Baptist History Homepage

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

PART II
CHAPTER IV
THE RELATION OF THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH
THEORY TO OTHER DOCTRINES

     The error of the universal church theory is not confined to the nature of the church, but vitally affects other important teachings of the Scriptures. This theory promotes a misunderstanding of the "body of Christ," "union with Christ," "Spirit baptist," "the Kingdom of God," and the bibical record concern­ing the "founding of the church."

     When these subjects are approached with the universal church theory as a basis for their interpre­tation they will always become misleading. By dis­carding this theory these important doctrines take a new form aNd proclaim a vital practical message.

     The body of Christ. — A study of the body of Christ is closely bound to the other figures used of the church. The most important of these are "temple" and "building" which will be explained under this heading.

[p. 90]
     There also seems to be much confusion surround­ing this subject, especially in the selection of proof texts. Ephesians and Colossians are chiefly relied on by the universal church advocates. Again, there are different conceptions as to what constitutes the body. In most cases it is treated in a materialistic fashion.

     Some people feel that this fugure of the body refers exclusively to what they call the "mystical Body of Christ." It is generally conceded, however, that the local church is a specialized localization or manifestation of the universal body.

     Dr. W. R. White adopts a different view and distinguishes between a functioning body and a forming body. He says that "all Christians are numbered with that accumulating body of Christ which is unassembled - that congregation of Christ which is not yet congre­gated."1 They are only "members in prospect."2 of a fut­ure church. The functioning body is composed of "only baptized believers in the fellowship of a local body, having the New Testament as its law and only law.3
--------------------------
1 White, op. cit., p. 53.
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid.

[p. 91]
     This functioning body then is local and mul­tiple. All believers "are in the forming but not the functioning body,"1 according to Dr. White's view.

     Dr. Dana's conception of the body of Christ, is an "ideal, spiritual body in sacred and vital con­nection with Christ its divine founder as its head."2 A serious difficulty with his view here is that the only Scripture that mentions Christ founding a church is Matthew 16:18 which Dr. Dana admits refers to the institution of the local church.

     Dr. Hort's conception of the body of Christ is:

     To each local Ecclesia St. Paul has ascribed a corresponding unity of its own; each is a body of Christ and a sanctuary of God: but there is no grouping of them into partial wholes or into one great whole.3
     Joseph Cross, an Episcopalian, in a book of sermons entitled Coals from the Altar, emphatically rejects this idea of an invisible church and mystical body of Christ. He says:
--------------------------
1 Ibid., p. 54.
2 Dana, op. cit., p. 53.
3 Hort, op. cit., p. 168.
[p. 92]
     We hear much of the invisible church as contradistinguished from the church visible. Of an invisible church in this world I know nothing, the Word of God says nothing; nor can anything of the kind exist, except in the brain of a heretic. The church is a body; but what sort of a body is that which can neither be seen or identified? A body is an organism, occupying space and having a definite locality. A mere aggregation is not a body; there must be organization as well.1
     The ideas expressed by the figure "body" make it an inappropriate term to designate any so-called invisible church. Dr. Conner points out that "the function of the body in relation to man's spirit is to objectify and make visible his inner life. So the church makes Christ visible to man."2 This comparison is subject to disputation but even if it is correct it is only meaningful when applied to a local church.

     This mystical interpretation is frequently regarded as the only possible interpretation. A careful examination, though, reveals many difficulties with this theory and admits of two other more plausible interpretations.
--------------------------
1 Joseph Cross, Coals From the Altar, cited in Roy Mason, The Church That Jesus Built (6th ed. n. d.) pp. 55-6.
2 Conner, op. cit., p. 270.

[p. 93]
     First, when the Apostle speaks of the body, he may be speaking figuratively of an intimate relationship between Christ and the church.

     The author of Theodosia Ernest adopts this view in interpreting "the body." He says:

     Each and every true Church of the whole mul­titude of Churches is connected to Christ by a union so intimate and tender that it resembles that between the husband and the wife; and, indeed it is as though every Church were a part of his very self, 'bone of his bone,' and 'flesh of his flesh.'1 view in interpreting "the body." He says:
     A second more plausible interpretation is that the Apostle is speaking possessively, and this is in accordance with his other uses. (Romans 16:16 — "The churches of Christ salute you;" I Corinthians 12:27 — "Ye are the body of Christ.")

     The qualitative idea is usually used to ex­plain the genitive case used with reference to "his body."2 This construction would indicate that the body is a part of Christ — a picture incongruous with the body described in I Corinthians 12.
--------------------------
1 Theodosia Ernest (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, n. d.), II, p. 126.
2 Ephesians 1:23, Cf Colossians 1:18, 24.

[p. 94]
     But this could just as well be a possessive genitive construction. In fact, it is more likely to be because the qualitative genitive is a rare construc­tion in Greek grammar in comparison to the possessive genitive which is its most cormon use.

     The grammatical construction "body of Christ" is not different from the grammatical construction "Kingdom of God"; yet no intelligent person would call this a qualitative genitive construction indicating a pantheistic conception of a kingdom that is actually God. It is a kingdom which he owns and over which he rules.

     The fact that local churches are called bodies indiscriminately, thus emphasizing each as a distinct body proves that the term "body" can be used in a representative sense.

     In view of what has already been said about the singular being used with the article in a represent­ative sense for the whole class, it is clear that the scope is not limited to a particular object but refers to the whole multitude of separate congregations.

     It ie especially interesting to note that the Colossian church was called a body of Christ, since

[p. 95]
this is one of the epistles that is supposed to teach an invisible church.

     Colossians 3:15: "Let the peace of God rule in your hearts" (members of the Colossian Church1) "to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful."

     A better rendering of the phrase "one body" is "a body," a rendering that is commonly accepted by scholars.2 The reason for this is that heis3 is sometimes used in Greek for the indefinite article. Since the Greek language has no indefinite article, "the best that the Greek can do is use heis or tis in a weakened sense."4

     Colossians 1:18 and 24 must be considered in this light. If there is an essential unity to Paul's teach­ing, his idea of the body is harmonious.

     Paul has declared that there is "one body."5
--------------------------
1 This does not mean that the message was exclusively for the Colossians, but it was equally appli­cable to every church which received the letter.
2 ". . . Better to read "in a body," i.e. to be members of a body. . . ." Dr. Hort, op. cit., p. 161.
3 Greek for "one".
4 Robertson and Davis, op. cit., p. 274.
5Ephesians 4:4.

[p. 96]
This statement must be considered as indicative of a class. If there is a functioning body and a forming body, the Scriptures is inaccurate in its representation of "one body." Local churches are definitely declared to be independently existing bodies, which fact decidedly conflicts with the theory that they are merely manifestations of a larger body.

     Dr. Fish supports this with his argument that "if the Colossian church was one body, by implication the Ephesian or any other Church was another."1

     The passage concerning the Cornthian church is even more explicit in defining a local assembly as a body, since there is no definite article before church. I Corinthians 12:27 "Now ye are a body of Christ and members in particular."

     Here evidently it is the Corinthian community by itself that is called "a body of Christ." This deoends merely on the absence of an article but on humeis which cannot naturally mean 'all ye Christians.'2
     Because of the widespread misunderstanding of this subject, careful consideration should be given to
--------------------------
1 Fish, op. cit., p. 88.
2 Hort, op. cit., p. 145, 146.
[p. 97]
this section (I Corinthians 12:12-31 and the "body" it describes.

     Besides the two reasons cited by Dr. Hort there are other indisputable evidences that this "body" is a local church.

     The different parts of the body that are mentioned refer to part of the head, and they are so represented as being on earth. According to the in­visible church theory the head is represented as distinct from the body.1 Here the body is represented as a united whole with "ears," "eyes," "feet." These are the "particular members" of this divine organism — a local church. This passage eleminates any foundation for a distinction between the church as an organism and the church as an organization as contra­distinguished from each other. A local church is of necessity both and organism and an organization.

     Furthermore, it is a body which is visible and which is entered by baptism.2
--------------------------
1 Cf. I Corinthians 12:16-18.
2 Paul "implicity taught his heathen converts to believe that the body into which they had been baptized was itself the Ecclesia of God." Hort, op. cit., p. 108.

[p. 98]
     The passage also speaks of members of the body which are "more feeble" and of those "less honour­able" and of "uncomely parts." This is a description of members within a local church. It would not fit the picture of a mystical body. In such a body there could be no such distinction among the members be­cause it is supposed to be invisible.

     Furthermore, the passage refers to a body capable of being rent by schism or division. A universal, invisible church or body would be incapable of being rent by such division.

     Authur W. Pink feels that this is conclusive evidence that the body mentioned is a local church. He contends:

     But in the church which the Apostle is contemplating in I Corinthians 12: there was schism (I Corinthians 11:18 etc.) Therefore it is proof positive that it is the local church, and not the church universal which is in view in I Corinthians 12.1
     A final observrtion on this passage concerns the suffering of a member and its effect upon the body. This too is something that cannot possibly describe a
--------------------------
1 Authur W. Pink, "Does I Corinthians 12 refer to the Universal Church or to the Local Baptist Church," Faith and Life, XIX (January, 1946), p. 3.
[p. 99]
universal church us Dr. Pink points out:
     Is it true that whenever a believer in Christ in India or China (of whom I have never even heard) suffers that 'all the members,' all believers in America suffer with it or him? Certainly not. But it is true ideally, and often in experience, that when one member of the local church 'suffers' all the members of that local church suffer too.1
     In Romans 12:3-5 the same truth is expressed. The central verse is, "As in one body we have many members, and all the members have not the same office, so we the many are one body in Christ, and severally members one of another."

     Dr. Hort feels that "the ideas are essentially the same"2 here as in I Corinthians 12.

     Here the language used is not formally applied to the Roman community in particular; but the context shows that St. Paul is still thinking of local communities, and of the principles which should regulate the membership of the Roman community, as of all others.3
     The figure "body" is consistently used by the Apostle throughout the New Testament to represent a local church. There is not sufficient evidence to
--------------------------
1 Ibid.
2 Hort, op. cit., p. 146.
3 Ibid.
[p. 100]
indicate a broadening of the term in Ephesians or Colossians to include all Christians. As has already been observed it is used in Colossians 3:15 to represent an individual church.

     When the Apostle refers to "the body" or "one body" he is either using the word generically or re­ferring to a specific body representative of a class.

     In Ephesians 4:11 the Apostle tells of the officers appointed by the Lord for the purpose of "perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ." All of these pur­poses are suitable to a local situation but are unintelligible when applied to anything broader. Only a visible assembly of believers could be edified and this is what Paul meant.

     This same idea is continued in verse 16 which speaks of "the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love." "Edification" is clearly and

[p. 101]
uniformly set forth in the New Testament as the function of the assembly."1

     The strongest indication of any qualitative idea regarding the body of Christ is in Ephesians 5:30: "For we are members of his body, of his flesh and of his bones." The two latter phrases "of his flesh," and "of his bones," however, are omitted in Nestle's edition of the Greek New Testament, Westcott and Hort's edition of the Greek New Testament, and the American Revised Version. The reason for this is that the better manuscripts do not contain these phrases and their authority is at least questioned.

     But, suppose they are a part of the original manuscript. The conculsion is not irresistable that they are expressing a quality idea. They may be only figures of speech to indicate the intimacy of the relation between Christ and the church which he instituted. In the verses immediately following, Paul uses the figure of the marriaje relationship to illustrate how imtimate is this relationship.
--------------------------
1 Cf. Thomas op. cit., p. 273.

[p. 102]
     Some people understand the references to "a great mystery" in the following verses as indicating something incapable of being understood, which would support their "mystical" argument. This is not necessarily true because a mystery in bibical usage is not something incapable of being understood but a previously hidden truth. It had been hidden in God in ail past ages, but through his chosen steward, he turned light upon this mystery. After the Apsotle revealed Christ's relation to the church by divine revelation it was no longer a mystery.1

     The above mentioned references to the "body" are not the only ones, but they are understanding ex­amples to illustrate how the Apostles uses the term.

     Most people find it difficult to associate in their thinking an identification of the local church as the body of Christ. Their objection is that Christ would have many bodies. This problem arises, however, from the fact that the qualitative idea of the body has so long been considered as a necessary corollary doctrine to the universal, invisible
--------------------------
1 Cf. David Smith, op. cit., p. 320.

[p. 103]
church. Nevertheless, the Scriptures teach otherwise and each local church is in itself conceived of as a body of Christ.

     Other figures are used as synonymous with the body end the assembly such as "building," "household," "temple," etc. But all of these figures are local and confirm the one meaning. They are all local, but it is tautological nonsense to say so.

     Of particular interest is the figure "temple." Many people do not understand how such a lofty figure can be used of the local church, but the fact remains, it is so used. It is also used as a figure for the human body. (I Corinthians 6:19), but never of an invisible entity.

     The figure is applied to the Corinthian church in I Corinthians 3:16: "Know ye not that ye are a sanctuary of God, and the Spirit of God dwelleth in you."1

     Here, Dr. Hort says:

     The individual local community is itself addressed as a sanctuary of God; and the same con­ception, if we are not to disregard both grammar and natural sense, is expressed with great generality in Ephesians II:21 f. . . .2
--------------------------
1 Translated by Hort, op. cit., p. 164.
2 Ibid.
[p. 104]
     He says in conclusion:
     Indeed, if I mistake not, the thought of a universal spiritual temple of God is, to say the least, not definitely expressed anywhere by St. Paul.1
     The Revised Version translates the phrase "all the building" as "each several building." This translation represents each different "building" or assembly as developing into a "temple."2 Then the figure "temple" gives place to the figure "body."3

     The examination of these figures which repre­sent the assembly in Ephesians and Colossians show that they support the local idea of the church.

     Union with Christ. — This subject will be in­vestigated because so many have approached it from the universal church standpoint.

     The perceptions gained from considering what union with Christ means from the standpoint of a local church concept do not take anything away from the
--------------------------
1 Hort, op. cit., p. 164.
2 "Just before this he had written of the church as an institution or abstractly, in which Jew and Gen­tile are made into one. But the abstract becomes con­crete in each several buildings." Carroll, op. cit., p. 45.
3 Ephesians 3:6; 4:4, 12, 16, etc

[p. 105]
glory of this doctrine; rather they magnify it.

     Union with Christ is most commonly set out by the term "in Christ." Some preliminary considerations clarify the relation of the churches to this doctrine.

     1. Individual believers are regared as hav­ing their position "in Christ." "There is therefore, now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus."1

     2. Local churches, in the plural, are said to be "in Christ." "And was unknown be face unto the churches of Jusea which were in Christ."2

     3. A local church at a given place has its position "in Christ." "Paul, and Silvanus, the Timotheus unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ.3

     Since the Thessalonian church enjoyed this position it is quite reasonable to conclude that all of the New Testament churches enjoyed the same position. This union was a result of their faith, and Christ was in them as churches just as much as he is in the
--------------------------
1 Romans 8:1. Cf. John 14:20; 2 Corinthians 5:17.
2 Galatians 1:22. Cf. I Thessalonians 2:14.
3 Thessalonians 1:1. Cf. 2 Thessalonians 1:1.

[p. 106]
believer. Conversely, the same is true. The difference churches are in Christ as well as are the individual believers.

     It is folly to try to define the nature of this union. No one is competent to explain the manner in which a man is in Christ or Christ is in man. The same thing applies to His union with the churches. The vital truth is that a sovereign, gracious God has produced the union. It is not ncessary to force this union with Christ into a materialistic pattern, such as is expressed by the figure "body." To do so pre­sents great difficulties.

     If this union does take the form of a body as such, it would have to be a "spirit body." This contradiction of terms is an impossiblity. The material and immaterial parts of man are distiguished by the terms "body and "spirit." A "spirit body" is as much and impossibility as a "round square," "a present past" or "two parallel lines which intersect." These are logical impossibilities because the ideas denoted by the predicates are contradictory to the ideas denoted by the subject.

[p. 107]
     It is true all Christians will some day posess a "spiritual body,"1 but this is not the same as the concept of a "spirit body." This spiritual body will be a glorified body capable of visibility and of being handled, the same as was Christ's resur­rection body.

     Another passage closely knit to this teaching of union with Christ is the intercessory prayer of John 17, in which Jesus prays for the unity of all believers. This passage can be twisted to teach several different things but is not contradictory to what has already been said.

     An understanding of the phrase "one as we" makes the whole section illuminating* A. W. Pink analizes the phrase in this manner:

     This refers not to a manifestation of ecclesiastical oneness, rather is it a oneness of per­sonal knowledge of and fellowship with the Father and with the Son, and therefore oneness in spirit, affection and aim. It is a oneness which is the outcome not of human agreement or effort, but of Divine power, through making each and all 'partakers of the Divine nature.'2
--------------------------
1 I Corinthians 15:44.
2 A. W. Pink, Exposition of the Gospel of John (Swengel, Pa.: Bible Truth Depot, 1945), IV, p. 100.
[p. 108]
     There is a sense in which the Saviour's peti­tion has already been granted. Acts 4:32 states that "the multitudes of them that believed were of one heart and one soul." But it has a double fulfillment or a continuous fulfillment."1 Among the real people of God there is a blessed underlying unity respecting the essentials of the faith. This lowest common denomination should never be made the basis of church polity, but nevertheless it does show that there is a divine, intimate, unbreakable relationship between Christ's people.

     In the latter part of the chapter Christ seems to have in mind a future manifestation of this unity which will make the world realize that the Father has sent the Son. When this unity is manifested it will include all of those who will believe on Him.2

     The time of this future manifestation will probably be at the return of Christ since only then will Christians be made perfect.3
--------------------------
1 "The union referred to is the consequence of 'glory given' to us. . . . Our spiritual union is begun now, but it only attains its full fruitation in the life to come." Pink, op. cit., p. 130.
2 John 17:20.
3 John 17:23, Cf. I John 3:2.

[p. 109]
     Union with Christ can be defined only in personal terms. The believer is represented as hav­ing his position "in Christ." That concept which makes the believer a part of a separate entity is a misinterpretation of union with Christ.

     This union is everwhere represented as an inscrutable union. It would be presumptious to make this consonant with the so-called "Mystical Body of Christ." This does not mean that the individual believer or the corporate body of believers, which constitute a local church, are not vitally united to Christ by faith. It does mean that the manner of this union is incapable of mechanical definitions. It means that to man only the fact is revealed, not the fashion.

     Union with Christ indicated a unique relationship. It connotes the full identification of the believer or church with Christ in the totality of His death, burial, resurrection, and triumphant life - a connotation that requires no universal church theory to make it meaningful.

     There is something far more mysterious about union with Christ than Can be explained in mechanical

[p. 110]
terms. "Your life," says Paul, "is hid with Christ in God."1 So the believer not only is in Christ by a vital union based upon faith but he is also in some way identified with the Heavenly Father.

     "Union with Christ" is a doctrine that needs Careful examination, but it is pressumptious to assume that it is in conflict with the clear teaching on the nature of the church.

     Spirit Baptism. - The Baptism of the Holy Spirit is an important feature of the proclamation of a universal church - more so by those affected with interdenominationalism than by the ecumenical wing. It is also an important characteristic of the majority of the smaller sects in America.

     The chief tenet of this theory is that all believers are baptized by the Holy Spirit into the "mystical body of Christ."

     The battle ground for controversy on this subject is I Corinthians 12:13: "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
--------------------------
1 Colossians 3:3.

[p. 111]
drink into one Spirit."

     Two interpretations are possible here. The first is a view set out by A. W. Pink. He carefully explains the siginificance of pneuma which is translated "spirit." According to his view the English capitali­zation is misleading since there was no capitalization in the Greek text. It is "a question of exposition and interpretation, not of translation in any wise,"1 whether or not pneuma is to be considered the Holy Spirit.

     The Greek word pneuma has varied uses in the Bible. It may denote the "spirit of man," the "Holy Spirit," or it may be "also employed psychologically."2 There are many cases where this is true and a special illustration is the phrase in Philippians 1:27, "stand fast in one spirit." Here "Spirit," "has the force of one­ness of thought, aecord, object.3

     . . . . No matter what our nationallity — Jew or Gentile — no matter our local standing — slave or
--------------------------
1 A. W. Pink, "Does I Corinthians 12 refer to the universal church or to a Local Baptist Church?", op. cit., p. 2.
2 Ibid. p. 2.
3 Ibid. p. 3.
[p. 112]
free men — all the members of the local church have been baptized 'in one Spirit' — that is, in one mind, purpose, accord, and there is therefore oneness of aim for them to follow, oneness of privledge to enjoy, oneness of responsiblity to discharge. Furthermore, they are said to 'drink of one spirit' — that is, they one and all app­ropriate (symbolized by 'drink') the oneness of spirit.1
     The possiblity that the preposition "en" should be translated "in" instead of "by" and other factors favor this view. There is one serious object­ion, however, namely, that the contextual references to the Spirit undoubtedly refer to the Holy Spirit. It does not necessarily follow that these succeeding references to the "spirit" have to refer to tbe Holy Spirit since verse 12 begins a new section. But it is a more reasonable assumption that this personal idea is directly continued.

     A consideration of these factors makes the following interpretation seem to be the most logical and scriptual view.

     This second view has been expressed by different writers T. P. Simmons states it breifly:

     This passage means that being in or under the power of the Holy Spirit we were all brought by
--------------------------
1 Ibid. p. 3.
[p. 113]
the lord to baptism, and thus were made members of His body the local chureh. Thus baptism is the ceremonial door into the church.1
     Neither of these views admit of the possiblity that this is a mystical spirit baptism, in both cases it is not Holy Spirit baptism at all but water baptism.

     Four other considerations establish the truth of this statement.

     1. Whenever the New Testament speaks of bap­tism without anything in the verse or context which expresses otherwise, it is always water baptism which is in view.

     2. The baptism of the Holy Spirit was a special act which enabled the unbelievers to witness the power of God.

     John predicted to those whom he immersed that one would come afterward and immerse them in the Holy Spirit and fire.2 If this is applicable to Christians today, where is the immersion in fire? There is noth­ing about those predictions that indicates something mystical, but rather something real and visible.
--------------------------
1 T. P. Simmons, A Systematic Study of Bible Doctrine (Russell, Ky.: The Baptist Examiner, 1948, 2nd ed.), p. 344.
2 Matthew 3"11.

[p. 114]
This was fulfilled at Pentecost when the people were enveloped by the Holy Spirit and "cloven tongues like as of fire. . . sat upon each of them.1 When there was a Holy Spirit immersion it was stated in unmistakeable language and distinguished from water immersion, such as at the house of Cornelius in Acts 10:44-48.

     3. The Apostle Paul emphatically declares that there is "one Lord, one faith, one immersion." If there is also the abiding act of immersion in the Holy Spirit, besides the prepetual ordinance of im­mersion, then there is not "one immersion" but two.

     The believer is indwelt by the Holy Spirit and infilled but not mystically immersed. The Bible should not be interpreted mystically or figuratively, unless there is absolute necessity, that is, when the context compels it.

     4. The classification of this as mystical Spirit baptism makes the Holy Spirit both the administrator and the element, and assumption nowhere sustained in the New Testament.

     The limitation of the "body" to a local church
--------------------------
1 Acts 2:3.

[p. 115]
which has already been ably demonstrated by Dr. Hort forbids any notion of a mystical Holy Spirit baptism being taught in I Corinthians 12:13.

     The one passage around which has been built a theory of mystical baptism fails to support the claim of those who have so ardently propagated the theory,

     The Kingdom of God. — A common feature of the universal church theory is the identification of the Kingdom of God with the church of God. This cannot be said to be unanimous among the advocates of the theory but it is generally characteristic of the uni­versal church dogma. When a distinction is made, it is usually "a splitting of hairs," rather than a recognition of the broad differences.

     Nevertheless, the New Testament makes a broad distinction between the Kingdom and the church. The Kingdom, admittedly, is universal and invisible,1 but the church is local and visible.2 All that is said about the Kingdom leads to the conclusion that it "neither is nor was it intended by human agency ever
--------------------------
1 Matthew 24:14; Luke 17:20.
2 Acts 18:22; Revelation 2:1.

[p. 116]
to be made, an external or discernible earthly entity.1

     For a long time in the begining of the Christ­ian era, there was no confusion concerning the identity of these tvo separate entities. This important obser­vation is conceded by Dr. R. Newton Flew when he says: "It is remarkable that in the first four centuries of the Christian era the identification of the Church with the Kingdom of God on earth is nowhere made.2

     Regrettably, though, this distinction did not long continue, as Dr. Hort, points out:

     Since Augustine's time the Kingdom of Heaven or Kingdom of God, of which we read so often in the Gospels, has been simply identified with the Christian Ecclesia.3
     Most people have been satisfied with such an explanation but Dr. Thomas justly condemns this identi­fication on the following grounds:
     . . . . The word ekklesia would call up, in the mind of an ordinary Greek, or Greek-speaking per­son, a conception not only not identical with, but in every particular the antithesis of, that suggested by the word basileia.4
--------------------------
1 Thomas, op. cit., p. 241.
2 R. Newton Flew, Jesus and His Church (New York: The Abington Press, 1938), p. 30.
3 Hort, op. cit. p. 19.
4 Thomas, op. cit., p. 213.
[p. 117]
     The proper meaning of the two words does not justify this identification, Ekklesia meant an assembly, whereas the concept of the Kingdom corresponded to the basileia which was universal.

     This is recognized by Dr. White when he says:

     "It is very interesting to note that when the Holy Spirit chose a special word with which to designate the New Testament church, he selected the Greek assembly idea instead of the Roman Empire view."1
     Dr. Hort recognizes the wide difference be­tween the church and the Kingdom and points out that there is no ground for making them synonymous:
     But we are not justified in identifying the one with the other, so as to bo able to apply directly to the Ecclisia, whatever is said in the Gospels about the Kingdom of Heaven or of God.2
     In order to rightly understand the nature of the Kingdom of God, a distinction must be made between the two. Nevertheless, the relationship of the church institution to the Kingdom of God must be recognized. Dr. Fish points out this relationship.
     It is no dim and unimportant reflection of the kingdom, but, possessing the best elements of
--------------------------
1 White, op. cit., p. 57.
2 Hort, op. cit., p. 19.
[p. 118]
the kingdom, is, under God, the organised power by which it is to be extended to the ends of the earth.1
     The founding of the church. — As has already been observed, it is affiiraed by some of the universal church advocates, that the church began at Pentecost. This particular of the theory is more or less confined to the dispensational school, and its belief is not so generally adopted as the major parts of the theory. Nevertheless, for this study, it is important to give it consideration.

     To say that there was no church in existence before Pentocost is to ignore the clear activity, and recognition of a corporate society before this event.

     It appears that the church received the commission,1 had a prayer meeting,2 and elected a treasurer prior to the Pentecostal experience.3 Then on the day of Pentecost three thousand people were added.4 It is a mathematical necessity that something previously existed, else there could not have been something added to it. All of these factors indicate the existence of
--------------------------
1 Matthew 28:16-20.
2 Acts 1:14.
3 Acts 1:23-26.
4 Acts 2:41.

[p. 119]
a working organization.

     It is not clear that the Christian institution was not already in existence when Jesus said, "Upon this rock I will build my church." It is certain that it was not a literal prolongation of the Jewish church because of the contextual eiements.

     This does not mean, however, that Jesus had not begun to build His institution. It is quite possible that its germinal beginings are recorded in Luke 6:12-17. The whole scene implies a called out assembly in that only twelve of His many disciples formed the initial group — these "He named apostles."1 Thus, they were more than called out ones because all of His disciples were this, but the twelve were a called out assembly of the called out ones.

     It may be that this is what Paul is speaking about when he says that "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."2
--------------------------
1 Luke 6:13
2 I Corinthians 12:28.

[p. 120]
     This conclusion is not irresistable, however, because it is equally as possible a reference to im­portance of place as it is to a reference of priority in time.

     Dr. Flew points out that "the choice of twelve men in itself implies the begining of an organization."1

     Much ambiguity surrounds the verb build (oikodomaso). Thayer defines its meaning as "to build" but thinks that it means "to found," as Jesus uses it here. There can be no serious objection to its primary sense "to build" as Hort points out:

     The primary sense of ekklesia as a congregation or assembly of men is not altered by the verb "build". . .associated with it. . . . To speak of men as being built is in accordance with the Old Testament usage.2
     The real difficulty with the verb is whether it expresses point action or linear action. Both are possible, but the linear action idea conforms to what has already been said. In this way it would best be translated — "I will be building my church."

     The universal church advocates have attempted
--------------------------
1 Flew, op. cit., p. 26.
2Hort, op. cit., pp. 15, 16.

[p. 121]
121 to place all saved people in the church. But they seem to have forgotten about the Old Testament saints by setting its "birthday" at Pentecost. To be sure, the necessity for placing all saved people in the church does not exist.

     The often used expression "the birthday of the church" serves no practical purpose, but rather serves to disguise or abolish the important truth that Jesus brought into existence during His earthly ministry an institution which would perpetually pro­mote the ends of the Kingdom of God.

     It must be obvious now that church concepts serve as a basis for interpretation of many scriptural teachings. A convenient device for settling difficul­ties is to interpret them according to the most popu­lar theories but the answers usually are far from exact.

==========

Conclusion
Table of Contents


Baptist History Homepage