The New Testament Meaning of Church
God revealed His Word, which is the special revelation of every and all of His Words by God the Spirit through human authors. Those words communicate plainly the will of God to man, including the nature of the church. The church is what scripture says it is through its cumulative usages in the New Testament. What the Bible says the church is, is what it is, regardless of what occurs in the world or what men may say or have said that it is.
The New Testament shows that in its rudimentary sense, the church is local only. The underlying Greek word, ekklesia, means “assembly.” The church is an assembly. It is always an assembly and that’s what the word means. Even if the New Testament addresses the doctrine of the church in a generic way, a church is still what it is, an assembly. And yet today, people will say and have said that the church is mainly not an assembly, but a mystical or spiritual universal entity, not local or visible. How did this happen? It didn’t start out that way.
Historical Theology
Historical Theology or the History of Christian Doctrine can show the changes in the meaning of words and doctrine. The meaning of ekklesia and the doctrine of the church changed from its usage and teaching in the New Testament. The church changed into something it was into something it was not and is not. More than changing, outside influences through history actually perverted the meaning of church and the doctrine of the church.
The history of Christian doctrine tells a story of external factors. One of the values of historical theology is chronicling the culture of the world, governments, and other societal elements that affected the beliefs of Christianity. External factors have affected the interpretation, meaning, and doctrine of God’s Word. Instead of reading out the plain meaning of the text of the New Testament, people read into the text something not in it. This is another attack on scripture by Satan and the world system.
How Changes Occurred
One of the benefits of studying the history of Christian doctrine is investigating the changes in doctrine and how they occurred. Outside circumstances affected how people understood the biblical writings and their teaching. False teaching also begets more false teaching. A major component to change is fear. The Roman Empire opposed Christianity in the first three centuries and people adapted their belief and practice out of fear. Scripture reveals how that fear can and will modify what people will believe.
In addition, teachers of scripture mix biblical teaching with human philosophies, such as Platonism and mysticism. Through the decades and centuries since Christ, students of scripture allowed the influence of other writings to affect their understanding of the Bible. Traditions sometimes took precedent over sound exegesis of the biblical text. Predominant teachers held greater sway in the minds of people. Powerful men put their thumb on the scale of their preferred scholars and instructors, giving them an oversized impact on contemporary thinking.
Once John finished writing the book of Revelation in the late first century, which completed the New Testament and the canon of scripture, apostolic authority ceased. Scripture stood as the final authority. Also, authoritative leaders were in individual churches, not anything greater than that. The New Testament shows no hierarchy. Pastor and deacons were the only church officers. The pastor presided over their prospective, individual churches, each under Jesus Christ. Individual churches would fellowship with other churches of like faith and practice.
Just Individual Churches
The New Testament shows that churches cooperated with one another in non authoritative ways. They passed around the New Testament books (Galatians 1:2, Colossians 4:16). Churches met together to settle disputes with one another (Acts 15). A church would host and provide hospitality to those traveling from other churches (3 John). Several different churches might send funds to help out another church (1 Corinthians 16:1-3). An individual church would send support to a missionary from another church (Philippians 4).
According to the New Testament, no other church had authority over another church. Jesus was the Head of each church and accomplished that headship through scripture. The demarcation between churches could and did impede the spread of false doctrine. No evidence exists in the New Testament of one church having authority over another. The spirit of the New Testament is serving one another (Philip 2:1-5, Eph 5:21, Matt 20:25-28), not domination over one another.
Authority in Individual Churches
God gives authority to pastors over individual congregations and nothing greater than that (Hebrews 13:7,17, 1 Peter 5:1-3, Titus 2:15, 1 Timothy 5:17). Even the pastors with authority over their individual, separate churches (assemblies) also are themselves under the authority of their churches (1 Timothy 5:19-20). After the end of the apostolic era, this is all someone sees in the New Testament. Apostles had authority greater than one church, but no one else. The apostle Paul still submitted to church authority though, the authority of the single church at Antioch (Acts 13:1-3).
What drew together the churches of the New Testament into unity was having the same Head, Jesus, the same source of authority, scripture, and an identical gospel, means of salvation. Jesus calls His church, “my church,” in Matthew 16:18. He congregation distinguished itself from other assemblies by the means expressed by Him in the Gospels and then through His inspired followers in the rest of the New Testament. Churches could become something less than or other than a church or a true church, like the church of Laodicea in Revelation 3:14-21.
Separate Churches Protecting Doctrine and Practice
When Jesus wanted to bring back a church toward Him, so that it didn’t become a Laodicean church, He worked through individual messengers through an inspired message. He didn’t operate through a greater hierarchical system. One can understand how that having a so-called catholic church with hierarchical authority could bring immediate and widespread false doctrine, heresy, and apostasy. With the head corrupted, everything below it would corrupt too. The autonomy of individual churches could protect the truth using the means given only to individual churches.
Separate churches could protect the doctrine and practice of the church through separation. God gave each church pastors to protect the separate church and church discipline. Church discipline could not operate through anything greater than a single church. It was designed for one church. The Lord’s Table was given to a separate church, which had accountability with its own membership. Body parts function in one location with the witness of all the other parts. Parts of a body do not work together outside of a single locale, which is what “body” itself communicates.
Body, Local
The Apostle Paul in defining the body, didn’t say “we are the body,” but “ye are the body,” excluding himself (1 Corinthians 12:27). That didn’t mean Paul wasn’t himself in a body. He was, even as he says in Romans 12:5. The oneness of a body though is in a particular body, not in bodies spread out all over the globe. Unity occurs in churches, which were given by Christ the means to do so.
With the plain understanding of church in the New Testament, how did other teaching develop through the centuries? This is a story and strongly relates to a few significant factors. Judaism and then the Roman Empire persecuted the first church and then the churches proceeding from that church. Judaism crossed regional boundaries and the Roman Empire was itself spread over the then known world. The Roman Empire was mammoth and with tremendous military and political power. It threatened the very existence of the first churches that started across its empire.
More to Come
Tom,
I decided not to publish your comments, because you’ve said everything in those comments before and I’ve already answered them. It really is a rehash. Could that be a help to someone out there? Maybe, but I think it would just start a back and forth and it would end in the same place. I will say one thing. You turn the generic use of the singular noun into something mystical and spiritualized, which veers off the actual meaning of the word. You are myopic on this view to the extent that you can’t see it.
Based on my last “chat”, clarification and more teaching is required.
Q: Can you conclude from the above (Ephesians 3 speaks about the universal church) that God only works and organizes his church as independent assemblies that are autonomous from each other?
A: Yes, from the biblical evidence, we can conclude that God works through independent, autonomous local churches, rather than a hierarchical, universal organization.
1. Each Local Church Was Independent & Autonomous
Throughout the New Testament, each local church operated independently under the authority of Christ and His Word, without any overarching governing body.
Acts 14:23 – “And when they had ordained them elders in every church…”
Elders were ordained in every church, not over multiple churches.
Titus 1:5 – “That thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee.”
Paul instructed Titus to set up leadership in each church, not a central governing authority.
Each church was self-governing with its own bishops/elders (pastors) and deacons (Philippians 1:1), without an external structure ruling over them.
2. No Hierarchical Church Government
The only head of the church is Jesus Christ, not a denominational system or a centralized leadership structure.
Ephesians 1:22-23 – “And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, Which is his body…”
Christ alone is the head of the church, not a pope, council, or denominational board.
Colossians 1:18 – “And he is the head of the body, the church…”
There is no biblical example of a universal church hierarchy ruling over local churches.
Even in Acts 15, where the Jerusalem church gave counsel about Gentile believers, the decision was not enforced as lawbut rather given as guidance (Acts 15:22-29). Each local church remained independent.
3. Local Churches Sent Out Missionaries Independently
Acts 13:1-4 – The church at Antioch sent out Paul and Barnabas, without a central governing body directing them.
Acts 20:28 – “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers.”
Each church had its own overseers (pastors/elders) responsible to God alone, not a denominational headquarters.
4. The Church in Ephesians 3:10, 21 Refers to All Local Churches Collectively
While Ephesians 3:10, 21 speaks of the church as a whole (all believers), it does not mean a single, organized universal church. Instead, it refers to the sum total of all local churches that exist throughout time, just as a family name can refer to multiple individual households.
Conclusion
Each local church is independent and autonomous, with no denominational authority ruling over it.
God works through local assemblies, not a centralized, universal organization.
The only head of the church is Jesus Christ, and each church is directly accountable to Him.
This completely rejects the Catholic, Orthodox, and denominational hierarchies that claim authority over multiple churches. Instead, biblical churches operate independently under Christ’s leadership, as seen throughout the New Testament.
Tom,
I read what you wrote here very quickly, but I basically agree with what you are saying in this comment. Anyone else who wants to critique what Tom wrote is free to do so. I like generic singular noun that refers to the church institutionally, but your language is suitable to me in this comment, I believe. Related to Acts 15, I believe it was two churches getting back into fellowship or in line with one another, Jerusalem and Antioch. Jerusalem wasn’t in authority over Antioch. They got together to sort things out in this early period. Obviously the presence of apostles and without a completed NT, it was not entirely normative for how that might occur today.
By the way, did you write your comment? Because it had an AI quality to it.
As you can see it was ChatGPT who wrote it since I asked the question.
My point was in the comment you did not want to deal with. I am correct about Ephesians 3 and I wanted to show you that it is not difficult to answer the local church autonomy believing what the scriptures teach in Ephesians 3.
I still do not agree with local church autonomy, but believe that the churches worked together cooperatively, in fellowship with one another, even though they might not have had authority over any individual church.
Tom
Tom, each Church is the Church. Each Church is the Body of Christ entirely. Not a denomination, but each individual assembly is the Church, and each has Christ as their Head. The Church can refer to one assembly or it can refer to all New Testament assemblies as a general concept. Just as Brother Brandenburg has pointed out in the past, “the phone” can refer to your personal phone, or the general concept of a phone that everyone understands. Churches seeking to dominate other churches are people conquerors, in other words, Nicolaitanes, whom the Lord hates.
*******
I recommend you ask ChatGPT: “Can a generic singular noun be specific or general?”
ChatGPT: “Yes, a generic singular noun can be both specific and general, depending on the context in which it’s used.
Specific: A generic singular noun can refer to a specific instance of something within a particular context. For example:
The dog is friendly. In this case, “dog” refers to a specific dog that both the speaker and listener know about, even though it’s a singular noun. The context makes it specific.
General: A generic singular noun can also refer to a broader, more general idea or category. For example:
A dog is a loyal animal. Here, “dog” refers to the entire species or category of animals, not any one specific dog.
So, the key is in how the noun is used and the surrounding context that either narrows down or broadens its meaning.”
*******
Let us now apply the generic singular noun “Church” instead of “dog” used in ChatGPT’s example:
Specific: A generic singular noun can refer to a specific instance of something within a particular context. For example:
The Head of our Church is Christ. In this case, “Church” refers to a specific Church that both the speaker and listener know about, even though it’s a singular noun. The context makes it specific.
General: A generic singular noun can also refer to a broader, more general idea or category. For example:
The Church is God’s New Testament institution. Here, “Church” refers to the entire concept or category of Churches, not any one specific Church.
Do you see how this works?
Any application of “universal” to the generic use of the word Church is a theological choice that does not naturally exist within the text of Scripture. In other words, it’s read into the text because people want it to be there. It is not there.
“Any application of “universal” to the generic use of the word Church is a theological choice that does not naturally exist within the text of Scripture. In other words, it’s read into the text because people want it to be there. It is not there.”
And we have sent with him the brother, whose praise is in the gospel throughout all the churches; And not that only, but who was also chosen of the churches to travel with us with this grace, which is administered by us to the glory of the same Lord, and declaration of your ready mind:
(2 Corinthians 8:18-19)
You simplified understanding of “the church” does not work in this scenario.
Explain how this “brother” was ordained “by churches” (in other areas of what is now known as Turkey as well as Syria) to go to other “churches” in different countries so that what was promised by them would be collected and distributed to “other churches” in the country of Judea?
It is said of him “whose praise is in the gospel throughout ALL the churches”
So, how is “each church, the church” when they were “full cooperation” with each other?
Tom
Tom,
The Apostle Paul with co-laborers started these churches, which were still relatively few in number in the first century, and he was taking a collection for the Jerusalem church, which they would have all known. Someone with whom all these churches were familiar would go along as accountability for the care of this collected money. Certain men stood out for preaching the gospel, missionaries, evangelists, men working with Paul, and all these churches knew this man so they were comfortable having this responsible man going along to make sure the offering arrived.
Paul said “churches,” not “church” as if there was one church. This was a close knit group of churches, plural. They cooperated with one another. This is something I wrote about in this post. I don’t know how this passage changes anything. It actually helps what we’re saying and writing.
Tom,
Your question affirms the point. You assume a universal quality that is not there to fix a problem that does not exist.
Churches can be in fellowship with one another and they can come to the same determinations independently. They did and you read about it here and elsewhere like Acts 15. The text in 2 Corinthians 8 does not depart from the use of Church everywhere else in Scripture. The text assumes you’re applying the position first taught in Scripture.
The brother was sent to the Churches in question. The Churches would have to consider the man and agree to appoint him to carry their money. They did this. Each did it independently and was not obligated to do so by an external hierarchy. Certainly, the endorsement of Paul, an Apostle, would have carried significate weight, but not an obligation (e.g., Acts 15:39; Acts 20:14).
The question back to you, who or what is the external hierarchy acting on behalf of those Churches? Where does Scripture teach the Churches were obligated to receive the brother and agree to his purpose? Neither of these things are there.
Brethren,
What I first want you to understand is not to pigeon hole me in the belief that I do not teach authority in a local church. It is the most prevalent order biblically, but not necessarily the only order. What I do not teach is autonomy of any local church.
Local church authority- The ordaining of Paul and Silas
Universal church authority- (1) The choosing of this brother to oversee the collection of local churches weather they gave or not. (2) Paul being chosen to deliver the letter agreed to in Acts 15? for all churches to follow.
Q: Who or what is the external hierarchy acting on behalf of those Churches?
“The churches” (ALL of them) that gave authority to perform this work of collection. Based on Acts 15, Paul and others came to make decisions that would affect ALL churches ( Acts 15:25-29). I have the whole OT to teach about order within Israel (one order) which was comprised of twelve tribes (another order). It is NOT hierarchal, but possibly ordered like a presbytery to make decisions that all churches follow being “members in particular one of another”. The local authority make a choice to follow or succeed from that union.
Example of operation: If you leave and then not receive brothers from ALL the churches to ask you why and they determine you no have biblical precedence, all in the local congregation would know and all would make personal decisions to keep the leadership and succeed or remove the Diotrophes’ or Korahs’ (false brethren crept in unawares) from among them and continue in unity as one body.
Q: Where does Scripture teach the Churches were obligated to receive the brother and agree to his purpose?
They were definitely obligated to receive a brother! In this case they were obligated to give because they said they would and it was decided by church order of churches to give that bounty to those that came. Again, remember Diotrophes (loveth to have the preeminence like some pastors I have known!)? He was going to get rebuked for not receiving a brother from another assembly (2 Corinthians 8:23-24)
Tom
Benjamin wrote:
“ Your question affirms the point. You assume a universal quality that is not there to fix a problem that does not exist.“
Do you have any idea how many Bible believing churches are carnal against their brethren of other local assemblies over “doubtful disputations”?
“For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.” (1 Corinthians 1:11)
The “house of Chloe” declared unnecessary division of carnal church leaders of Corinth! God agreed and Paul wrote about unity within one body (all churches) must always be considered.
Considering all these unnecessary divisive churches, do you actually believe before God that local church autonomy is not carnal?
Tom
Tom,
How can the ‘universal Church’ be non-hierarchical yet still bind subordinate churches? It seems hierarchical to me.
Paul was an Apostle, holding a special office that has now ceased. Are there still Apostles today like Paul, John, and Peter?
Autonomy pertains to human hierarchy. Churches are not autonomous from the Lord Jesus Christ. While churches can have mixed reports, this is not ideal, but it is possible (see Rev. 2-3). The goal for Christians should be to have ‘a pure Church.’
If carnal Churches are a problem and the Church is universal, what is it doing today to fix the things?
Benjamin wrote:
“If carnal Churches are a problem and the Church is universal, what is it doing today to fix the things?”
Nothing, since “local churches” do not believe they have a problem. Baptists cover it up by throwing around “autonomy”. It is a convenient form for rich American assemblies (like the Corinthians) that do not want to be associated in brotherly love with poor churches in the world. It would mean that they would have an obligation to help them (2 Corinthians 8) if a need was known and churches worked together to establish an administrative and organizational order to help the brethren.
That would be an obvious biblical mandate (food and raiment) “worldwide” in distributing to the necessity of the saints. Also, there should be another obvious biblical mandate to work together in establishing a “worldwide” ministry of preaching the gospel. There should be a coordinated effort of the body of Christ to reach the world in an effective manner rather than this laughable manner by which “the Baptists” with all there biblical knowledge do not even have the power to bring down the sodomites, perverts, and drunkards by showing them the truth of Jesus Christ.
The autonomous Baptist churches allow the world to make fun of Christ rather than the power of the church working together (Acts 5) to put the fear of God upon them and cause them to seriously consider Jesus Christ.
If the number of churches (organized as one body) were working together, they could turn the world upside down. But what I actually know is that most of them fear man, insomuch that they will not preach the gospel, for the world is well organized by Satan to destroy the testimony of these autonomous churches.
He is organized and the churches are not.
Tom
Interesting. Thank you for sharing your views. Are you part of ‘the organized Church’ turning the world upside down? What is it called?
I am a member of an independent Baptist Church. Now you know my background.