Home » Posts tagged 'Ephesians'
Tag Archives: Ephesians
Debunking of Nine Marks Dual Church View: Both Universal and Local Churches, Part One
On 8/25/2022, the organization Nine Marks, started by Pastor Mark Dever of Capital Hill Baptist Church in Washington, DC, published on its website an article written by Jonathan Leeman, the editorial director of Nine Marks, entitled, “The Church: Universal and Local” (Click on the article to compare this analysis with the post). Nine Marks, I believe, wants to defend “local” because that is the main emphasis of Nine Marks. In the articles I have read by Nine Marks, they want to emphasize the meaning of “assembly” for ekklesia. That is enough to get major push back from the rest of evangelicalism.
Despite its doctrine of the church, local, Nine Marks teaches a universal church in the above article also as its position on the church, so a dual church view. Is there both a universal church and a local church? This post will begin an assessment of Leeman’s article as to its ecclesiological veracity.
In his first paragraph, the introduction, Leeman provides his definition for a universal church, a contradiction in terms, and for a local church. He calls the “universal church” “a heavenly and eschatological assembly.” You have to admire the point of consistency from Leeman with the meaning of ekklesia in his definition. He sticks with “assembly” through the essay. However, if it is an assembly, how could it be “universal”? Something universal does not and can not assemble. Leeman forces the definition to fit a catholic presupposition.
In Leeman’s summary, the second paragraph, he says the “New Testament envisions two kinds of assemblies.” I can’t argue against an assembly in heaven. Saints will assemble in heaven (cf. Hebrew 12:23). The church is not just any assembly though. The New Testament uses ekklesia to refer to something other than the church, and the King James translates it “assembly,” referring to a group of people gathered together, not a church (Acts 19:32, 39, 41). An assembly in heaven, the King James also calls “an assembly,” because it isn’t a church.
I’ve heard the heavenly assembly called a “church in prospect.” Leeman doesn’t use that terminology, but he takes the essence of that and stretches it into something mystical and for today. He calls salvation the membership for the universal church. All the saints will not be in “heaven,” actually the new heaven and the new earth, until the eternal state. The Bible has terminology for all saved people: the family of God and the kingdom of God. What occurs in heaven is not an ecclesiological gathering. The heavenly assembly does not function as a New Testament assembly.
The practical ramification of a “universal church,” Leeman explains, is “a local church that partners with other churches.” Leeman knows that nowhere does an English translation call the church a “local church.” Every church is local. Assemblies are always local. Churches should partner with other churches, but that isn’t a universal church. Those are still assemblies partnering with other assemblies of like faith and practice.
In his section, “Two Uses of the Word ‘Church’,” Leeman utilizes Matthew 16:18 and Matthew 18:17, the only two usages of ekklesia in the Gospels and both by Jesus. He says the first is universal and the second is local. Since no assembly is universal, he’s wrong on Matthew 16:18. An analysis of every usage of ekklesia by Jesus, most in Revelation 2 and 3, and over twenty times, every one is obviously local. Good hermeneutics or exegesis understands Matthew 16:18 like all the other times Jesus used ekklesia, where Jesus said, “my church.”
Jesus’ ekklesia is still an ekklesia, not something scattered all over the world, but still an assembly. When He calls it “my ekklesia,” Jesus distinguishes it from other governing assemblies. People in that day already understood the concept of a town meeting, a governing assembly. Jesus rules through His assembly and gives it His authority. Ekklesia was also the Greek word translated for the Hebrew congregation of Israel, the assembly in the Old Testament.
Leeman attempts to illustrate his dual church doctrine with two examples from the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:18 and 1 Corinthians 12:28.
For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. (11:18)
And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. (12:28)
Leeman says that 11:18 must be local and 12:28 must be universal. Leeman fails to mention a syntactical structure in Greek and English, either the particular or generical singular noun. Singular nouns have either a particular or generic usage. Singular nouns must be one or the other. 11:18 is an example of a particular singular noun. 12:28 is an example of a generic singular noun. The latter speaks of the church as an institution, representing all churches.
Ephesians 5:25 is a good example of the generic use of the singular noun.
For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
If there is a universal church, then there must be a universal husband and a universal wife. All of these singular nouns are examples of the generic singular noun. “The husband” is still a husband in one particular place or location. There is no mystical or platonic husband. This is how Paul speaks in 1 Corinthians 12:28. If the church in 12:28 is universal, then Paul excluded himself from salvation in 1 Corinthians 12:27, the previous verse, when he writes:
Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
He says concerning the church at Corinth, “ye are the body of Christ,” excluding himself. When Paul uses the body analogy, he means something local. All bodies are local. All body parts belong to one particular body, not spread out all over the planet.
Leeman assumes without proving. He does not prove a universal church. He assumes it and then he sees it places in the New Testament where it isn’t. His conclusions do not follow from his premises. In his section on “Universal Church,” being “God’s people” in 1 Peter 2:10 and adopted into God’s family in Romans 8:15 are not allusions to a church or “the” church.” These are salvation terms, not ecclesiological ones.
All 118 usages of ekklesia in the New Testament are an assembly either used as a particular singular noun or a generic singular noun. An ekklesia is always local. In a few instances, the assembly is something other than a church, but when it is used for the church, it is always local. That’s what ekklesia means.
To Be Continued
How Is Alcohol Related to Worship?
Maybe the question of the title got your attention. It sounds like that’s what I was trying to do, but I wasn’t. Instead I jumped into the car and turned it to the 24/7 radio station of the biggest Calvary Chapel in our area of Oregon. The son, who is now the senior pastor, was preaching on worship, a subject that is near and dear to me, as you readers know. In the midst of his talk, he had his crowd turn to Ephesians 5:18-19, which read:
18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit; 19 Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;
He didn’t break down verse 18 very far, but he related being “sloshed,” a word he used twice to refer to being drunk. He said that alcohol itself was fine, just not being drunk. To start, that belies the grammar of the verse. Look at it. Speaking of the “wine,” Paul said, “wherein is excess.” In other words, in the wine is excess, which is riotousness. The “wine” itself isn’t innocent. This is also how the Bible reads about alcohol or “wine” that can get someone drunk. It must be alcoholic, so in it is excess or riotousness, which are both sinful.
The Calvary Chapel senior pastor then said that there is a kind of singing when someone is sloshed. He compared to drunken revelry, and he said that was a contrast here. One can imagine the pub where a group of men are staggering home off pitch and slurring a popular song, what today is called a drinking song. I know this happens, but is this what Ephesians 5:18 is talking about? No. It really misses the point.
Being drunk is contrasted with being filled with the Spirit. There are at least two points that Paul is making with this contrast and it does relate to worship. One, drunkenness puts alcohol in control of someone. He’s controlled by the alcohol. The Greek words for “filled with” mean “be controlled by.” The believer is commanded to be controlled by the Holy Spirit and not alcohol. The alcohol is related to worship, but someone is never to be controlled by anyone or anything but the Holy Spirit. That means in every area of life, which the next twenty something verses reveal.
The control of alcohol brings excess and riotousness. The control of the Holy Spirit results in something else, what follows in the proceeding verses. Alcohol really does control. Someone can understand that. With that understanding, come to the Holy Spirit and imagine His controlling instead. Alcohol almost totally takes over with limited human control. Holy Spirit control is almost total control with a background of human control. A person is still doing something, but he’s controlled by Someone else as a whole, the Holy Spirit.
The second point of Paul is to relate to the false worship of Ephesus at the temple of Diana that the audience of the church at Ephesus would know. In the base of the pillars were ornately carved grapes. Drunkenness was part of the worship. It would bring a state of ecstasy, which was confused with a kind of divine control. This out of body type of experience of drunkenness gives the impression that someone is out of control, which he is, but that he is under the control of divine power. He isn’t. It’s the alcohol. Paul contrasts the false worship of Ephesus with the true worship of the true God. It isn’t ecstatic, which unfortunately and ironically is the worship of these Calvary Chapels.
The rock music of the the CCM that even originated with the first Jesus’ movement of the first Calvary Chapel in Costa Mesa, California gave the impression of something spiritual occurring. It wasn’t. It was entirely fleshly, ecstatic, like the drunkenness of the worship of Diana. Fleshly music brings a kind of ecstasy like that produced by alcohol that gives a counterfeit, false experience of spirituality. It might be “a spirit,” but it isn’t the Holy Spirit. It isn’t Holy and it isn’t Spiritual. Spiritual worship does not arise from the flesh, from alcohol, or from rhythm. These churches manipulate their listeners, giving them the wrong understanding of true spirituality. It is a form of idolatry.
There is actually no contrast in the worship of the Calvary Chapels with the world’s temples. They incorporate the ecstatic experience of the world into their so-called “worship.” In so doing, their people develop a false imagination of God. Their worship gives them a false god that does not have the same nature as the One and True God.
The local Calvary Chapel pastor compared drunken singing to the singing of Ephesians 5:19. First, he approved of alcohol as long as someone isn’t “sloshed.” He was saying this in a mocking tone, like he was embarrassed to be preaching about something bad related to alcohol. He was approving of alcohol as long as it didn’t result in drunkenness. In many people’s minds, being “sloshed” is a further level of drunkenness than the mere term drunken or legal drunkenness. This is missing the teaching of the verse and is dangerous to his audience.
The worship of Ephesians 5:19 proceeds from the control of the Holy Spirit. This is not carnal or emotional. It might result in emotions, but it is not emotional. Colossians 3:16 is a parallel passage and it compares Spirit filling to being controlled by the Words of Christ. If someone is controlled by the Holy Spirit and the Word of God, the first way that will manifest itself is in true worship.
The participles of Ephesians 5:19 relate to being controlled by the Holy Spirit. You can or will know if someone is saved and then filled with the Spirit, based upon your worship. Worship comes first in this list of manifestations. False worship is controlled by something other than the Holy Spirit. It doesn’t have to be alcohol. It could also be fleshly music that brings a closely related ecstasy to that occurring in the false worship in Ephesus.
Recent Comments