Church in the New Testament

[rivera01]

I’ve been wondering lately. Christ, in various parts of the gospels uses the word church, for the institution that He was going to build, that will last until His second coming. But, when Christ speaks of the Church, the apostles or disciples do not question Jesus about what a church is. I know everything is not in the Bible, and from what the gospels state, the apostles didn’t question Jesus about what a church is. After Christ’s promise to Peter that He would build His Church on Peter, Peter doesnt turn around and ask Christ what a Church is. So my question here is, did people in ancient times already had a basic concept of what a Church is? or, was this something totally new and unheard of before Christ?

 

[PiousTemplar]

I’m guessing they either left that out, or ‘Church’ in the old greek would have meant something they already had a concept of. I’ll let the experts take over now.

 

[rivera01]

That’s what I was thinking, but Christ makes it sound as if it something known to them.

 

[Tiberius1701]

Like PiousTemplar, I’m willing to let the experts correct me, but I’ll hazard a guess… well, a couple guesses.

First, it might be that they did ask, but the Gospel writers didn’t put it in the Gospels because they knew that the “nuts and bolts” of what “the Church” or “My Church” meant (that’s Jesus’ “My” from Matt 16:18, of course) was being passed on orally. We have to remember that in the first several centuries the Bible was almost exclusively a liturgical document. The Gospels especially were written specifically to be read aloud in Mass, so an explanitory aside about what the Church is would be a bit extraneous when the people hearing it read to them were experiencing the very core of Church life even as they heard it: they were celebrating the Divine Liturgy.

Second, it could also be that they didn’t ask for a very similar reason. The word “church” (or “ekklesia” in Greek) means something like “an assemply of those called.” And the biblical concept of calling is of course a call to be holy, to be set apart for God. Now, the People of God in the Old Testament, the Israelites/Jews, were very familiar with being called together as people set apart for God, and when they came together, they heard the Word of God - the Torah - and then they heard the interpretation of the Word, and then, if they were in the Temple in Jerusalem, the priests would offer sacrifice and then they would eat and/or drink the sacrifice. So, to the Jews, the concept of a gathereing of the called was, again, the familiar idea of the People of God called together to celebrate the Liturgy as set down for them to do by God.

I don’t have sources, and I don’t know the ins and outs of Jewish worship - but I do know that the Mass is the fullfillment, the perfection and completion, of the worship of the Old Covenant, and the Church is the fulfillment of the OT concept of the People of God. So, for the first audiences of the Bible, while the idea of the Church had to be expanded and fleshed out so that they could understand that it now means that the People of God truly are the Body of Christ - all of us together being many members of the One Body, as Paul says - the primary, basic idea was nevertheless probably familiar enough to them that they wouldn’t have been completely confused by it. … I think.

 

[PiousTemplar]

Wow Tiberius - Nice explanation!

God Bless,

PiousTemplar

 

[Mintaka]

Tiberius is exactly right. The Hebrew word for the assembly or gathering of all the people, men and women and children and babies in arms was “qahal”. It meant “called out”. In the Septuagint, that word was translated as “ecclesia”. The qahal was a big religious concept in the Apostles’ day, so they would probably know the term well, both in Hebrew and in Greek.

 

[rivera01]

Beautiful, thank you guys for the explination. Makes alot of sense now.

 

[QuickCat]

Hi Rivera: The word “church” is found only 3 times in the gospels. All 3 in Matthew - 16:18 and 18:17. The word simply means a “called out assembly.” Israel in the wilderness was a “church” [Acts 7:38]. In light of Paul’s teaching on the Body of Church [the church of this dispensation of the grace of God] we can be reasonably sure that the “church” that our Lord mentions in Matthew is a Jewish assembly. You may recall that our Lord’s first advent ministry was to Israel [Mt. 15:24; Romans 15:8]. If we are to study the Body of Christ church we must be in Paul’s epistles. He is the only writer to name the church of this dispensation the “Body of Christ.” I pray that you find this helpful.
Grace and Peace,

Don J. [1 Cor. 15:1-4]

 

[NHInsider]

Hi Rivera: The word “church” is found only 3 times in the gospels. All 3 in Matthew - 16:18 and 18:17. The word simply means a “called out assembly.” Israel in the wilderness was a “church” [Acts 7:38]. In light of Paul’s teaching on the Body of Church [the church of this dispensation of the grace of God] we can be reasonably sure that the “church” that our Lord mentions in Matthew is a Jewish assembly. You may recall that our Lord’s first advent ministry was to Israel [Mt. 15:24; Romans 15:8]. If we are to study the Body of Christ church we must be in Paul’s epistles. He is the only writer to name the church of this dispensation the “Body of Christ.” I pray that you find this helpful.
Grace and Peace,

Don J. [1 Cor. 15:1-4]

Don - your profile says you have no religion but the above post makes you sound like a Marcionist.

Paul did not develop a theory or a practice of Church that was distinct or different from the teachings of the Lord Jesus or the other Apostles, despite the fact that so many have tried to proclaim a true church built on Paul and Luke without the rest of the Apostles.

 

[QuickCat]

My friend: I cite “no religion” because I consider “religion” to be Satan’s ace in the hole to counter the plan of God. I am a mature believer in the Lord Jesus Christ and fully depend on His wonderfully efficacious death, burial and resurrection. I am “complete in Him” [Col. 2:10] and it is a total completeness [pleroo]. I don’t believe that Biblical Christianity is a religion in any sense. It is a relationship, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved…” [Acts 16:31]. Religion = DO, Biblical Christianity = DONE! When you are doing you are not DONE, when you are DONE you are not DOing. Paul is the ONLY writer to even mention the “Body of Christ” as being the church of this dispensation. Peter, etal had to learn about the Body of Christ from Paul. The church was a “mystery” revealed first to Paul [Ephesians 3:1-9; Colossians 1:25-27; Romans 16:25] Peter and the 12 were ministers to the circumcision while Paul was the min ister to the uncircumcision. BTW, Peter, James and John as spokesmen for the twelve agreed to continue their ministry to the Jews while Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles [Gal. 2:8,9].
Don J. [1 Cor. 15:1-4; Ephesians 1:13; Colossians 2:10]

 

[NHInsider]

Hmm. I thought as much.

I think Paul would contradict your position. He was the apostle to the Gentiles, yes, but he insisted that “In Him there is neither Jew nor Greek” (Galatians 3:28) and that the Gentile Christians had been “grafted on” to the Chosen People (Romans 11). I think the idea of a distinct “dispensation” for the gentiles would have been anathema to Paul.

 

[QuickCat]

Hmm. I thought as much.

I think Paul would contradict your position. He was the apostle to the Gentiles, yes, but he insisted that “In Him there is neither Jew nor Greek” (Galatians 3:28) and that the Gentile Christians had been “grafted on” to the Chosen People (Romans 11). I think the idea of a distinct “dispensation” for the gentiles would have been anathema to Paul.

No, you are wrong! Romans 11 is about Israel, not the church. The “grafting in” was only during the period of transition covered in the book of Acts. In Christ [74 times in Paul’s epistles] we are a “new creation” neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, etc, [2 Cor. 5:17] Peter didn’t preach this truth, Paul did. Check out Peter’s speeches in Acts. He is addressing Israel, the Jew is still primary to Peter. He preaches the cross as bad news and actually accuses the Jews of murdering their Messiah. He presents our Lord in resurrection to sit on David’s throne - contrast Paul raising our Lord in resurrection to be Head of the Church, the Body of Christ. Ephesians 1:22,23].

 

[chaunceygardner]

I’ve been wondering lately. Christ, in various parts of the gospels uses the word church.

That is a common misconception. Jesus uses the term for church just twice, and only in Matthew (chapters 16 & 18). He does not use it anywhere else in the Gospels.

So my question here is, did people in ancient times already had a basic concept of what a Church is? or, was this something totally new and unheard of before Christ?

As others have said, the disciples would have known what Jesus was talking about, since the term he would have used for “church” would have been familiar to them all, and meant “gathering” or “assembly”. The Jews had faith communities and places of assembly so the disciples, being devout Jews, would have been quite familiar with that.

From the context of how Jesus used the term, especially in Matthew 18, one can see that He was referring to the assembly of the faithful

 

[NHInsider]

No, you are wrong! Romans 11 is about Israel, not the church. The “grafting in” was only during the period of transition covered in the book of Acts. In Christ [74 times in Paul’s epistles] we are a “new creation” neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, etc, [2 Cor. 5:17] Peter didn’t preach this truth, Paul did. Check out Peter’s speeches in Acts. He is addressing Israel, the Jew is still primary to Peter. He preaches the cross as bad news and actually accuses the Jews of murdering their Messiah. He presents our Lord in resurrection to sit on David’s throne - contrast Paul raising our Lord in resurrection to be Head of the Church, the Body of Christ. Ephesians 1:22,23].

What is wrong is to suggest that these two (Peter/Paul) are in opposition. There is no historical evidence to support your interpretation - what there is, is the condemnation of the Marcionist heresy by the Church.

 

[Simka]

Paul … was the apostle to the Gentiles, yes, but he insisted that “In Him there is neither Jew nor Greek” (Galatians 3:28) and that the Gentile Christians had been “grafted on” to the Chosen People (Romans 11). I think the idea of a distinct “dispensation” for the gentiles would have been anathema to Paul.

When Paul visited new communities, he went first to the synagogues. His message to the Jews was that this “new” sect of Christians was actually the foretold natural development of the ancient Judaic faith, and was not really ‘new’ at all. In Romans 3 he presents what seems to be a radical new doctrine, that with the death and resurrection of Jesus there has been made known a God-given righteousness apart from the law … then in Chapter 4 he presents Abraham as a test case for this doctrine, to show that it is as old as Judaism itself!

For Paul, the church consisted of all believers in Christ, with no other distinctions. (Gal. 3:27,28). He goes on to say that Christian believers are the true seed of Abraham and heirs according to God’s promise to him, the everlasting covenant between God and Abraham and his seed forever (Gen. 17:7)

 

[QuickCat]

Paul went to the “Jew first” during the transition of Acts. His task in going to the Jew was to prove to them, from the O.T., that this Lord Jesus Christ was truly their Messiah. In fulfillment of Mark 7:27 he told the Jews that it was “…necessary that the Word of God should first be spoken unto you…” Israel, in the book of Acts, Israel is still in covenant relationship with God. They are finally set aside in Acts 28. Paul explains this in Romans 11:11, “Through their [Israel] fall salvation is now come to the Gentiles.” Prior to this, according to Paul the Gentiles were “strangers from the covenant [of Israel], without hope and without God in the world.” [Ephesians 2:12[. Now, when Paul went to visit with Peter, James and John [Gal. 2] he says that “THEY ADDED NOTHING TO ME.” But on the contrary he added much to them. [Gal. 2:1-9]. He revealed to them the gospel of the UNcircumcision . Peter confirmed that there were things in Paul’s writings that “were hard to understand”. [2 Peter 3:15,16]. I would remind you that Peter, James and John gave to Paul “the right hand of fellowship” in that they would go to the circumcision while he went to the uncircumcision.

 

[QuickCat]

When Paul visited new communities, he went first to the synagogues. His message to the Jews was that this “new” sect of Christians was actually the foretold natural development of the ancient Judaic faith, and was not really ‘new’ at all. In Romans 3 he presents what seems to be a radical new doctrine, that with the death and resurrection of Jesus there has been made known a God-given righteousness apart from the law … then in Chapter 4 he presents Abraham as a test case for this doctrine, to show that it is as old as Judaism itself!

For Paul, the church consisted of all believers in Christ, with no other distinctions. (Gal. 3:27,28). He goes on to say that Christian believers are the true seed of Abraham and heirs according to God’s promise to him, the everlasting covenant between God and Abraham and his seed forever (Gen. 17:7)

ONLY during the transition period in Acts did Paul go to the “Jew First.” He told the Jews that “…it was necessary that the Word of God should FIRST be preached unto you…” Acts 13:46. This would be in fulfillment of Mark 7:27 where the Lord Jesus Christ said, “Let the children [Israel] FIRST be filled.” When Israel was finally set aside [temporarily] in Acts 28 the “Jew first” was no longer true. BTW, Biblical Christianity is NOT an offspring of Judaism. Believers in the Body of Christ are related to Abraham on the faith principle - “He BELIEVED God and it was counted unto him for righteousness.” Gen. 15:6. The everlasting covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob will be taken up once again when our wonderful LORD Jesus Christ returns to earth to rule and reign over Israel and the nations for 1,000 years. After that the new heaven and new earth will ensure and the covenant will be “everlasting” in eternity. The Body of Christ was a mystery, hidden in God until revealed to Paul. He is our apostle in this dispensation of the grace of God. Eph. 3:1-9; Col. 1:25-27; Rom. 16:25; 11:13.

 

[Tiberius1701]

The everlasting covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob will be taken up once again when our wonderful LORD Jesus Christ returns to earth to rule and reign over Israel and the nations for 1,000 years. After that the new heaven and new earth will ensure and the covenant will be “everlasting” in eternity.

I couldn’t help but notice that this entire prediction of yours included absolutely no scriptural references. Are we to assume, then, that you are the new Apostle of the current “dispensation”? Is your word infallible? Is your interpretation of Scripture utterly incapable of error? If so, how do you know? Who gave you this gift of infallibility? If not, isn’t it possible that everything you’ve said to us is filled with as many holes as Swiss Cheese? After all, that’s the definition of fallibility: you can’t be sure that your interpretation is entirely correct…

 

[QuickCat]

I couldn’t help but notice that this entire prediction of yours included absolutely no scriptural references. Are we to assume, then, that you are the new Apostle of the current “dispensation”? Is your word infallible? Is your interpretation of Scripture utterly incapable of error? If so, how do you know? Who gave you this gift of infallibility? If not, isn’t it possible that everything you’ve said to us is filled with as many holes as Swiss Cheese? After all, that’s the definition of fallibility: you can’t be sure that your interpretation is entirely correct…

Tiberus: Personal attacks are not cool. I have cited Scripture after Scripture in previous threads on this subject. You apparently have not read them. BTW, no man, woman or child is infallible. We ALL have Adam’s fallen nature. 1 Cor 15:1-4
QC

 

[Tiberius1701]

Tiberus: Personal attacks are not cool. I have cited Scripture after Scripture in previous threads on this subject. You apparently have not read them. BTW, no man, woman or child is infallible. We ALL have Adam’s fallen nature. 1 Cor 15:1-4
QC

It wasn’t an attack, QuickCat, it was a series of questions. Without asking questions, how could we arrive at Truth? No, I have not read those threads; this is the first time I recall running into you on these forums.

Since you admit that “no man, woman or child is infallible,” I accept that as an answer in the negative to my question whether you consider yourself infallible. Your answer as stated, however, is incorrect. At least one Man, the Son of Man, absolutely was infallible. And at least four people were created without “Adam’s fallen nature”: Adam, Even, Jesus, and Mary. Two of those later assumed a fallen nature, but the New Adam and the New Eve reversed this but never giving in to sin. Thus, again, you’ve shown your fallibility.

But what about Jesus’ own words: “whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matt 16:19, 18:18)? If the words of Peter and the Apostles have the authority of Heaven Itself, there is no way they could teach error. If what they bound on earth was in error, they would be requiring the belief in and practice of sin; they would therefore be binding God in Heaven to sin!!! Are you saying that God can sin? Either God can sin, or there are some on earth who are infallible: namely the Apostles and those who follow in their offices, a.k.a. the Magisterium.