The Nature of the Universal Church

By Charles T. Grant [1] [2]

The Importance of the Church

The doctrine of the church (ecclesiology) is one of the great subjects of systematic theology. It is primarily a New Testament doctrine; the word church does not occur in the Old Testament. The historical development of ecclesiology can be traced back to ancient writers such as Irenaeus, Cyprian, and Augustine. [3] These men stressed the external unity of the church. However, much of our understanding of the universal church was developed much later during the time of the Reformation.

In his introduction to the subject, Charles Ryrie observes [4]

The importance of the church can scarcely be overstated. It is that which God purchased with the blood of His own Son (Acts 20:28). It is that which Christ loves, nourishes, and cherishes (Eph. 5:25, 29), and which He shall present to Himself blameless in all her glory one day (v. 27). Building His church constitutes Christ’s principal work in the world today (Matt. 16:18) through His giving of spiritual gifts (Eph. 4:12). Thus the exercise of those gifts by believers aligns us with what Christ is doing today.

The Meaning of the Word Church

The English Word

The English word church, like the German Kirche and the Scottish kirk, is derived not from the Greek word for church, but from the Greek word kyriakon which means “belonging to the Lord.” The English dictionary gives a variety of meanings of the word church. It may refer to a building (e.g., “the Baptist church at the corner of Fifth and Main”), or to the congregation which meets regularly in such a building. It may describe congregations in a particular locality (e.g., the church in St. Louis); or a national entity, such as the Church of England, or the Church of Scotland. It may denote a particular confession such as the Lutheran Church or the Roman Catholic Church. The word church may also be used to designate the clerical in contrast to the secular (e.g., “the separation of church and state”). None of these meanings, however, encompasses the meaning implied by the topic of this paper, the universal church. In order to fully appreciate the significance of this expression, we need to examine the development of the word “church” in the writings of the New Testament.

The Etymological Meaning

The word in the Greek text which is translated “church” in the English Bible is ἐκκλησία (ekklēsia). It is derived from the prefix ἐκ (ek) meaning “out of” and the verb καλέω (kaleō), “to call.” So the etymological meaning of the word is “a person, or persons called out of.” However, the lexical meaning (the meaning in actual usage) of a word is frequently different from its etymological meaning. [5] In order to determine the meaning of a word, we need to examine its connotation in an actual context.

The Classical Meaning

In non-biblical Greek ekklesia originally signified the regular assembly of citizens summoned out of their homes for the discussion of public issues. These assemblies were composed of citizens of the autonomous Greek city-states and were held for the purpose of conducting public business. By the time of the New Testament, however, the word had acquired a much broader meaning and referred to any kind of assembly or meeting. In order to see how and why it acquired its specific New Testament meaning, it is instructive to trace the history of the word in both Greek and Jewish usage.

In the Greek language ekklesia soon lost its meaning of summoning citizens out of their homes. In Athens it referred to a constitutional assembly which had scheduled meetings without requiring a specific summoning, and the word generally came to mean any assembly, regardless of how it was convened. [6]

The Septuagint

The Septuagint was the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. It was the Bible of the early church and as such it is important for understanding the meaning of many New Testament words. The scholars who completed the translation were fluent in both languages and their choice of ekklesia significantly influenced the subsequent New Testament usage of the word.

In the Septuagint ekklesia always translates the Hebrew קָהָל (qāhāl) or a word with the same root. This Hebrew word has no technical meaning in the Old Testament and refers to any kind of gathering. Its broad meaning is reflected by the fact that it is translated by seven different Greek words [7] and it refers only to the actual meeting and not to the congregants when they are not assembled. A related Hebrew word, דָה (ʿēdāh), may refer to the congregants when they are not assembled, but it is never translated by ἐκκλησία (ekklēsia), [8] but rather by συναγωγή (synagōgē), whose distinctly Jewish reference precluded its acceptance as a word to describe a specifically Christian assembly. In those instances where qaµhaµl is translated by ekklesia, it always refers to an actual meeting or assembly. Therefore in the Septuagint ekklesia has no technical meaning. [9]

The New Testament

By the time of the New Testament writings, the word ekklesia had already had a long classical and secular history. So clearly ekklesia was not invented by the authors of the New Testament, but they certainly provided it with new meaning. In studying its New Testament usage we can trace its gradual change from its non-technical use referring to any kind of assembly to its technical usage signifying the people of God in Christ.

The overwhelming majority of the one hundred fourteen occurrences of ekklesia in the New Testament have a technical meaning in that they refer specifically to a Christian assembly. However, there are five instances of the non-technical usage of the word. For example, in Acts 19:23–41, we have an example of the secular use of ekklesia. It is used twice to refer to a disorderly mob (vv. 32, 41) as well as to designate a lawfully constituted assembly (v. 39). The word is also used in the Septuagint sense of the gathering of God’s people in Acts 7:38 and Hebrews 2:12. The first refers to “the ekklesia in the wilderness” on the occasion of the receiving of the law and the second is a quote from the Septuagint (Ps. 22:22). None of these usages are related to the New Testament concept of the church.

In the New Testament the vast majority of occurrences of ekklesia refer to the local church, that is, to a local assembly of believing followers of Christ (e.g., 1 Thess. 1:1). The plural form is used to designate a group of churches in a particular area (Gal. 1:22). [10] But in its most significant deviation from classical usage ekklesia also designates what has come to be known as the church universal. In this sense, the word designates not an actual meeting, but instead refers to the spiritual unity of all believers in Christ even though they are not physically assembled. Believers continue to constitute “the church” even when they are dispersed in various localities (Acts 8:1–3). [11]

Concerning this technical usage of ekklesia, Saucy notes:

The ekklesia was therefore all those spiritually united in Christ, the Head of the church. There is no concept of a literal assembly in this sense of ekklesia, nor does the New Testament, as will be seen later, have any organizational structure for the church universal. The unity is that of the Spirit in the body of Christ (Eph. 4:4). [12]

The universal church represents the aggregate, not of local churches, but of believers in the Lord Jesus. At times it is difficult to distinguish between the local and universal usages in the New Testament (e.g., Acts 2:47, 5:11), but the technical use of ekklesia is limited to these two meanings and does not refer to the many other meanings of the word church in contemporary English.

The Prophecy of Matthew 16:18

In the first occurrence of ekklesia in the New Testament Christ promises His disciples, “I will build my church.” These five simple words of Christ lay the foundation of the doctrine of the universal church.

First, the church is the work of Christ; He is the builder of the church. Others may share in the work of building, [13] but Christ is the chief architect. Secondly, although “will” may have a volitional aspect in this context, the future tense of the Greek verb is unavoidable. The church is still a future entity, and Christ’s proclamation is a prophetic utterance. Thirdly, the church is an entirely new entity. It will be built, not rebuilt. Fourthly, the church belongs to Christ; it is His church. And finally, the word church (ekklesia) is used here in its technical sense designating the universal church.

The Foundation of the Church

The context of Jesus’ proclamation of the church in Matthew 16 is His question to His disciples, “What about you? Who do you say I am?” Peter’s response was “You are the Christ [i.e., the Messiah], the Son of the living God.” In response to Peter’s confession in Matthew 16:17, Jesus asserts that “you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church.”

The Identity of the Rock on which the Church is Built

Different views. There has been much controversy over the meaning of the statement, particularly over the identity of “this rock.” In the view of the Roman Catholic Church Peter as the first bishop of Rome is that rock, and therefore no church without a Petrine foundation can have any claim to legitimacy. The Roman church regards Peter as the first bishop of Rome and the following bishops of Rome (i.e., Popes) as Peter’s historical successors. From its interpretation of verses 18 and 19 the Roman Church concludes that (a) it is the only legitimate church, since it alone can trace its lineage back to Peter, and (b) verse 19 establishes the infallibility of the Pope and the Church.

The Protestant reaction to the Roman claim, is to assert that the rock has nothing to do with Peter and is in fact Peter’s confession. Others reject both views by appealing to those passages that affirm that Christ is the foundation. For example, in 1 Corinthians 3:11, Paul asserts that “no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ” (NIV). But no one of these three solutions is entirely satisfying and as Kuen points out, that there is an element of truth in each of the three explanations. [14]

Peter as the foundation. First, it must be pointed out that the conclusions which the Roman Catholic Church draws from the identification of Peter as the rock on which the church is built are not supported by either biblical or historical evidence.

1. There is no evidence that Peter was the “bishop of Rome,” or even that he had ever been to Rome.
2. The text says nothing about Peter’s successors. In fact, the entire idea of an apostolic succession is a contradiction in terms. An apostle is defined in Acts 1:21–22 as one who had been with Jesus since the beginning of His ministry and who had been an eyewitness of the resurrection. Therefore in that sense the apostles did not, and could not, have any successors.
3. There is no evidence that Jesus, or the remaining apostles, or anyone else for that matter regarded Peter as infallible. In fact, in the following paragraph, Jesus rebukes Peter in the strongest terms (Matt. 16:23). Paul did the same thing in their dispute about the evangelization of the Gentiles (Gal. 2:11).

Nevertheless, the Roman Catholic view is surely correct in identifying Peter as the rock in verse 18 upon which the church is built. It is well recognized that Jesus was using a pun in that verse. Unfortunately, the pun cannot easily be translated into English. The language Jesus spoke was Aramaic, the Semitic language of Palestine at that time, in which the words for Peter and rock are identical. That word is kepha. So Jesus’ assertion is “You are Kepha and upon this kepha I will build my church.”

Kepha was not Peter’s name; his name was Simon. [15] Kepha was a nickname given to him by Jesus (John 1:42). In Matthew 16:18 Jesus is using Simon’s nickname in a pun. We can attempt to convey the sense of this pun into English by translating Kepha as “Rocky.” “You are Rocky, and upon this rock I will build my church.”

The New Testament was written in Greek in which it is equally difficult to translate this pun. [16] The Greek word for “rock” is petra, which is feminine and therefore cannot be used as a masculine name, so Matthew translates the first Kepha as Petros, the masculine form of petra. But petros means stone, not rock, and was not used as a name at that time. In fact, each occurrence of Petros in the New Testament refers to Simon’s nickname (that is, Peter, or Kepha, or Rocky).

The truth of Peter’s confession as the foundation. So it is clear that Jesus intended to identify Peter as the rock. However, there is considerable truth in the Protestant reaction to the Roman Catholic claims. After all, Peter was hardly a rock-like person. He was unstable, wavering, and impetuous, and in a moment of extreme weakness he even denied knowing Jesus. But the context of verse 18 informs us that the rock is not Peter the unstable person, but Peter the confessor of Jesus as the Messiah. The rock on which the church is built is not Peter the unsteady person who denied the Lord, but Peter who affirmed that Jesus was the Christ the Son of the living God. As Bruce observes, “what matters is not the stature of the confessor but the truth of the confession.” [17]

Christ as the foundation. But how do we interpret those passages which refer to Christ as the foundation of the church? Jesus describes Himself as the chief cornerstone (Matt. 21:42, Mk. 12:10) and Peter confirms that identification (1 Pet. 2:7). Such passages do not contradict Jesus’ description of Peter as the foundation of the church in Matthew 16:18. Biblical metaphors are used in a variety of ways and they have to be interpreted in their specific context. [18] For example, in Matthew 16 Jesus is the builder, but in 1 Corinthians 3, Paul is an “expert builder.” In the former context, Peter is the rock on which the church is built, whereas in the latter, Christ is the foundation. In still another context (Eph. 2:20), Paul states that the church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, as we will discuss below.

The foundation of the apostles and prophets. These different ways of describing the foundation of the church are neither logically nor mutually exclusive. In one sense the person and work of the Christ remains the foundation of the church. But in another sense Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Messiah is the basis for the existence of the church. When Paul states in Ephesians 2:20 that the church is built upon “the foundation of the apostles and prophets,” he is not implying that the apostles and prophets constitute a different foundation from Christ. But the apostles exercised the authority of Christ, and it is on that basis that their work was foundational. For example, the doctrinal foundation of the church is the apostles’ doctrine (Acts 2:42). What the apostles taught has the imprimatur of Christ and reflected His delegated authority.

Like the apostles, prophets in the New Testament received distinct gifts which permitted them to perform their ministry of prediction and proclamation. The purpose of the prophetic mission was the edification, exhortation, and consolation of the church (1 Cor. 14:3). There is evidence that in the New Testament, prophets sometimes received special revelation from God, which they in turn conveyed to the church. With the establishment of the New Testament canon, the need for such gifts disappeared. However, the prophetic gift still exists today in the sense of 1 Corinthians 14:3.

The Historical Beginning of the Church

When did the church begin? Did it occur during the earthly ministry of the Lord, or at some earlier or later date? Some authors find the historical beginning of the church in the Old Testament, whereas others identify its historical origin as a unique event in New Testament history. Thus for some, the universal church includes all believers, including those of the Old Testament. As a result they trace the origin of the church back to the Adamic covenant. Covenant theologians, on the other hand, find the origin of the church in the covenant with Abraham. [19] For both groups, the New Testament church is not distinct from, but merely a continuation of the Old Testament assembly.

However, these points of view fail to take into account the distinctly new meaning which the word ekklesia acquired in New Testament literature. And although it may be argued that Jesus inaugurated a new community during His ministry, even that community was not identical with the church. It is clear that in Matthew 16:18 Jesus regarded the church as an entity still in the future. His disciples did form a new Christian community which, although not identical as the church, may be regarded as a forerunner of the true church.

A careful systematic study of the New Testament leads to the conclusion that the church had its beginning on the day of Pentecost. The argument for the Pentecostal origin for the church is based on linguistic, grammatical, and theological considerations.

The Linguistic Argument

Jesus uses the word ekklesia three times in Matthew 16:18 and 18:17, and these are the only occurrences of this word in the four gospels. Was Jesus using the word in the technical sense of the New Testament church or in some other sense? Of course, Jesus did not use the actual word ekklesia since He was speaking in Aramaic, not Greek. But it has been argued that the book of Matthew has a Jewish emphasis and that Matthew would not have translated Jesus’ words with an expression which would have been unintelligible to His original audience and therefore the word must refer to an existing Jewish community. However, if this were the case, he certainly would have used synagoge instead, which has a more specific Jewish reference than ekklesia.

In fact, Matthew’s very use of the word ekklesia has caused some scholars to question the authenticity of verses 18 and 19 of chapter 16. The other synoptic gospels record Jesus’ question to His disciples and Peter’s response, but they omit Jesus’ response to Peter’s confession. [20] But the manuscript evidence of those verses is very strong. The article on ekklesia in TDNT observes, “Neither verse [Matt. 16:18, 19] offers real textual problems. Literary criticism points out that there are no parallels to 16:18 in Mark or Luke, but it can supply no cogent arguments for the theory of interpolation (and in any case even an interpolation might rest on a genuine tradition).” [21]

But even granted the impeccable textual credentials of these verses, such criticism still raises some important questions. Was Matthew correct in using ekklesia to translate Jesus’ remarks? And if the church was still a future entity at that time, are we correct in translating ekklesia as “church”? And what did the disciples make of Jesus’ statement regarding the ekklesia?

The context of Matthew 16 provides the answers to these questions. Peter had just confessed that Jesus was the Messiah. The word Messiah in Hebrew means “the anointed One” and in Jewish thinking the Messiah would be a man chosen by God to right the wrongs which existed in the nation of Israel and in its relationship to God. Jewish theology identified two key features of the Messianic kingdom: the Messiah would gather the people of God together from their dispersion and he would establish the rule of God on earth. This implies that the Messiah would be a king. In fact, it was believed that he would be a lineal descendant of the great king David and the rightful heir to his throne.

Therefore belief in the Messiah was closely linked with two collateral ideas, namely, the kingdom of God and the people of God. In the Hebrew Bible, the word used to describe the people of God was qahal. As we have seen, this word had a variety of meanings, and in those instances where it referred to the assembly of the people of God it is translated in the Septuagint by ekklesia.

Neither qahal nor ekklesia has a specifically ecclesiastical meaning in the Old Testament, [22] but in the context of Peter’s confession, the disciples would have understood that Jesus was speaking about the Messianic community, the renewed people of God. In that sense, Matthew’s translation is certainly correct. As Albright and Mann observe, “It is hard to know what kind of thinking, other than confessional presupposition, justifies the tendency of some commentators to dismiss this verse [Matt. 16:18] as not authentic. A Messiah without a Messianic Community would have been unthinkable to any Jew.” [23]

The Grammatical Argument

In response to Peter’s confession of faith, Jesus asserts, “I will build my church.” The verb “build” appears in the future indicative tense,οἰκοδομήσω (oikodomēsō). But the Greek future tense has a volitive or deliberative sense in addition to its future meaning. Moreover, the verb “build” may mean to “build up” or to “edify.” So Jesus may have been merely stating His intention to build up, or edify, an existing Messianic community. However, the context of Jesus’ response is His future program for this new community. Therefore the future force of Jesus’ remarks is unavoidable. Jesus is stating His intention to construct an entirely new community in the future, not to rebuild an already existing one. The force of the future tense of the verb “to build” cannot be denied; Jesus is referring to an institution not yet in existence as He spoke, and still in the future. The promise to build His church was a prophetic utterance which found its fulfillment on the day of Pentecost.

The Theological Argument

The theological defense for the Pentecostal origin of the church is based on two premises. The first is that the church is formed by the Holy Spirit and the second is that the Spirit was first given on the day of Pentecost. The crucial text is 1 Corinthians 12:13, “for we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body.” This implies that the baptism by the Spirit is essential for entrance into the body of Christ. This baptism was predicted by the Lord in Acts 1:5, “in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit” (NIV).

Although the advent of the Spirit in the following chapter of Acts is not described as a baptism, it is clear that the apostles regarded that event as the fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy. When Peter reported to the Jerusalem church on the coming of the Holy Spirit to the Gentiles, he recounted that “As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. Then I remembered what the Lord had said, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit’” (Acts 11:15). The expression clearly refers to the events of Pentecost; and it is equally clear that Peter and his hearers regarded Pentecost as “the beginning.”

These considerations lead us to the following inferences:

• The baptism of the Holy Spirit is necessary for entrance into the church (1 Cor. 12:13).
• The Holy Spirit was first given on the day of Pentecost. The Spirit had been at work in believers prior to the day of Pentecost (Mk. 12:36, Lk. 1:41, 67; 2:25, John 20:22), but the baptism of the Spirit first occurred on Pentecost (Acts 1:5, 11:15–17).
• The outpouring of the Spirit in Acts 2 was a unique event which heralded the permanent indwelling of the Holy Spirit in believers and the birth of the New Testament church.

Finally, the conclusions of the linguistic, grammatical, and theological arguments may be summarized as follows:

• The linguistic argument identifies the ecclesia of Matthew 16:18 as the New Testament church, the new people of God.
• The grammatical argument identifies the church as a future entity not existing at the time of Jesus’ prophetic pronouncement.
• The theological argument identifies the beginning of the church with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2.

The Nature of the Universal Church

Descriptive Terms

Our understanding of the universal church comes from a systematic study of New Testament teaching concerning the church. As we have seen, such a study reveals a technical meaning of the word ekklesia in New Testament writings which emphasizes a spiritual unity rather than a physical assembly of believers. This unity can refer either to a congregation of Christians in a particular locality (the local church), or to the unity of all believers regardless of their physical location (the universal church).

New Testament scholars have expended considerable effort in attempting to understand the nature of this new entity, and as a result a number of descriptive terms have been used to distinguish it from the more familiar concept of a local church, that is, a congregation in a particular locality. [24] For example, the universal church has been called a spiritual church to distinguish it from the organized church. This is appropriate since the unity encompassing all believers is a spiritual one, as is the mystical union between Christ and the church. However, this designation is not intended to imply that the local church by comparison is unspiritual. In fact, the New Testament envisions each believer as being a member both of a local assembly as well as of the universal church. And this local congregation is no less spiritual than the universal church.

Another common designation of the universal church is that of the invisible church. Again, this term also reveals an essential truth about the nature of the universal church, namely, that there is no outward or visible sign of the church. By merely observing a group or a congregation of people, it is impossible to discern which of them belong to the universal church and which do not. In that sense the church is invisible. But this invisibility should not be taken to imply that the universal church is in some sense unreal. The universal church is composed of visible (as well as invisible) members of the body of Christ and is no less real than a local company of believers.

The most common description of the church is the universal (or catholic) church. But this designation is also subject to misinterpretation. The church is not universal in the sense of including all churches or all nominal Christians. It is universal in that it embraces all those who have been baptized into the body of Christ by the Holy Spirit so that it encompasses all believers past, present, and future.

The People of God

The church is a designation for the people of God. It consists of those whom God has chosen before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4). They are the elect of God (1 Pet. 1:2) or those called by God (Rom. 8:28). These were titles which previously applied to Israel and which now identify the church as the new people of God. Moreover, as we have seen, the word used in the Septuagint to translate “people of God” was ekklesia. Nevertheless, the New Testament never confuses Israel and the church. The historic people of God and the new people of God remain distinct, although they may play complementary roles in the plan and purpose of God.

Peter further identifies “the chosen” or “the elect” as those who have been sanctified by the Holy Spirit (1 Pet. 1:2). The epistles to the Ephesians and the Colossians are addressed to the “saints,” rather than to the churches. The saints are those who have been set apart (i.e., sanctified) by the Spirit of God in order to fulfill the purposes of God.

This fact further emphasizes the role of the Spirit in the universal church. The advent of the Spirit designates the beginning of the church (Act 2) and He indwells its members. He (the Spirit) identifies those who belong to Christ. “If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ” (Rom. 8:9). He is the one who baptizes them into one body thereby assuring their unity (1 Cor. 12:13, Eph. 4:3–6) and empowers them to perform the work of God.

The New Testament describes the church not only as “a people formed by divine initiative,” [25] but also as the congregation of those who have responded to that initiative. It is the assembly of believers. A number of other terms are used in the New Testament to describe the community of believers. They are brothers, Christians, saints, and disciples.

A believer enters the church universal at the time of conversion. At that time he is baptized by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:12, 13) and thereby becomes a member of the body of Christ.

The Characteristics of the Church

Universality

Its universality is a key feature of the church. This universality (or catholicity) of the church is, in fact, a corollary to monotheism. There is only one God and this one God has only one Messiah, and so there can be only one Messianic community for all men. It is perhaps no accident that Jesus went to Caesarea Philippi to reveal Himself as the Messiah (Matt. 16:13).

Caesarea Philippi was in northern Palestine bordering Gentile territory. It was perhaps the northernmost point to which Jesus traveled and the farthest place from Jerusalem that He visited. Why did Jesus choose to reveal Himself as the Messiah in the most un-Jewish place He ever visited? Perhaps it was to emphasize that, although the Messiah was Jewish by race, He was a universal Messiah. He is a Messiah for all people, not just a Messiah for the Jews. Many passages in the Old Testament that are regarded as Messianic suggest this universality. For example, God’s promise to Abraham was that in Abraham’s seed He would bless all the people of the earth, not just Hebrew people (Gen. 26:4).

Unity

The unity of the church is closely related to its universality. There is only one church. The word church in Matthew 16:18 is singular; Jesus is building His church, not His churches. We have seen that the technical meaning of ekklesia in the New Testament implies the spiritual unity of believers. Therefore, unity is an essential feature of the church, and this unity is bequeathed by the Holy Spirit. Therefore the unity of the church does not need to be created, but it must be maintained (Eph. 4:3). When Christ prayed for unity in His high-priestly prayer, He was praying not only for the unity of His disciples, but for the unity of “all those who will believe in me through their message” (John 17:20), that is, for the unity of the universal church. The unity of the church is one of its most spectacular features, transcending the mundane categories of race, sex, and social class (Gal. 3:28).

Sanctity

The church represents the people of God, and sanctity, or holiness, is God’s purpose for His people. [26] As God is holy, so His people must be holy (1 Pet. 1:15, 16). To be holy is to be separated out, or set apart for God. This sanctity or holiness also represents the work of the Holy Spirit in the church and in the life of the individual believer (1 Pet. 1:2). This holiness has two aspects; one is past and completed, and the other is present and ongoing. In one sense, the members of the church have been made holy by the atoning work of Christ (Heb. 10:10). But in another sense, they are constantly being made holy by the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit (Heb. 10:14).

Eternity

Although the church had a historical beginning on the day of Pentecost, it will never have a historical end. In Matthew 16:18, Jesus makes a bold statement concerning the church. He promises that “the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” This statement is an astonishing claim because in Jewish cosmology, Hades was the place of the dead and is often translated as the grave. Jesus’ confident assertion is that the church will never die; it cannot be conquered by death.

The church is an eternal church. Local congregations may come and go, but the universal church lives on. Individual members of the church may succumb to physical death, but they continue to be members of the universal church, which can never die. This further supports the view that the ekklesia of Matthew 16:18 is the universal church, the holy people of the living God.

The Metaphorical Descriptions of the Church

Our discussion so far has indicated that the writers of the New Testament applied to the Greek word ekklesia an entirely new meaning previously unknown in its classical and Jewish usages. In addition, they employed a variety of literary devices in order to further define the nature of the church. We will review several of these metaphors which help us to understand the complex character of the universal church. This discussion will make no attempt to be exhaustive. We will not address every metaphorical description of the church found in the New Testament, but will limit our discussion to the most common and important of these.

The Body of Christ

In his letters, Paul frequently refers to the church as the body of Christ. Indeed, it is his favorite metaphor for the church. Although some interpret its occurrence in 1 Corinthians 12:27 (cf. Rom. 12:4, 5) to refer to a local congregation of believers, it is generally not used to refer to a local church. The phrase principally describes the universal church (Eph. 1:22, Col. 1:18), which is composed of all those who are united to Christ through the baptism of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:13).

The Figurative Expression

The expression “body of Christ” is not to be taken literally, for the church is not an extension of the Incarnate Christ. Such an interpretation clearly exceeds what the apostle intended; it has no biblical support and leads to unbiblical conclusions. One corollary of this literal interpretation of the phrase is that the church could be regarded as being invested with the authority of Christ Himself. There is no biblical support for such an inference.

In New Testament times the group of men called the apostles did have such authority, and because of this they played a unique role in the early church. The word “apostle” simply means “one who is sent,” and it is infrequently used in the New Testament to designate a delegate from a church (2 Cor. 8:23, Phil. 2:25). However, the usual meaning in the New Testament refers to those who teach with the authority of Christ. It is because of this authority that the apostles’ doctrine is foundational for the church (Acts 2:42, Eph. 2:20).

The apostles. however, are men who met certain qualifications (Acts 1:21, 22, see above, page 8). Because of these qualifications there can be no apostolic succession in the sense of succeeding to a specific office. So although the apostles had a divinely delegated authority, such authority was not, and could not have been, passed on to the church. The recognition of the church as the body of Christ is not to be an arrogation to it of divine authority, but rather an acknowledgment of the lordship and sovereignty of the risen Christ over His body, the church.

The Significance of the Figure

In the New Testament a corollary to the description of the universal church as the Body of Christ is the depiction of Christ as the Head of the church.

1. This figure emphasizes the pre-eminence of Christ. Although the phrase “body of Christ” emphasizes the essential unity between Christ and the church, it also affirms that He is the head of the body. He is the sovereign Lord to whom the church submits (Col. 1:18, Eph. 5:24). He exercises sovereignty not only by right of His person, but also by virtue of the fact that the church owes its very existence to Him. He brought it into being and remains the source of its life.
2. The analogy of body and head is also used by Paul to illustrate the fact that the church receives its essential nourishment from Christ. He is its source of life and its growth is ultimately dependent on Him (Col. 2:19, Eph. 4:16). [27]
3. In his writings Paul also uses the metaphor of the body to describe several features of the universal church. These include its diversity, its unity, and its interdependence. One of the marvels and strengths of the church is its diversity. As a physical body is composed of many diverse parts, the church is composed of members of a diversity of ethnic, social and cultural backgrounds. In spite of this diversity, however, it maintains an essential unity which transcends geographic distances, cultural differences, and even denominational divisions. It is an essential feature of the universal church and remains the enduring work of the Spirit of Christ.
4. In speaking of the communion, Paul says in 1 Corinthians 10:17 “for we being many are one bread and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread” (KJV). This suggests an important truth about the communion loaf, namely, that it is a symbol not only of the physical body of the Lord Jesus in which He suffered for our sins, but it is also a symbol of His corporate body, the church. Therefore the celebration of the Lord’s Supper is a reminder not only of His atoning sacrifice, but also of the essential unity of His body, the church.

Another aspect of the unity of the body is the interdependence of its members. The parts of the body differ in function (1 Cor. 12:17), strength (v. 22), and honor (v. 23). Yet each is necessary for the function of the body as a whole and the members are interconnected with each other. When one part suffers, all the parts suffer with it, and when one part is honored all the parts rejoice with it (1 Cor. 12:26).

The essential unity of the church is an inescapable consequence of this metaphor. “We, who are many, are one body” (1 Cor. 10:17), “the body is one” and its members “form one body” (1 Cor. 12:12), “we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body” (1 Cor. 12:13). Christ has only one body and any denial of the unity of the body is to profane the body of Christ and may have serious consequences. This is discussed further in the excursus on 1 Corinthians 11:29.

The Temple of God

Although the word ekklesia never refers to a building, the church is described metaphorically in the New Testament as the temple of God. As with the previous figure of the body, this metaphor also helps us to understand the nature of the church and its relationship to its Lord. The two metaphors are not as incongruous as one might think, since in antiquity the body was frequently described as a building. When the church is pictured as a body, Christ is the Head of the body, the source of its life and its guiding force. In the case of the building metaphor, Christ is described as the foundation of the church. “Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3:11, KJV).

The foundation is the basis on which the building is constructed. That basis is Christ and His teaching. Hence, as we saw above, there is no conflict between regarding Christ Himself as the foundation and Paul’s statement in Ephesians 2:20 that the church is “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets.” The apostles taught with the authority of Christ, and the teaching of the apostles forms the basis of church doctrine.

A closely related figure to the foundation is that of the cornerstone. The cornerstone determines the lay of the building and Christ is described as the chief cornerstone of God’s building (Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:6). The cornerstone has a prominent location and the whole structure is dependent on it. So this figure is also a picture of the pre-eminence of Christ over the church.

The picture of the temple (or building) also illustrates the unity and diversity of the church. The church is portrayed as a single building consisting of many (diverse) stones (1 Pet. 2:4). These diverse stones are “fitly framed together” to form a harmonious building. Moreover, the significance of this building is that it becomes the habitation of the living God (Eph. 2:21, 22).

The Greek language has two words which are translated as temple. ἱερόν (hieron) refers to the temple precincts, whereas ναός (naos) refers to the inner sanctuary, or the holy place where God was pleased to place His name. [28]  The church is called the naos of God, which emphasizes the truth that the church is the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit of God (1 Cor. 3:16). The Spirit of God indwells the believer and therefore the universal church becomes the figurative sanctuary of the presence of God on earth.

The Bride of Christ

Another picturesque simile describing the relationship between Christ and the church is that of the church as the bride of Christ. The picture of marriage as a reflection of the relationship between God and His people already existed in the Old Testament (Isa. 54:5, 6; 62:5: Ezek. 16:8; Hos. 2:7, 19, 21). In the gospels Christ is portrayed as the heavenly Bridegroom (Matt. 9:15; 25:1–12, Mark 2:19; Luke 5:34, 35) and John the Baptist calls himself “the friend of the bridegroom.” (John 3:29). The most explicit references to the bride are found in the book of Revelation where the church is described as the bride of the Lamb (e.g., Rev. 19:7; 21:9).

This theme is further developed in the New Testament epistles. In his discussion of marriage in Ephesians chapter 5, Paul compares the relationship between husband and wife to that between Christ and the church. The relationship is one of love and devotion. Christ nourishes and cherishes the church (Eph. 5:29). He loved her before she loved Him (1 John 4:19) and the church responds to His love with devoted submission to Him (Eph. 5:24).

There has been considerable discussion about whether the relationship as the bride is a present or a future one. In 2 Cor. 11:2 the church is described as betrothed to Christ. This has led some to assume that the consummation of the union between Christ and the church is still in the future. However, this represents a misunderstanding of metaphorical language, in which analogies are never complete. In Ephesians 5 it is clear that the relationship is regarded as a present one. Moreover, in many cultures a betrothal is just as binding as the actual marriage; indeed, the distinction between the two is of less significance than it is in Western culture.

The Priesthood

The New Testament concept of a priest is firmly rooted in the Old Testament description of the Levitical priesthood. A priest is one who approaches God on behalf of the people and the nation of Israel still required the intercession of a priestly class in its worship. The priests were those who were sanctified, or set apart, to lead the worship of God in the sanctuary or the holy place. There they were required to offer sacrifices to God on behalf of the people.

The Old Testament priesthood was holy; its priests were those who were set apart for the service of God. So too the New Testament priesthood is a “holy priesthood” (1 Pet. 2:5) consisting of those who have been sanctified by the Holy Spirit for obedience to Christ (1 Pet. 1:2).

In the Old Testament, Israel is described as a kingdom of priests (Ex. 19:6) and New Testament believers are also called a “royal priesthood” (1 Pet. 2:9). Yet the concept of a royal priesthood was never fully realized in the history of Israel. Hebrew kings came from the tribe of Judah, and their priests were descended from Aaron and the tribe of Levi. So a kingly priest was an impossibility. Indeed, in the Old Testament there is only one person who was simultaneously a king and a priest. He was a mysterious figure named Melchizedek, described as “king of Salem” and “priest of the most high God” (Gen. 14:18).

In the New Testament Jesus is called “a priest forever, just like Melchizedek” (Heb. 7:17, CEV). Jesus Himself has become the High Priest of a new order of kingly priests. This new priestly order is the universal church. The veil of the temple which represented limited access to the holy place was torn in two and the individual believer is now encouraged to boldly approach the sanctuary (Heb. 10:19–22). This access to the holy place is possible because of the intercessory work of his High Priest, Jesus Christ Himself.

A further difference between the Old and New Testament priesthood is that sacrifices for sin are no longer necessary, since Christ has offered a sacrifice once for all. Rather, the Christian priest offers himself as a sacrifice to God (Rom. 12:1), and as part of his worship he offers other sacrifices such as praise to God and good works toward others (Heb. 13:15, 16).

Radmacher summarizes the difference between the Old and New Testament priesthood as follows: “In the former dispensation, Israel had a priesthood, but in the present dispensation, the church is a priesthood.” [29] Each individual believer is a priest and as such enjoys access to the very presence of God through Christ and not requiring a human intermediary.

Other Pictures of the Church

The New Testament uses several metaphors to highlight various aspects of the nature of the church. The New Testament sees the church as the new people of God (1 Pet. 2:10) and it uses expressions which originally applied to Israel to refer to the church (1 Pet. 2:9). However, God’s “new people” are defined not by race but by faith. Christian believers are “the seed of Abraham” (Gal. 3:29) and Abraham is the “father of all those who believe” (Rom. 4:11) regardless of their racial heritage.

In Galatians 6:10 the church is described as the family of God. Believers enjoy a filial relationship with God their Father and a fraternal relationship with other believers, their brothers and sisters in Christ. The church is also the pillar and ground of truth (1 Tim. 3:15); it is the place where the truth is guarded, defended and taught. The church is also a flock, whose Good Shepherd is Jesus Christ (John 10:11, 16). She is a vineyard tended by God the Father (John 15:1ff). Each one of these pictures illustrates some aspect of the nature or the function of the church, of the relationship of the church to Christ or His Father, or of the interrelationship between individual members of the church.

The Relationship of the Universal Church to the Local Church

A local church consists of a local congregation of believers who assemble regularly for worship and service. Although our discussion has focused on the universal church, the vast majority of occurrences of ekklesia in the New Testament refer to a local church. By one estimate, of the one hundred fourteen occurrences of ekklesia in the New Testament, at least ninety-two refer to the local church. [30] It is used in the singular to refer to a single congregation in a specific area (cf. Acts 8:1) or to all local churches generally without regard to a particular locality (cf. Acts 12:1). In the plural it is used to denote the sum of individual local churches in a specific region (cf. 1 Thess. 2:14).

But it is clear, as we saw above, that the universal church is more than just the aggregate of all local churches for the universal church consists of all believers past, present, and future. It includes those members of the church already in heaven, those now living on earth, and even those members who are still unborn.

What then is the relationship of the local church to the universal church? The birth of the church took place on the day of Pentecost, and the book of Acts describes the individuals who received the Holy Spirit on that day and on succeeding days as “the church,” without specifying whether it was the universal church or a local church. From 1 Corinthians 12:13 we have learned that those who were baptized by the Holy Spirit were baptized into the body of Christ, that is, the universal church. Yet, from Acts 2:42–47 it is clear that those individuals also functioned as a local church.

Thiessen observes that “the believers acted as a corporate unit. They had a definite doctrinal standard (Acts 2:42); they had fellowship with one another as believers…; they observed the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper (vss. 42, 47); they met for public worship (vs. 46); and they contributed to the support of the needy (vss. 44, 45). Surely we have here the marks of an organized local church.” [31]

So on the day of Pentecost (and probably for several days thereafter) the universal church and the local church in Jerusalem were identical. The new believers were simply “the church.” Both the universal church and the local church had their birth at the same time. The one hundred twenty believers in the upper room in Acts 2 were the “charter members” both of the universal church and the Jerusalem church. [32] It is therefore not surprising that at times it is difficult to distinguish between the two. And, indeed, there are passages of Scripture which seem to transcend or defy that distinction (e.g., 1 Cor. 10:32).

Like the doctrine of the Trinity, the doctrine of the universal church is not explicitly taught in Scripture, nor does the expression occur anywhere in the biblical text. Nevertheless, we have concluded that the truth of this doctrine is firmly established by a systematic study of New Testament theology, and such a study reveals many similarities between the universal church and the local church.

Paul refers to the Corinthian believers as “the church of God in Corinth” (1 Cor. 1:2, 2 Cor. 1:1). Obviously, he was referring to the local church “in Corinth.” Yet the Corinthian church was not the church of God, to the exclusion of other churches, so the expression also has universal implications. The Corinthian church was a local expression of the universal church.

Moreover, the metaphors used of the universal church in the epistles may on occasion also apply to the local church. For example, the Corinthian church is called the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:27), the temple of God (1 Cor. 3:16, 17) and the betrothed of Christ (2 Cor. 11:3).

These figures of speech imply, as Fleming remarks, that “the local church in its function and character stands in the same relation to Christ as the universal Church. It is the Church in miniature, a replica of the whole, giving visible and temporal expression to the invisible and eternal Church.” [33] Like the universal church, the local church stands under the headship of Christ. Its members are indwelt by the Holy Spirit and it enjoys a loving relationship with its Savior.

The local church is a visible manifestation of the universal church in a particular location. However, as we have emphasized, the universal church is more than the aggregate of all local churches; its members are not local churches, but individual believers who have been baptized into the Body of Christ by the Holy Spirit of God.

Excursus on 1 Corinthians 11:29

Discerning the Lord’s body

1 Corinthians 11:27–32 is a passage which has been a source of great anxiety for many believers. It urges us to examine ourselves lest we partake unworthily of the Lord’s supper. It suggests that he who partakes unworthily will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, and further will bring judgment on himself for not discerning the Lord’s body.

The passage raises a number of important questions. (1) Is it possible for a believer to eat and drink unworthily? If so, how? (2) What does it mean to be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord? (3) What is the nature of the self-examination that is required? (4) What does it mean to discern or to recognize the Lord’s body?

The key to answering these questions and to understanding the passage is an appreciation of the context, which is frequently ignored. The immediate context of this passage includes verses 17 to 34. In this section of the epistle Paul is addressing the problem of divisions in the Corinthian church when the believers come together to celebrate the Lord’s supper. The divisions here, however, are not identical to the divisions addressed earlier in 1:10ff (“I am of Paul,” “I am of Apollos”). Here we are dealing with social and class distinctions, with the difference between the haves and the have-nots. At the Lord’s table, the latter go hungry and the former gorge themselves into a stupor (v. 21), while humiliating their less fortunate brothers (v. 22).

This is the context in which Paul begins to discuss the Lord’s supper in verse 23. And these divisions which manifest themselves at the Lord’s table are also the context of our passage of interest. The text emphasizes this by returning to the context of v.17ff in verses 33 and 34 (“when you come together to eat”), and the passage cannot be understood apart from this context.

For the sake of simplicity, we will limit our discussion to verses 27–29. At the center of the passage is the imperative, “Let a man examine himself” (v.28). The word translated as “man” does not refer exclusively to a male person, so the expression could be just as accurately rendered as “each person ought to examine himself.” This self-examination is an imperative for all believers.

Paul appears to give two reasons for this self-examination; one in verse 27 and the other in verse 29. The purpose of the self-examination is (1) to avoid eating and drinking unworthily (v.27), and (2) to avoid not discerning the Lord’s body (v.29). The consequence of the former is to become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord; and the consequence of the latter is to eat and drink judgment on oneself.

However, a closer examination of the passage suggests that verse 29 is not a separate reason for the self-examination, but rather an explanation of the reason given in verse 27. In verse 29 the King James translation, based on the Received Text, inserted the word unworthily after “eateth and drinketh” (“eateth and drinketh unworthily”) and also the word Lord’s before “body” (“not discerning the Lord’s body”). This makes verse 29 conform to verse 27; but verse 29 is not merely a repetition of verse 27; it is an explanation. In other words, the meaning of eating and drinking unworthily is the failure to recognize the Lord’s body.

Therefore the key to understanding the passage is to understand what it means to recognize the Lord’s body. If we know what it means to recognize the Lord’s body, then the nature of the self-examination will be clear; that is, we will be able to examine ourselves to see if we are recognizing His body. And if on the basis of that self-examination, we determine that we are recognizing His body, then we can be confident that we are not eating and drinking unworthily.

So what does it mean to recognize the Lord’s body? The Greek word for body is σῶμα (sōma). The word appears in both verse 27 and 29, but its meaning is different in those two verses. In verse 27 it refers to the physical body of the Lord, but in verse 29 it means His corporate body, the church. Unfortunately, the wording of the KJV tends to obscure this distinction. Bruce explains:

The Western additions (from verse 27) “unworthily” after eats and drinks and “of the Lord” after body, are epexegetic in intention. In the word of institution “This is my body” [Paul] sees a reference not merely — perhaps not even primarily — to Jesus’ “body of flesh” (cf. Col. 1:22), but to the corporate unity of all who share his life: “we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread” (10:17). But for certain members of the church to eat and drink their fill, in unbrotherly disregard of their poorer fellow-Christians, as some were doing at Corinth, was to eat and drink without discerning the body, without any consideration for the most elementary implications of their fellowship in Christ. [34]

That is, “the body” in verse 29 does not refer to the Lord’s “body of flesh,” but rather to the “corporate unity” of the church. This conclusion is based on the following observations.

1. In verse 27 the word “body” is closely linked to the blood of the Lord; the reference is to “the body and blood of the Lord.” Verse 29 refers only to His body.
2. As we have noted above, although the possessive “Lord’s” (KJV) or “of the Lord” (NIV) appear in the English translations of verse 29, it is missing from the critical Greek text. Paul speaks here not of recognizing “the Lord’s body,” but of recognizing “the body.” This expression, “the body,” refers to the church in the previous chapter (10:17) and in the following chapter (12:12, 13), and it is most likely also the meaning here. As a matter of fact, that is the usual meaning of “the body” in this epistle, and the words “and blood” were probably added by the apostle Paul in verse 27 to indicate the exceptional reference to the physical body of the Lord.
3. Finally, and most convincingly, the context of chapter 11 supports the identification of “the body” with the church. It is precisely for failing to recognize the body that Paul was rebuking the Corinthians. How were they doing that? They were doing it by humiliating other believers at the Lord’s table. Failure to recognize the Lord’s body is to despise the church of God (v. 22). A recurring theme of this epistle is the unity of the body (“we who are many are one body,” 10:17; “the body is one,” 12:12). And any act or attitude of the believer which denies the unity of the body is a failure to recognize the body of the Lord.

There is some discussion among scholars about whether “the body” in 1 Corinthians refers to the universal church or the local church ( see, e.g., 12:27). However, it seems best to interpret the expression as referring to the universal church. Christ has only one body and it includes all believers. So any attempt on my part to exclude any member of the body is not to recognize His body. If we feel that we may eat and drink but another member of the body of Christ may not, then we fail to recognize the body of the Lord and we therefore eat and drink in an unworthy manner.

It is important to recognize that, although the apostle gave instructions earlier in the epistle for excluding offending believers from the fellowship of the church (5:1–12), this is not inconsistent with his teaching here. Someone who is guilty of public and habitual sin has, in fact, broken the fellowship of believers; so the elders of the church, by excommunicating him, are merely formally acknowledging what has already occurred in fact. Moreover, it must be remembered that church discipline should always be done in an attitude of humility and with the goal of eventual restoration of fellowship (Gal. 6:1–5).

The unity of the body of Christ is a recurring theme of the Corinthian epistle and a major concern of the apostle Paul. And the question of church discipline must be considered in this context. The offending brother, by his sin, has ruptured fellowship with his Lord and with the church. And so the goal of discipline is the restoration of that fellowship and of the unity of the body. The behavior of the Corinthian believers at the Lord’s supper represented another assault on the unity of the body and so Paul addresses it in the most uncompromising terms.

The above considerations lead to the following conclusions.

1. The self-examination mentioned in this passage is not an introspective exercise to see if we are worthy to partake of the Lord’s supper. A certain spiritual stocktaking is certainly advisable before breaking bread, but that is not the teaching of this passage. In this respect, the KJV choice of the word “unworthily” may be somewhat misleading, for what the passage is teaching is precisely that all Christians are worthy to eat and drink at the Lord’s table. However, some Christians may eat and drink in an unworthy manner (NIV). They do that when they deny the unity of the body by discouraging the participation of a fellow believer.
2. This passage is not directed at unbelievers; this is clear from the context.The Lord’s supper is indeed intended for believers, but there is no biblical evidence that God is displeased if non-Christians participate in it. What does displease Him, the passage tells us, is when Christians eat and drink in an unworthy manner. It is far better to allow an unbeliever to break bread, than to discourage a believer from participation in the Lord’s table. For when we do that, we fail to recognize the Lord’s body and therefore invite judgment on ourselves.
3. The examination in this passage is a self-examination. The text says nothing about our examining anyone else. Any impediment that we place in the path of another believer who wishes to partake of the Lord’s supper contravenes the teaching of this passage. There is only one biblical criterion for eating and drinking, and that is being a member of the body of Christ. There can be no biblical basis for establishing doctrinal standards, or worse, denominational criteria for admission to the Lord’s table. [35] To insist that someone meets our standards before he is allowed to break bread makes us guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, because it regards His atoning sacrifice as having no effect, and it denies the unity of His body. It is enough that a person meets God’s standard, that is, that he is a believer in the Lord Jesus.

So the self-examination is neither an onerous nor a difficult task. For the Christian the “context implies that his self-examination will be specially directed to ascertaining whether or not he is living and acting ‘in love and charity’ with his neighbours.” [36] We need only ask ourselves if there is another believer with whom we would be unwilling or unhappy to share the Lord’s table. If there is, then we are not discerning the body, whose unity is a glorious work of the Lord and a crowning accomplishment of the Holy Spirit.

The bread of communion is a symbol, not only of the physical body of the Lord, but also of His corporate body and its unity (1 Cor. 10:17), the unity of the church universal. To deny that unity, particularly at the Lord’s supper, is to make a mockery of that celebration. But to discern the body is to act in recognition of the truth of the words of the old hymn by Edward Denny.

We would remember we are one
With every saint that loves thy name.
United to Thee on the throne,
Our life, our hope our Lord the same.

Notes

1. This article was originally prepared for delivery at “Understanding the Church: A Colloquium for Serious Christians” in St. Louis on May 15-17, 1997. The colloquium was sponsored by Grace Bible Chapel.
2. Ted Grant is a practicing physician in Minneapolis, Minnesota. For many years he has served as an elder at Long Lake Community church [formerly Sunnyside Bible Chapel]. He is widely respected as a Bible teacher and conference speaker.
3. R. P. Lightner, Evangelical Theology (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker, 1986). For a historical review of the doctrine of the church see pp. 218-27.
4. C. C. Ryrie, Basic Theology (Wheaton, Illinois: Victor Books, 1986), 393.
5. For example, the word wardrobe is derived from ward meaning to keep and robe or clothing. So the etymological meaning is a place where clothes are kept. However, the connotational meaning of the word in contemporary English is quite different.
6. A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934), 28.
7. E. D. Radmacher, The Nature of the Church (Portland: Western Baptist Press, 1972), 117.
8. Radmacher, The Nature of the Church, 119.
9. Radmacher, The Nature of the Church, 122.
10. R. L. Saucy, The Church in God’s Program (Chicago: Moody Press, 1972), 16.
11. The English word “community” is often used in a similar way. For example, “the law enforcement community,” “the medical community.”
12. Saucy, The Church in God’s Program, 17.
13. E.g., 1 Cor. 3:10.
14. A. Kuen, I Will Build My Church (Chicago: Moody Press, 1971), 112.
15. In his response to Peter’s confession, Jesus calls Peter by his given name: “Blessed are you Simon Barjona” (Matt. 16:17). Simon was a common name and it has frequently been assumed that Barjona, which means son of Jonah, was Peter’s surname. However, this is unlikely for the following reasons: 1) The name of Peter’s father was John, not Jonah (John 1:42, contra KJV).2) There is no evidence that Jonah was used as a man’s name at the time of Christ. 3) It would be unusual to address a man as the son of his physical father. R. H. Gundry, Matthew, A Commentary on his Literary and Theological Art (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 332. The expression “son of” means “displaying the characteristics of” or “being a follower or disciple of” as in “the sons of the prophets” (Gundry, Matthew, 332). This is the third time in this passage that we encounter that expression. Jesus refers to Himself as the Son of Man and Peter confesses Him as the Son of the living God. In response to that confession Jesus calls Peter the son of Jonah. Matthew has already introduced Jonah in the beginning of the chapter (16:1–4) with his discussion of the sign of Jonah. The sign of Jonah is not so much Jesus’ death and resurrection as it is the proclamation of the truth about Jesus. F. F. Bruce, The Hard Sayings of Jesus (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1983), 94–98. So in what sense was Peter the son of Jonah? First and foremost, as Jonah was a prophetic voice of God’s message, Peter was a proclaimer of the truth about Jesus (Matt. 16:16, Acts 2:14f). Second, as Jonah was a prophet to the Ninevites, Peter was the apostle who helped to open the door of the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 10). Finally, Jonah’s success as a prophet was clearly not the result of his preaching skills, but of divine power; similarly, Peter’s confession was not a result of his own spiritual insights, “not flesh and blood, but my Father who is in heaven” (KJV). By his bold proclamation of the truth about Jesus Peter had shown himself to be in truth “the son of Jonah.”
16. As Bruce points out, the pun works in French, where the word pierre means both “Peter” and “rock.” In the French New Testament Jesus says to Peter, “Tu es Pierre, et sur cette pierre je bâtirai mon église.” Bruce, The Hard Sayings of Jesus, 143.
17. Ibid.
18. For a discussion of this point see D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 12 vols., ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 8:368.
19. D. D. Bannerman, The Scripture Doctrine of the Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), 43, and C. Hodge, Systematic Theology 3 vols. (New York: Scribners, 1883), 3:549, both cited in Radmacher, 194, 195.
20. Mark 8:27–30; Luke 9:18–21
21.  K. L. Schmidt, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. G. Kittel and G. Friedrich (abridged by G. W. Bromiley), (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans/Paternoster, 1985), 400.
22. Radmacher, The Nature of the Church, 121–123.
23. Quoted in Carson, “Matthew,” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 8:369.
24. Radmacher, The Nature of the Church, 188–92.
25. R. L. Saucy, The Church in God’s Program, 22.
26. G. W. Kirby, “The Church,” in The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, 5 vols., ed. M. C. Tenney (Grand Rapids:: Zondervan, 1976), 1:848.
27. Radmacher, The Nature of the Church, 139.
28. G. Schrenk, s.v. “ἱερός,ς” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. G. Kittel, 10 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1966), 3: 232.
29. Radmacher, The Nature of the Church, 227.
30. Radmacher, The Nature of the Church, 323.
31. H. C. Thiessen, Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), 410.
32. Thiessen, Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, 410.
33. P. Fleming, The Church (Oak Park: Midwest Christian Publishers, n. d.), 10.
34. F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians (London: Oliphants, 1971), 115.
35. For example, “letters of commendation” are frequently used to identify members of a particular group of Christians. Such letters are not necessarily wrong, but their use to exclude believers from the Lord’s table cannot be justified.
36. F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians, 115.