It behooves us, then, to go to the beginning of the story in order to interpret what we see today. We cannot start with the 21st century, but must start at the beginning. The study of the church has a life of its own. It has propelled history forward and has been a major cause within history. The church (and I am here speaking of all of its components and expressions throughout history) has, in short, been and still is a force to be reckoned with. Even in American politics, the “religious” vote is extremely important to capture, for the sheer numbers of “Christians” (anyone that would identify themselves as followers of Christ, regardless of denominational persuasion) remains near half. The church has influenced votes, morals, television programs, social policy, social norms, and, in some quarters, like the “Bible Belt,” entire sub-cultures. In fact, American jurisprudence is still interpreted as largely religious in nature (ask the ACLU if our laws do not represent an “antiquated Christian influence”!). Thus, the study of church life and purpose involves all of these questions because it has played such a major role within our own history, both as American citizens (heirs of European ecclesiology), and as, well, church-goers. That is, my own personal existence has been formed by growing up in “church.” I have fond memories of Vacation Bible School and Sunday School (I can name my Sunday School teachers to this day). Many others have had extremely bad relations with the church of their upbringing. The abuses of the church, ranging from massive persecutions, burnings, igniting hatred, bigotry, pedophilia and every other sin that can be named, have left permanent scars on many members. Abuse of power is the root cause of many of these things for within the church it is claimed that power from God is retained. My first observation, then, is that we are dealing with power.

Whether or not this power is perceived only or if, in fact, a power of God, the ability of the church to function even in the most violent of situations has made it an unavoidable subject for anyone discussing the philosophy of men and things. Like God, the church cannot be dismissed as irrelevant. Regardless of what one thinks about the church(es), one cannot refuse engaging in a discussion if one is talking about life itself. Indeed, in my daughter’s recent visit to Czechoslovakia, Italy and Prague, church art, architecture, and influence was apparent on every corner. It is that way here in America. Here is an example of something you can do. Get your phone book, look under ‘Churches’ and note how many there are. Drive down the road and note how many church buildings you will come across. Go to a local supermarket and note the literature. Most likely, you will find something there religious in nature. Some questions to entertain are, Did Jesus envision this? Did Paul? Did Peter? Did they ever entertain the vastness of enterprise that the churches have maintained? Did they ever think in terms of billions and billions of people and trillions and trillions of dollars? Did they ever think that their little house movements would ever wield political influence and chart the moral course of nations? How big was their vision and concept? If it was big, then upon what basis did they arrive at these speculations?

These questions, of course, bring us back to the start: What did Jesus think? I cannot think of a better place to start, and certainly cannot think of any objections. But, first, I must make some preliminary remarks as to my methodology and assumptions that I carry into the study here before us. Briefly, I believe that the Bible (66 books) is the inerrant word of God, inspired directly by the Spirit of God as men were carried about by God to write exactly that which God superintended and intended for them to write. That is, the original autographs were inspired, and the preserved manuscripts that we have do not demur from this proposition in the least (as a translator of both Hebrew and Greek, I frequently practice textual criticism). Secondly, I believe that the God of the Bible is what theology, since Tertullian, has best described as “triune.” I, on this point, see no destructive or contradictory elements in the so-called ‘Athanasian Creed’ (Athanasius did not pen this creed) or Chalcedonian Creed. Third, Aristotelian logic is my ‘test’ for whether or not something is ‘valid’ or ‘invalid.’ On this point, I follow heavily the philosophy of Gordon Haddon Clark, Carl F.H. Henry, J. Gresham Machen, Isaac Watts, Alvin Plantinga, Cornelius Plantinga, Ron Nash, and a whole host of other Christian philosophers. I make no apologies for trying to systematically (that is, logically) work out a biblical Weltanshaunng (a biblical ‘worldview’). These three propositions are each subjects of equally exhausting discussions, but since that is not the issue of these studies, I simply let the reader know that I assume them (my epistemological philosophy is Presuppositionalism – vid. the writings of Gordon H. Clark).

Prolegomena: Jesus’ use of ekklesia assumes the Hebraic qahol from the OT

The NT word ekklesia is defined by the United Bible Society lexicon as simply: “church, congregation; assembly, gathering (of religious, political, or unofficial groups).” The Greek word itself is two words combined: ek (preposition, ‘out of’) and ‘kalein’ (to call). Thus, one can see that the notion of ‘called out of’ the community and into an ‘assembly’ for religious or political purposes applies. The Democratic National Convention can easily be called the Democratic National Ekklesia. It is an official assembly of like-minded people gathered around a political or religious purpose.

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE) further states, “The Septuagint translators, again, had used the word to render the Hebrew Heb: qahal, which in the Old Testament denotes the "congregation" or community of Israel, especially in its religious aspect as the people of God. In this Old Testament sense we find Grk: ekklesia employed by Stephen in the Book of Acts, where he describes Moses as "he that was in the church (the Revised Version, margin "congregation") in the wilderness" (Acts 7:38). The word thus came into Christian history with associations alike for the Greek and the Jew. To the Greek it would suggest a self-governing democratic society; to the Jew a theocratic society whose members were the subjects of the Heavenly King. The pre-Christian history of the word had a direct bearing upon its Christian meaning, for the Grk: ekklesia of the New Testament is a "theocratic democracy" (Lindsay, Church and Ministry in the Early Centuries, 4), a society of those who are free, but are always conscious that their freedom springs from obedience to their King.” As this article correctly states, the “pre-Christian history of the word had a direct bearing upon its Christian meaning” implies that the for the Gospel author of Matthew, Jesus’ use of the word has behind it the Hebraic notion of qahal. The qahal was the official meeting with elders presiding as representatives of the twelve tribes (see I Sa 8.4 for example), or local meetings within each district. Samuel, the Prophet, held official office over all districts and tribes and over all elders and visited them at will.

It is only in Matthew (Mt>) that we find Jesus uttering this word. I will not explore whether or not Jesus actually employed the term himself or if it was simply put there by the author of Mt. The author of Mt wanted the first century reader to think this, and, thus, we must rely on his possible retelling of Jesus’ point. It is found in Mt 16.18; 18.17. But, before we look at these logiai of Jesus, allow me to simply show an example of common OT usage.

In Nehemiah (Ne) 8.1-8 we find the beginning stages of what would become the model for the synagogue of the first century Diasporic Jews, and, subsequently, the model for the house churches established by the apostles, particularly Paul (though, Paul did not establish the Roman house churches). Dom Gregory Dix wrote, ‘The Jewish synagogue service’ was ‘the root from which the apostolic synaxis sprang’ (Dix, Dom Gregory, The Shape of the Liturgy. Continium. London, 2001 reprint of 1945 edition – p.37). This massive and well received study of Liturgics goes to great pains in documenting the rise of the house-church ekklesiai towards overtaking pagan temples and building structures for the sole purpose of ‘gathering together’ under an official program. As a side item, interesting for much discussion, is that the architecture of early church edifices modeled the Greco-Roman homes which the early church met in, which, in turn, became the ‘blueprints’ for church buildings worldwide. For example, in Paul’s day, large groups of families and pilgrims would meet in more expensive homes that could accommodate large numbers. These homes had large entrance halls (vestibulum) which led to the atrium, or main hall. An inner room, the tablinum was accompanied with ‘wings’ of the house (alae). The father of the house sat in the paterfamilias, which, according to Dix, became the Bishop’s Chair. A large pool were in these homes as well, which, for Christians, served as the baptismal pool. Today, our homes, at least the more ‘middle class’ homes, are modeled after the same way. Plumbing and bathrooms take the place of the ‘pool.’ My dad had his ‘chair’ in the ‘family room’ and everyone knew it was his chair. There was a greeting space with a chandelier in our home as well (chandelier adorn most church buildings and used to hold candles. In Greek Orthodox churches – whose practices predate A.D. 70 and have far more a greater historical claim than the Roman Catholic Church- the chandelier was a symbol of the stars of the heavens). Most church buildings (what later came to replace the house churches) are furnished with a ‘cafeteria’ in order to eat together.

The service held in these homes, as far as we can tell from both the synagogal patterns of Ezra the Great Scribe and in the first century, and from the NT itself, largely follow what most churches today practice: opening greetings, lesson, singing of psalms, lesson, sermon, prayers, dismissal of service. All of these elements come straight out of Ne 8.1-8.

In that text, the ‘people assembled’ (ekklesia – 8.1) and Ezra brought out the ‘Book of Moses.’ On the ‘first day’ they met in an officially called meeting by the elders. He read from ‘daybreak till noon’ and the ‘people listened attentively’ (8.3). Ezra ‘stood on a high wooden platform built for the occasion’ (8.5). Notice, here, that God nowhere commands this to be done. It was entirely a practical concern in order to speak to such a large group. When Ezra opened the Scriptures, the ‘people all stood up’ which was a sign of reverence for God’s word (and is still practiced today in our churches). Ezra expounded on the Scriptures and ‘gave the meaning’ of the Scriptures (8.8) so that the people ‘could understand.’ The Levites were assembled as well as the family heads and their wives. After the meeting they ‘ate and drank’ (8.12) and ‘celebrated with great joy.’ It is from this that, as scholars of Liturgics like Dix and Schmemann (Introduction to Liturgical Theology, SVS Press, 1986) prove their case that the early house churches were formed from the model of the synagogue, which officials (elders) presided over. This combination of synagogue and Greco-Roman house architecture give us what we see driving down the street called ‘this or that church’ location. The first Christians were Jewish, so it is not difficult at all to see that as Christianity was largely becoming excluded from the official synagogues, the house churches would still retain their synaxis (order of service).

These ‘official meetings’ or ‘lawful meetings’ are probably what Jesus had in mind when he makes the distinction between private persons and ‘the church’ in Mt 18.15-17. There, if a ‘brother’ offends you, the offended person, privately, was to go to him and tell him his offense. If reconciliation did not happen, then ‘two or three’ others from the same local assembly were to go with him to confront the erring brother. If still no repentance was made, Jesus stated to ‘tell it to the church.’ It is obvious, then, that the church was the last resort. This assumes that the ‘brother’ that offended and the offended ‘brother’ were members together of a local ekklesia. Thus, if the offending brother was not a known member, he was an ‘outsider’ and it would not have made any difference. That is why Jesus’ injunction is severe: ‘treat him as you would a pagan.’ That is, ‘remove him from the ekklesia.’ If he were an outsider from the church already, there would be nothing to remove him from.

What is of equal importance is that the testimony of ‘two or three gathered together’ against the offending brother did not constitute the church even though they were members of the church. When these ‘two or three’ gathered together to hopefully bring reconciliation to the offending brother, Jesus stated, ‘there I am in the midst of you’ to equally show that his presence marked the importance of their gathering. The message is unmistakable to those who offend within the church. Jesus was, in effect, stating that in the gathering together of two or three witnesses, he was there with them and this would have sent a clear message to those who offended within the church that Jesus was on the side of those seeking reconciliation. This, in turn, gave power to the ‘two or three gathered together’ in that, if the matter was reconciled, then, according to the Shepherd and Ruler of the church, the case was closed and did not need any official declaration. The two or three had power by proxy of Jesus’ presence to declare the matter closed.

However, if this effort did not work, the offending brother, who has now offended three other brothers by his obstinacy, and has offended the presence of Jesus found where two or three are gathered in these matters, is to be taken to the church. This was the official body or appointed leaders of the local church as well as all the members. They had it within their power to expel the offending brother of that church for the sake of peace within the larger membership. By shunning the gathering of ‘two or three’ the offending brother was, in effect, shunning the presence of Christ and the church itself. That Paul operated under these principles is seen in I Corinthians 5.1-ff.

That it is a NT church here in view is plain by the phrase ‘gathered together in my name’ and the invisible presence of Christ- “there I am in the midst of you.” This assumes the resurrected Lord and the presence of the Lord by the invisible Spirit. The use of the ‘name of the Lord’ was given to them after Jesus was raised, and in effect, means ‘in my person’ or ‘by my authority.’ When we pray, ‘in the name of Jesus’ we are actually invoking the presence and power of the Person of Christ, standing in his name. The use of the name assumes, however, the jurisdiction of the ruling church. It was a gathering together ‘in my name.’ Secondly, ‘gathering together’ is corporate and immediately dismisses ‘lone ranger’ individualism. The philosophy of Individualism is radically anti-corporate and entirely opposed to Paul’s metaphor of the church being also ‘the body of Christ.’ Christians are members and are not a ‘body unto themselves.’ Imagine an arm thinking that he alone constitutes the entire body!

Jesus, then, clearly stated the authoritative reaches of the church is bound within one member (the offended brother) who can alone reconcile with the offending brother and consider the matter closed. The authority reaches to even those ‘two or three’ gathered together in the name of Christ who had the power to reconcile a matter. However, the distinction is made between this and ‘the church.’ The ‘church’ was the last ditch effort. It was the collective church that had the power of expelling the brother. The ‘two or three’ did not have this power apart from the church. One brother alone cannot remove another brother from the congregation, nor can ‘two or three.’ Only the local assembly can remove the brother in a corporate ruling. Thus, a single brother, or even two or three brothers in Christ’s name has the power to reconcile an errant member of the assembly, but they do not have the power to remove him from the assembly. That comes from ‘the church,’ the local synagogue members along with its elders and servants (diaconate).

It is easy to see here, then, that Jesus is to be seen by the author of Mt as one who rules the church through her collective gathering and officially gathered function. Christ authorized such gatherings and gave men the privilege of standing ‘in my Name.’ O’ the unbearable weight! But, his ‘grace is sufficient.’ The leaders of these local synagogues only had authority because Christ gave them authority to operate in His Name. The Press Secretary of the President operates ‘in the name’ of the President. He carries the authority of the President, but it is always limited and it is always understood that the Press Secretary is not the President.

Would it make sense that if the ‘two or three’ gathered together equally constituted ‘the church’ in this passage as some wrongly take this verse? Let us see if it works: ‘If a brother offends you, go to him since you are the church. If that does not work, take two or three gathered together in my name, which is the church. If that does not work, take it to the church.’ If the two or three gathered together constituted the church in this passage, then Jesus’ third remedy is redundant and superfluous.

I will conclude part I of this study (with more to come) by repeating the following points: the definition of ekklesia; the model of the ekklesia from the synagogue; the continuation of the early church model; Jesus’ use of the word; the OT background of the qahal as an officially called assembly. We have explored some ramifications that Jesus’ words had on the existing house-churches/synagogues of the NT ‘early church.’ We have not explored these ramifications for church life in the 21st century. I have not made any case about continuity/discontinuity in the post A.D. 70 framework.

I am not sure how many ‘parts’ this series will have. I am working on a much larger systematic theology based on the Second Coming of Christ in A.D. 70. That will not be finished for quite some time. The basis of this series to begin to engage in a full effort of serious minded Preterist thinkers on matters of the church. Perhaps instead of the mudslinging that has occurred on my part took the matter into a wrong direction. Equally, the mudslinging from others didn’t help. I am, at this point, not really concerned with such trivialities. No one has drawn blood, and certainly, my life has not been disrupted in the least. However, in order to seriously and critically think through this issue, all relating matters must be discussed in a detailed manner. This will require your minds.

The first proposition that must be agreed upon is this: Jesus’ understanding of the church and the Apostles’ understanding of the church are based on OT models and not Roman or Greek models. ‘Elders,’ ‘leaders,’ ‘apostles,’ ‘prophets’ and like terms can all be found in the OT. Likewise ekklesia is found in the OT. The second proposition is this: in order to understand any meaning for any church life today, post Second Coming, we must first understand church life and government then. By understanding that, we can successfully engage in any conversation that would make its case for continuity or discontinuity post Second Coming. In my assumption given earlier, that the Bible is the word of God, as Preterists, we must base any understanding we have for church life today squarely on the word of God. If this case cannot be made for the post Second Coming church today, then I dare say it is not of God. That is, if it not biblical, it is not scriptural. Please, join with me in an ecumenical and constructive dialogue over these issues and leave the name-calling and motive hunting at the door.

Thank you for your time and patience.