations or efforts outside of the local
church to practice the Great Commission. Since the Great Commission (Mt.
28:19-20) requires evangelism, baptism, and instruction in the Word of God,
para-church organizations have no divine authority for their existence. If
there is no divine authority for para-church organizations then there is no
divine authority for para-church Bible colleges/seminaries, mission boards, or
structured church fellowships, associations or conventions. These so-called
“handmaidens” to the local church have no authority “to help” the Lord’s
candlesticks because the latter have His presence (Rev. 1:13) as their
respective Head (Eph. 1:22-23) and all power to accomplish His Great Commission
(Mt. 28:19-20). The impact of these para-church “handmaidens” on the Lord’s
candlesticks has been biblically and theologically disastrous. Scholars
operating in the realm of the “big” universal church offer unbiblical and
therefore confusing theological restatements of the Scriptures. Their weak
ecclesiology impacts other doctrines such as bibliology, soteriology, and
eschatology. They foster notions such as “God has preserved His Word in all the
extant manuscripts through the scholars of the mystical body of Christ,” “all
the saved are in the universal Church,” and “Christ will rapture the Church.”
To them “true” scholarship occurs in the para-church university or seminary
where theologians, trained by other para-church theologians, postulate the
“truth” of Scripture. The local church is ill equipped and the pastor is ill
prepared to do the real work of the ministry in the realm of scholarship, they
maintain. These scholars, whether they have any affiliation with a local church
or not, have earned doctorates from accredited para-church academic
institutions, and therefore think that they have the last word on theology.
Their condescending attitude toward the Lord’s assemblies is supposedly
justified because they are the “doctors” of theology since they are in “the big
church.” This disastrous impact undermines the authority of the Bible and
usurps the ministry of the Lord’s ekklesia. Scripture states that the church is
“the pillar and ground of the truth” (I Tim. 3:15), that the ekklesia is to
“commit [theological training] to faithful men” (II Tim. 2:2), that the church
member “is to study to shew [himself] approved unto God” (II Tim. 2:15), and
that the assembly has been given Christ’s gift of “pastors and teachers” (Eph.
4:11). The local church as the divinely ordained doctrinal training institution
is the Lord’s “college.” College comes from the Latin collegeum that means a group of colleagues who have banded
together around a particular guild or trade. The particular “guild” in which
the local church is engaged is the scholarly pursuit of studying the Scriptures
(cf. Acts 17:11). Para-church organizations not only produce disastrous
results in theological academia, but also in the area of missions. Para-church
mission boards usurp the privilege and responsibility of local church missions.
The Great Commission is the divine mandate to plant immersionist assemblies
both locally and worldwide. Only the Lord’s candlesticks can produce NT
churches. Para-church mission boards cannot baptize converts and cannot
commission missionary candidates. Nevertheless, these same boards develop a
hierarchy of unbiblical offices, such as “missions president/director,” and
dictate to “their” missionaries and to the pastors of supporting churches,
their policies, practices, and doctrines. The NT teaches, in contradistinction,
that the church at Antioch acted as Paul’s “mission board” and sent out
Barnabas and the Apostle (Acts 13:1 ff.). To be sure, other churches such as
the Philippian church helped support Paul’s missionary endeavors on his second
journey (Phil. 4:15-16). Much of the same criticism could be leveled toward
highly structured Baptist fellowships. The unbiblical mindset of the universal
church produces the necessity for organized hierarchy outside of the local
church. Fellowships, associations and conventions, which develop organizational
structure beyond the local church, end up usurping the autonomy of each of the
Lord’s assemblies. The presidents, regional directors, etc., of these
non-authorized structures tend to dictate to the churches resolutions which in
turn become “suggested” tenets for orthodoxy and fundamentalism. Some pastors
feel intimidated and hesitate to reject these suggestions, ultimately embracing
the “traditions” of men (Mk. 7:7) and incorporating these tenets in their
particular ekklesia. The NT does teach that there is a place for churches to
fellowship around “the faith once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 1:3).
Furthermore, the churches of Galatia were united in biblical doctrine around
the Lord Jesus Christ, while retaining their respective autonomy (Gal. 1:2;
3:27-28). Once the Lord’s churches recognize that the unproved assumptions of
Spirit Baptism and the mystical body of Christ have no biblically exegetical
defense, then they may realize the authority, importance, and dignity the Lord
gives exclusively to His candlesticks. The Scriptures teach that the church at
Jerusalem had the divine authority in precept and set the precedent to practice
the Great Commission. Christ gave the precept of the Great Commission to the
apostles who were representatives of the 120 disciples who made up the Lord’s
ekklesia on the day of Pentecost (Acts 1:20). This ekklesia began to
evangelize, baptize and instruct Jews and Gentiles as the Book of Acts gives
ample precedent. The Scriptures make some amazing and outstanding claims for
the Lord’s churches. For instance, Paul taught that Christ, Who is Head over
all His creation, completely fills His body, the local church (Eph. 1:23). He
revealed that the saints in the local churches teach the angelic realm
redemptive truths (Eph. 3:10). He averred that local churches, like the
Ephesian church, grow up in Christ to become mature bodies through doctrinal
teaching (Eph. 4:11-16). He proclaimed that the Lord Jesus Christ both loved
and died for individual church members (Eph. 5:25) and that He will cleanse the
church members through the washing of the word to present each ekklesia as
glorious (Eph. 5:26-27). Elsewhere, the Apostle taught that the local church,
the one with a bishop and deacons, was the pillar and ground of the truth (I
Tim. 3:1-15). The Lord spoke through the Apostle John and gave His
apocalyptical revelation to seven local churches (Rev. 1-3). When one realizes
that the Scriptures teach the local church is the Lord’s sole institution for
His presence, worship and service, then one recognizes the glory, dignity, and
honor that should be attributed to each and every one of Christ’s assemblies. (“Ye
Are The Body of Christ,” Dr. Thomas M. Strouse. Emmanuel Baptist Theological
Seminary, Newington, CT. elec. acc.
http://www.faithonfire.org/articles/body_of_christ.html)
local church is the body of Christ, that Spirit Baptism was a temporary
phenomenon, and that the mystical body of Christ does not exist are broad and
serious. If there is no con-current Spirit Baptism and no mystical body then
there is no divine authority for organizations or efforts outside of the local
church to practice the Great Commission. Since the Great Commission (Mt.
28:19-20) requires evangelism, baptism, and instruction in the Word of God,
para-church organizations have no divine authority for their existence. If
there is no divine authority for para-church organizations then there is no
divine authority for para-church Bible colleges/seminaries, mission boards, or
structured church fellowships, associations or conventions. These so-called
“handmaidens” to the local church have no authority “to help” the Lord’s
candlesticks because the latter have His presence (Rev. 1:13) as their
respective Head (Eph. 1:22-23) and all power to accomplish His Great Commission
(Mt. 28:19-20). The impact of these para-church “handmaidens” on the Lord’s
candlesticks has been biblically and theologically disastrous. Scholars
operating in the realm of the “big” universal church offer unbiblical and
therefore confusing theological restatements of the Scriptures. Their weak
ecclesiology impacts other doctrines such as bibliology, soteriology, and
eschatology. They foster notions such as “God has preserved His Word in all the
extant manuscripts through the scholars of the mystical body of Christ,” “all
the saved are in the universal Church,” and “Christ will rapture the Church.”
To them “true” scholarship occurs in the para-church university or seminary
where theologians, trained by other para-church theologians, postulate the
“truth” of Scripture. The local church is ill equipped and the pastor is ill
prepared to do the real work of the ministry in the realm of scholarship, they
maintain. These scholars, whether they have any affiliation with a local church
or not, have earned doctorates from accredited para-church academic
institutions, and therefore think that they have the last word on theology.
Their condescending attitude toward the Lord’s assemblies is supposedly
justified because they are the “doctors” of theology since they are in “the big
church.” This disastrous impact undermines the authority of the Bible and
usurps the ministry of the Lord’s ekklesia. Scripture states that the church is
“the pillar and ground of the truth” (I Tim. 3:15), that the ekklesia is to
“commit [theological training] to faithful men” (II Tim. 2:2), that the church
member “is to study to shew [himself] approved unto God” (II Tim. 2:15), and
that the assembly has been given Christ’s gift of “pastors and teachers” (Eph.
4:11). The local church as the divinely ordained doctrinal training institution
is the Lord’s “college.” College comes from the Latin collegeum that means a group of colleagues who have banded
together around a particular guild or trade. The particular “guild” in which
the local church is engaged is the scholarly pursuit of studying the Scriptures
(cf. Acts 17:11). Para-church organizations not only produce disastrous
results in theological academia, but also in the area of missions. Para-church
mission boards usurp the privilege and responsibility of local church missions.
The Great Commission is the divine mandate to plant immersionist assemblies
both locally and worldwide. Only the Lord’s candlesticks can produce NT
churches. Para-church mission boards cannot baptize converts and cannot
commission missionary candidates. Nevertheless, these same boards develop a
hierarchy of unbiblical offices, such as “missions president/director,” and
dictate to “their” missionaries and to the pastors of supporting churches,
their policies, practices, and doctrines. The NT teaches, in contradistinction,
that the church at Antioch acted as Paul’s “mission board” and sent out
Barnabas and the Apostle (Acts 13:1 ff.). To be sure, other churches such as
the Philippian church helped support Paul’s missionary endeavors on his second
journey (Phil. 4:15-16). Much of the same criticism could be leveled toward
highly structured Baptist fellowships. The unbiblical mindset of the universal
church produces the necessity for organized hierarchy outside of the local
church. Fellowships, associations and conventions, which develop organizational
structure beyond the local church, end up usurping the autonomy of each of the
Lord’s assemblies. The presidents, regional directors, etc., of these
non-authorized structures tend to dictate to the churches resolutions which in
turn become “suggested” tenets for orthodoxy and fundamentalism. Some pastors
feel intimidated and hesitate to reject these suggestions, ultimately embracing
the “traditions” of men (Mk. 7:7) and incorporating these tenets in their
particular ekklesia. The NT does teach that there is a place for churches to
fellowship around “the faith once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 1:3).
Furthermore, the churches of Galatia were united in biblical doctrine around
the Lord Jesus Christ, while retaining their respective autonomy (Gal. 1:2;
3:27-28). Once the Lord’s churches recognize that the unproved assumptions of
Spirit Baptism and the mystical body of Christ have no biblically exegetical
defense, then they may realize the authority, importance, and dignity the Lord
gives exclusively to His candlesticks. The Scriptures teach that the church at
Jerusalem had the divine authority in precept and set the precedent to practice
the Great Commission. Christ gave the precept of the Great Commission to the
apostles who were representatives of the 120 disciples who made up the Lord’s
ekklesia on the day of Pentecost (Acts 1:20). This ekklesia began to
evangelize, baptize and instruct Jews and Gentiles as the Book of Acts gives
ample precedent. The Scriptures make some amazing and outstanding claims for
the Lord’s churches. For instance, Paul taught that Christ, Who is Head over
all His creation, completely fills His body, the local church (Eph. 1:23). He
revealed that the saints in the local churches teach the angelic realm
redemptive truths (Eph. 3:10). He averred that local churches, like the
Ephesian church, grow up in Christ to become mature bodies through doctrinal
teaching (Eph. 4:11-16). He proclaimed that the Lord Jesus Christ both loved
and died for individual church members (Eph. 5:25) and that He will cleanse the
church members through the washing of the word to present each ekklesia as
glorious (Eph. 5:26-27). Elsewhere, the Apostle taught that the local church,
the one with a bishop and deacons, was the pillar and ground of the truth (I
Tim. 3:1-15). The Lord spoke through the Apostle John and gave His
apocalyptical revelation to seven local churches (Rev. 1-3). When one realizes
that the Scriptures teach the local church is the Lord’s sole institution for
His presence, worship and service, then one recognizes the glory, dignity, and
honor that should be attributed to each and every one of Christ’s assemblies. (“Ye
Are The Body of Christ,” Dr. Thomas M. Strouse. Emmanuel Baptist Theological
Seminary, Newington, CT. elec. acc.
http://www.faithonfire.org/articles/body_of_christ.html)
This comment has been removed by the author.