Baptist History Homepage

The Church: A Critique of the Universal Church Theory
By Roger W. Maslin

PART II
CHAPTER III
ECCLESIA IN EPHESIANS AND COLOSSIANS

     Preliminary considerations. - Inasmuch as ekklesia is supposed by Hort and other scholars to be used differently in Ephesians and Colossians, special study is given to these passages. A preliminary consideration to an understanding of these passages, how­ever, must be understanding and recognition of the nature of the epistles.

     The study of ecclesiology in these epistles is not so much a study of church polity as it is a study of the relationship between Christ and His church. This is a vital message of the two epistles. Christ is set out as the pre-eminent one and the church's relation to Him is defined.

     A second preliminary consideration has to do with the encyclical nature of the Ephesian and Colossian letters. It is pointed out by the textual scholars that the phrase "at Ephesus" is not in the more

[p. 71]
reliable manuscripts but the epistle to the Ephesians is to be viewed rather as a circular letter. The church at Ephesus was the first recipient of the let­ter, after which it was shared by the sister churches.1

     The same is true of the Colossian letter as well as certain other of the epistles. The destination of the Colossian letter was all of the churches of the Lycus Valley of which the Colossian church was the more important as regards the content of the letter. All of these churches were predominately Gentile.2 defined.

     These two factors furnish valuable insight into the usage of the word ekklesia. The consideration of these factors coupled with an understanding and recognition of the varied uses of words shows that these epistles are not a contrast to other teachings but a harmonious, united whole.

     Words may be used either in the concrete or abstract sense but the basic meaning does not change because of different usage. A concrete usage confines the subject to time and place whereas an abstract
---------------------------
1 Cf. Smith, op. cit., pp. 527, 528.
2 Ibid. pp. 553, 554.

[p. 72]
usage is confined to generalities. This abstract usage of ekklesia may have the sense of designating a kind (often called a generic use), or it may refer to an institution or some similar equivalent idea but the meaning is never changed by a simple change of usage. The abstract usage is essential in many cases for the expression of a thought in a general way without any reference to a partitualar object. The abstract or generic use of a word, basically, is no different in meaning from its use to designate a particular assembly.

     Dr. Strong recognnizes this generic use and illustrates it beautifully when he says:

     It is only by a common figure of rhetoric that many churches are spoken of together in the singular number, in such passages as Acts 9:31.1 We speak generically of 'man' meaning the whole race of men; and of 'the horse,' meaning all horses.... So we may speak of 'the American college,' or 'the American theological seminary', but we do not thereby mean that the colleges or the seminaries are bound together by any tie of outward orginization.2
---------------------------
1 Dr. Strong erroneously assumes that this refers to a plural number of churches referred to in the singular. Rather it is a reference to the original assembly at Jerusalem which was scattered by persecu­tion. Cf. pp. 61, 62. His illustrations of the generic usage of word, however, are accurate.
2 Strong, op. cit., p. 496.
[p. 73]
     The generic use of words is repeatedly employ­ed in the New Testament. A good illustration is found in Matthew 24:32 with reference to "the fig tree." Dr. Broadus clarifies the expressed idea there when he says: "The article 'the fig tree', does not necessarily indicate a particular tree, but may mean only that kind of tree or that class of objects."1

     It is not necessary to add a new idea to ekklesia because its expressed meaning makes just as good sense or better sense than any recent innovations. It should be understood as a generic usage.

     Dr. Broadus's criticisms in connection with the word "fulfilled" in Matthew 1:22, which meaning some have tried to change, can be applied to this particular situation.

     This serious departure from the etymology and regular use of the word is supposed by such expositors to be required by a few passages in which it is difficult for us to see that there exists the strict relation of prediction and fulfillment. But such passages it will be found, all admit of at least a possible explanation in consistency with the idea of a real fulfillment..., and we have no right to take this or any other word in a sense alien to its origin and use, unless there
---------------------------
1 Broadus, op. cit., p. 491.
[p. 74]
be found passages in which it cannot possibly have the usual meaning.1
     An examination of the questioned passages in Ephesians and Colossians reveals that the local idea expressed in the generic and institutional usage does make good sense.

     Dr. Broadus gives another helpful illustration in this connection in his comments on the "just man" of Matthew 1:19. he says:

     The statement has bean frequently made (so Chrysostom, Grotius), that the Greek word rendered 'righteous' may signify 'good, Kind,' but it has not been shown to have that meaning anywhere in the New Test., and the common meaning gives a good sense, in either of the above ways.2
     Dr. McDaniel illustrates the generic use in the sense of the instituion:
     The Presidency of the United States is an institution established in the Article II, Section I of the Constitution before there was a president.3
     Dr. Dana also recognizes this generic use in connection with Matthew 16:18 as had already been cited. Is there any reason, then why this usage could not be
---------------------------
1 Ibid., p. 11.
2 Ibid., p. 9.
3 McDaniel, op. cit., p 19
[p. 75]
further extended in the epistles of Colossisns and Ephesians? This usage alone accounts for the breadth of significance and preserves the essential meaning of the word ekklesia which must have locality and visibility.

     In these twin epistles of Colossians and Ephesians ekklesia occurs thirteen times. Dr. Dana classifies only two of them as local references - Colossians 4:l5 and 16.1 These are definitely concrete usages of the word ekklesia referring to the assembly in the house of Nymphas and the assembly of the Laodiceans. This leaves for careful examination only eleven passages that might refer to something other than the local church. They are: Ephesians 1:22, 3:10, 21; 5:23, 25, 27, 29, 32; and Colossians 1:18, 24.

     Exegetical examination. - The first passage (Ephesians 1:22) is a section translated with sufficient looseness by the King James Translators and is capable of varied translations. Two ideas stand out in bold relief, however, the headship of Christ over the church and the fullness of Christ appropriated to the body.
---------------------------
1 Dana, op. cit., p. 51.

[p. 76]
     The phrase "'gave him as head over all things to the Ecclesia which is His body'"1 (Hort's translation) expresses not only the authority of Christ over all things in general but the special gift of God to the church as the source of all authority, and to whom the church or assembly (as and institution) owes its allegiance.

     The reference which makes "His body" synonymous with the assembly will be treated under the subject "The Body of Christ." It will suffice to say now, a qualitative idea is not clearly expressed.

     The fullness mentioned here fits neither the universal church theory not the ideal church theory, but rather is harmonious with the local idea.

     The fullness of God is predicatable alike of Christ, of individual Christians, and of the church. 'In Him (Christ) dwells all the full­ness of the Godhead bodily,' (Col. II:9). 'Till we all attain to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ,' (Eph. IV:13, cf. III:19). 'The church which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all,' (Eph I:23). The fullness of God, then is not limited to the entire host of the redeemed or to any considerable portion of them, but may be attained by each disciple, just as any number of artists may attain to the fullness of musical or oratorical skill, or any
---------------------------
1 Hort, op. cit., p. 147.
[p. 77]
number of members of Christ's kingdom may have the fullness of its 'righteousness, joy and pease.' Fullness in this sense, is precisely the glorious thought of the Holy Spirit, while a single fullness which must be parcelled out to all the members of the kingdom is a very meager and material view.1
     So it is quite likely that Dr. Fish is right when he concludes that:
     A Single fullness parcelled out so as to make the individual man, planet or society, only a fraction of fullness is immensely below the divine conception.1
     Dr. Carroll points out that this fullness "is presently applied, in his prayer, to the particul­ar Congregation,"3 (Ephesians 3:19, "that ye might be filled with all the fullness of God.")

     All of this agrees with the historical setting of the letter. The Gnostic heresy taught that the "fullness" dwelt only in God. Paul corrects this teaching by informing them the fullness of God was in Christ, the believer, and every lowly assembly.

     The second passage in this study is Ephesians 3:10: "To the intent that now unto the principalities and
---------------------------
1 Fish, op. cit., p. 94.
2 Ibid., p. 95.
3 Carroll, op. cit., p. 47.

[p. 78]
powers in heavenly places might be known by the Church the manifold wisdom of God."

     The context and passage itself defines this "church" as the agency through (dia) which the heavenly forces could learn of the manifold wisdom of God." Paul's preaching among the Gentiles was to this intent. It is evident that an invisible church, if such a thing existed, could have no mission and would be incapable of being an agency to reveal anything. The passage, though, fits the idea and function of the local church and it is only logical to conclude that it is a generic use of ekklesia, defining and illust­rating the work carried on by the institution which Christ founded.

     The author of Theodosia Ernest presents a rich insight into the teaching of this verse when he contends that the idea here is

     that the angels of God, who are elsewhere called principalities and powers, might look at this wonderful contrivance of Jesus Christ for the execution of his laws and the promotion of the comfort and piety of his people, and see in it evidences of the wisdom of God. It was a Divine contrivance, and characterized by infinite wisdom. Nothing else could possibly have done so wel1. Men have not believed this. Men have all the time been tinkering at God's plan, and
[p. 79]
trying to men it. Men have set it aside, and substituted others in its place; but to the angels it appears the very perfection of wisdom.1
     This same writer illustrates hypothetically the truth of this generic use, in support of his posi­tion, lie says:
     Suppose a friend in England should write to me that he is about to publish a new history of the steam-engine, 'in order that unto kings and princes, in their palaces and on their thrones, might be made known through the engine the manifold skill of the inventor:' what would you think of that man's common sense, even though he was a Doctor of Mechanics, who should insist upon it, that though the steam-engine was a definite and well-known machine, and there were a vast multitude of separate and distince steam-engines, yet there must also be, in some way or other, a vast conglomerated 'universal' engine, consisting of all the steam-engines in the world united into one; or else the language of my friend, when he speaks of 'showing the manifold skill of the inventor' through or by 'the engine,' is altogether unintelligible?2
     Dr, Fish also concludes that this is a generic use of the term. He goes on to say:
     No one would claim that a single local church could monopolize such glorious work as is referred to, nor could he any more consistently claim that an imaginary collection of churches or the equally intangible kingdom of heaven could efect such
---------------------------
1 Theodosia Ernest, (Philadelphia: American Publication Society, n.d.), II, p. l20.
2 Ibid., p. 120, 121.
[p. 80]
results. Reference is clearly had to the Christly elements in men as organized and operative in the church institution, maintaining and representing 'the unity of the spirit' in its seven incomparable points of doctrine and life, building up the in­dividual members as well as the organized body itself into 'the unity of the faith' with whatever additional to 'the unity of the spirit' it man involve, and stretching out by its evangelizing efforts in invicible power and unequaled glory through the world.1
     The third passage of interest to this study is Ephesians 3:21: "Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen."

     It would not be very plausible to suggest that this mean "believers in the aggregate" or an ideal conception of spiritual Israel. It is rather a paral­lel to Matthew 16:18, when Jesus refers to his particular institution — the church — and promised that the gates of hades would not prevail against it, and His later promise of being with it through all ages.

     This is something that is true of every church and does not need theological interpretations of either the universal church advocates or the ideal church advocates to make it understandable.
---------------------------
1 Fish, op. cit. p. 84, 85.

[p. 81]
     True, glory shall be to God 'in the church, in Christ, throughout all ages, world vithout end,' (Ephesians III:21), but it will be, not in her organized work continued, but in her perfected elements swallowed up in the kingdom which the Son will deliver up to the Father. Armies will disband when the banners of peace crown all the hills. Schools may close when all know the Lord from the least to the greatest. The streams may forget their beds when the floods of glory sweep over the highest mountain peaks, and a redeemed humanity forever float in the ark of God. The church will give glory to God, in the future eternal ages, as the works of the dead who die in the Lord follow them, not as working processes continued, but as beatific results enjoyed.1
     The next five places ekklesia is used are in the closely related verses of Ephesians 5:22-33.

     Verse 23: "For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church." The words hos kai (even as) are comparative conjunct­ions connecting and comparing like things. If a universal husband or wife could be produced it could well be compared to a universal church. A universal church cannot be justified by this scripture on any other grounds.

     No one would say that there is only one hus­band in the world or that the word "husband" has a
---------------------------
1 Fish, op. cit., p. 70.

[p. 82]
new meaning here of a great, universal, invisible husband, just because "husband" is in the sungular and has a definite article before it. This is a gen­eric use of ekklesia. It is expressing something that is true of each church.
     The wife is put as a representative word. It stands as the general name or title of married womem. It does not gather all married women into one immense wife, visible or invisible, 'universal,' but simply means that every wife of the whole multitude has her own husband for her guide, her protector, and her lawgiver, and JUST SO is Christ the head, the protector, the Saviour and ruler of his church. . . .1
     The apostle has made use of this same idea in I Corinthians 7:14 where he says "The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife." No attempt has been made to prove that this is an immense collective universal husband sanctified by a universal wife. It is univer­sally recognized that each and every unbelieving hus­band stands in this relation to a believing wife. This same principle applied to the Ephesian letter removes a lot of difficulties.

     Verse 24: "The church is subject unto Christ." This again is an abstract usage of the word ecclesia
---------------------------
1 Theodosa Ernest, (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, n. d.) II, p. 126.

[p. 83]
in an institutional or generic sense. Any New Testament church is subject unto Christ, so no interpreta­tion makes better sense than that the church referred to here is an institution. The fact that it is referred to in the singular with the definite article does not teach that there is just on "true church."

     Verse 25: "Christ loved the church." This is a parallel to verse 23 vhich has already been discussed. It is also closely bound together with what follows.

     What is said in these verses is an applicable to one church as another, just as what is said of the marriage relation is equally applicable to all husbands and wives, or just as what is said of man would be applicable to all men in a sentence which should read: 'Christ loved man and gave himself up for him.' And this ia the generic use.1
     Now consider both verse 25, and verse 27 ("a glorious church") in the light of Acts 20:28. Here a local church, the church at Ephesus, is described as the "church of God, which he hath purchased with his ovm blood." What is said here in Ephesians about Christ loving the church and giving himself for it "that he might present it to himself a glorious church"
---------------------------
1 Fish, op. cit., p. 91.
[p. 84]
is not distinguished from what is declared in Acts 20:28 concerning the Ephesian church. The Apostle would have all of the churches realize that this truth is equally applicable to them, therefore he refers to the ekklesia generically.

     Nor is this glorious redemption limited to the churches. Individual believers are spoken of as being redeemed By the blood of Christ and purified as well as are churches, but what the Apostle is explain­ing here is the relationship of the church to Christ as an embodiment of spiritual power. In fact, the New Testament nowhere makes an exception to the responsibility of church membership. The question of hereti­cal churches had not yet arisen and so all Christians, if faithful in their duties of promoting the Kingdom of God, would have voluntarily united with the agency divinely ordained for the promotion of the Kingdom. Hypothetically, all Christiana vould have been in a church. Separation from the church would be abnormal in the Christian exprience. The apostle ia treating a general truth and does not have to explain any exceptions.

[p. 85]
     Dr. W. H. H. Marsh, an advocate of the in­visible church admits in connection with bis passage (Ephesians 5:26-27):
     It is true if the passage cited from Ephesians and others of similar import 'are carefully ex­amined in their connection, it will be seen that they may be applied to any particular church; for Christ is head over all things to each.'1
     Verse 29 continues the same thought already set out in varse 27, concerning Christ's love for the assembly, and admits of no necessity for a new meaning. Paul employs an illustration from the inherent nature of man to show how Christ loved the church. "For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourished and cherished it, even as the Lord the church."

     Verse 32 concludes the uses of ekklesia in Ephesians. The explanation of the foregoing verses clarifies this one also. This is the generic use and refers to each church.

     The passages in Colossians containing ekklesia are practically identical in their associations with those already discussed in Bphesians. Since both passages in Colossians containing ekklesia are
---------------------------
1 Marsh, op. cit., p. 124.

[p. 86]
connected with the "body," a more complete discussion of these passages will be given in the section on "the body of Christ."

     Colossians 1:18 contains a generic use of the word ekklesia. Jesus is the head of each church as has already been pointed out in Ephesians 1:22. Again the Apostle employs the familiar figure of a head and body. The ambiguity of this figure is made sufficiently clear in Romans and I Corinthians where in the same language a local church is called a body.

     Body, like its cognate term embodiment, looks not toward the inward, unorganized and spiritual, so much as toward their enshrinement in the out­ward, organized and tangible.1
     The ideas implied by the use of the word "head" are such as fit only the local institution. Christ is the head of every particular church in which alone the institution expresses itself, in that he is not only the soverign ruler but the source of growth and life through vital connection with Him.

     This idea of headship is not confined to the church, generically speaking, but is elsewhere applied
---------------------------
1 Fish, op. cit., p. 93.

[p. 87]
to the principalities and powers — He is the Head of every 'principality' and 'authority'.1

     Colossians 1:24 is also a generic use. What is said in this verse is true of each church. Paul suf­fered what he did for the churches.

     The "church" of this verse is further defined by ascertaining the nature of "the body of Christ" which follows in the next chapter.

     This conception of the ekklesia in Ephesians and Colossians does not indicate that people outside of the church will not be saved. The Apostle uses a broader figure to describe the saints in the aggregate. In Ephesians 3:15 Paul speaks of the "whole family in heaven and earth." This family includes all believers (Galatians 3:26) Men are born into the fanily of God but are admitted on the suffrage of the members into the church.

     Realizing the importance of the ekklesia in the New Testament, theologians and expositors have tried to place all saved people in this church. This is not necessary since they are clearly defined as in
---------------------------
1 Smith's translation of Colossians 2:10, op. cit., p. 561.

[p. 88]
the family and kingdom of God. Some of Christ's people "are even in the realms of Antichrist himself; for he says, when mystical Babylon, drunk with the blood of the saints, is about to be destroyed, 'come out of her, my people, lest ye be partakers of her plagues.'"1

     This interpretation of Ephesians and Colossians no doubt seems far-fetched to the twentieth century mind, but nevertheless, it seems to be the sole apos­tolic conception. It is only because ecclesiological thought has been saturated with the universal invisible church concepts that such a difficulty exists. Indded, as has already been shown, this seems to be the only concept of apostolic times.

     It is safe to dismiss all of these references to the ekklesia in Ephesians and Colossians as generic references. Since this is a possible explanation which makes good sense, an additional meaning to ekklesia (one contrary to its fundamental idea) is not admissible.
---------------------------
1 Theodosia Ernest (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, n. d.), II, p. 127.

==========

Part II, Chapter IV
Table of Contents


Baptist History Homepage