Chapter IV
Some
Controverted Passages
There is not the slightest difficulty in understanding the
meaning of the words church and churches as they occur in most of the New
Testament. Assembly, local and visible is unmistakably meant. There would likewise
be no difficulty in understanding the meaning of church in the remaining
instances were it not that men have a theory to seek to substantiate. Such
persons usually use a few verses in the writings of Paul to the Ephesians and
Colossians. Has Paul labored to establish churches - assemblies - and has he
often felt "the care of all the churches," as he expresses it,
and has he involved his very life with the welfare of the churches, and then
has he all at once originated an entirely new church conception? Has he decided
that there are really two churches, one kind local and visible, and the
other Universal and Invisible? How utterly foolish to assume this! It is wholly
unnecessary to assume an entirely new kind of church. The only thing necessary
is to construe words according to the established law of language. The
institutional abstract meaning of church in some instances, the generic meaning
of the word in other instances, and the concept of the churchwin prospect, will
take care of the problem without the need of a new church entirely different
from the kind of church signified by the word ecclesia, and taught most plainly
in nearly all of the instances where the term is used. Let us take note of a
few of the Scriptures where church is used in a way that enables the Universal
Church heretic to seek to bolster his theory.
I Corinthians 15:9
- "I persecuted the church of God."
Small help to be
derived by the Universalite from this.
So far as the
Scriptures reveal, Paul never persecuted but one church - the church at
Jerusalem. It was a large church composed of several thousand people, and Paul
"made havoc" of it, scattering it all over the country. His
persecution affected one local, visible assembly - the church at Jerusalem.
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, the fulness of him that
filleth all in all."
There is nothing in
this to justify the idea that Paul was writing about a new kind of church. He
is using the term church in the institutional sense, but had he particularized,
according to the law of language, he would have signified a local assembly.
For illustration,
one might speak of the American home as being based on marriage. Wouldn't it be
foolish to think of the American home as some sort of Universal, invisible
home? No, to particularize one would have to designate an actual visible home.
But the argument is
made that this Scripture requires something bigger than a mere local body,
since Christ is head over all things to it. Why? The truth is each local
assembly is a body of Christ, and He should be head over all things to
every such church. Paul, the writer of this Scripture likewise writes to the
Corinthians as expressed in I Corinthians 12:27 and says, "Now ye
(the Corinthian church) are a body of Christ and members in particular."
The King James translates it "THE body of Christ," but the definite
article is missing from the Greek. If the Corinthian church was "A body
of Christ," then every other such church is likewise the same.
Ephesians 3:21 -
"Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages,
world without end."
Is this a different
kind of church than the kind spoken of so many times in the New Testament? By
no means. Reference there is to the church in prospect. We can conceive of a
time when there will be a general assembly composed of all of the saved members
of all of the local assemblies of all time. This will be both local and
visible. Such a church does not now exist, but we can conceive of such church
in prospect. It will come to exist, and it will glorify Christ throughout the
eternal ages.
Ephesians 5:27 -
"That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot or
wrinkle or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without
blemish."
How the Universal
churchites do love this passage, but the truth is, it does not bolster their
argument. Here again we have the church in prospect. This Scripture looks
beyond this age, out to that time when there shall be a general assembly,
composed of all the saved members of the true local assemblies of this earth. I
shall later deal with this question in more detail. The language used here does
not militate against the usual use of the term ecclesia, for when the church is
presented to Christ in the sense mentioned here, it will be both local and
visible.
Local, visible
churches - the only kind known to the New Testament, are imperfect. They have
spots and wrinkles. The Universal Invisible Church wouldn't have such, and if
it did, being invisible they couldn't be seen. These visible assemblies will at
that wonderful time in the future, be purged and cleansed of all imperfections
forever.
Colossians 1: 18
- "And he is the head of the body."
Colossians 1 :24
- "For his body's sake which is the church."
The Universalite
seems to think that it would be wholly unbecoming for Christ to be the head of
each local church - it must be some big, hazy, Universal, Invisible something
worthy of His head ship. Well, let me say that Christ IS THE HEAD OF EACH
GENUINE CHURCH, and it is the big, hazy, Universal, Invisible mythical Thing
that is unworthy of Christ's head ship. Earlier in this chapter, I proved my
point when I pointed out that Paul wrote to the Corinthian church (I
Corinthians 12:27) and said, "Now ye are a body of Christ."
Since the
Universalist theorizer sets so much store on it having to be a Big Universal
Church for Christ to be the Head of it, let me go a bit further to show that this
is not true. Turn to I Corinthians 11:3 and you will read these words,
"But I would
have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman
is the man ..."
This says that the Head
of every man is Christ, and if Christ is head of every man (no doubt he is
writing of saved persons), then what is presumptuous about believing that
Christ is the Head of every true church?
And note something
else: It says here that the "head of the woman is the man." Does
that mean a big universal in visible woman? Ridiculous! Yet no more ridiculous
than the theory of a big Universal Invisible Church. No, "woman" is
used here in the abstract sense, but when the abstract is made concrete and the
meaning exactly defined, an actual woman must be specified. Failure or refusal
to accept this law that relates to language, is at the bottom of the continued
existence of the Universal Church theory. People who without question speak of
institutions and things in the abstract sense, then particularize with the
concrete meaning, go right ahead refusing to allow the same law to operate in
the use of the term church. For instance, it is said, "The automobile
kills more people than does war." What automobile? A big universal
invisible automobile? No, none have ever been killed by such. When one gets
down to the concrete and particularizes, it is always a local, visible
automobile that perpetrates the deed. Why not have as much sense concerning
"church" as we have about automobiles? Those who come to their senses
concerning the significance of the word, throw away their Universal theory,
just as I did.
WHAT DID CHRIST MEAN?
The first recorded instance in which Christ used the term
church is in Matthew 16:18 - "Upon this rock I will build my church
..." If He meant a Universal, Invisible something, as say the
Universalites, then we are faced with the fact that He twisted the usual, well
established, universally understood meaning of the word.
If it was the
Universal Church that Jesus started, then we are faced with the fact that
SOMETHING ENTIRELY DIFFERENT CAME INTO EXISTENCE. The local, visible
church in that case would have to be a miserable counterfeit. In such case
would not Jesus have said to His disciples, "No, I didn't mean that I
would build that sort of church. You have things all wrong. I meant a Universal
Invisible Church?"
FACE THIS PLAIN
FACT: JESUS CHRIST DID NOT START TWO DIFFERENT KINDS OF CHURCHES - ONE LOCAL
AND VISIBLE - THE OTHER UNIVERSAL AND INVISIBLE!
The truth is, Jesus
started only one kind of church - the local visible assembly. The Universal
Invisible Church did not begin in the mind of deity, but in the mind of his
Satanic Majesty!
I suggest proof that
Jesus meant the local visible assembly. It has already been pointed out that in
the very next mention of church, (Matthew 18:17) Jesus used the word in the
sense of the local assembly. If you should hear a speaker use a term that you
didn't exactly understand, and if he should then subsequently use the same term
in a perfectly understandable way, you would cease to be puzzled about his
meaning. Such is exactly true in this instance. If there should be any room for
doubt as to what Christ meant by church in Matthew 16:18, His later use in
Matthew 18:17 should make it perfectly plain.
But MORE THAN THIS!
In the Book of Revelation we find Jesus sending a series of messages to the
seven churches of Asia. Did He say, "The seven stars are the angels of the
CHURCH in Asia?" He did NOT? He used the term "churches." Then
He went further and sent a definite message to each church. He said, "Unto
the angel of the church at Ephesus write - " and so on to the whole seven.
Several things stand out clearly:
(1) Here we have
defined Christ's meaning of the term church. He meant local, visible
assemblies.
(2) Here we have
Christ's approval expressed concerning the kind of church He started.
(3) Here we find
nothing to indicate that He started the Universal Church, but that His
followers ignored that and went ahead and started local visible assemblies.
Christ was displeased concerning some of the things that existed in these
churches, but no word of His indicates that He was displeased with the churches
being of the local visible sort.