THE LOCAL AND UNIVERSAL EKKLESIA:

IMPLICATIONS FROM A KINGDOM THEOLOGY

Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered

him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you,

but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build

my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the

kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and

whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 16:16-19).

Throughout church history, Catholics and Protestants, alike, have misunderstood this

passage—not necessarily because of a want of Scripture, or a dearth of commentary, but

typically because of faulty hermeneutics.1 Unfortunately, many church fathers and Bible

scholars have imprinted their personal faith and ecclesiastical heritage upon Christ‟s words. As a

result, Catholics derive from Matthew 16:18 a holy, universal see and a succession of popes;2

Protestant liberal scholars dismiss Jesus reference to the church, importing modern constructions

of the church back into the New Testament;3 while fundamental Dispensationalists divorce the

church from Israel and the Kingdom of God all together,4 conceiving of the church and Israel “as

two eternally separate entities with which God deals in different ways.”5 Yet, if none of these

1 Oscar Cullmann, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr (Philadephia, PA: Westminster, 1953), 158-170.

2 Ibid., 157-162, 169-170.

3 Ibid., 163-166.

4 Carl B. Hoch, Jr., All Things New: The Significance of Newness for Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids:

Baker Books, 1995), 258-59.

5 Millard Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998), 1052.

2

interpretations is wholly correct, the question remains: What did Jesus have in mind when he

spoke of the ekklesia in Matthew 16:18?

Before resolving this question, however, Jesus himself complicates the matter by

referring again to the ekklesia in Matthew 18:17. In a passage concerning discipline within a

synagogue-like assembly, Jesus employs the word twice to designate the body of believers who

make the final decision for the enforcement of holy living within the community of faith. Taken

in tandem, these two passages only heighten the question of meaning, because on the surface, it

appears as if Jesus uttered these words from two different sides of his mouth. While Matthew

16:18 captures a vision of the church that is cosmic, victorious, authoritative, and consummately

glorious; Matthew 18:17 unveils a local congregation, afflicted by sin, wrestling with the banal

process of disciplining an unrepentant brother. Held up next to each other, these two contexts

could not be any more divergent. Yet, it is this very tension that seems to set the stage for the

rest of the New Testament description of and the instructions to the church of Jesus Christ.

The aim of this paper, then, is to better understand the mysterious, intertwined

relationship between the contested, but victorious universal church (Matt. 16:18) and the often

dysfunctional, but disciplined local church (Matt. 18:17). Presupposing the church to be the

New Covenant fulfillment of the people of Israel and to be the visible manifestation of the

Kingdom of Christ on earth today, it is the goal of this writer to consider whether or not the

historic and traditional understanding of the church, dichotomized into local and universal

notions, is the most biblical and/or helpful way to understand the complex use of the word

ekklesia in the New Testament. In other words, by comparing and contrasting these two aspects

of the church, it is hoped and believed that the Christian will best be able to understand the

3

ontology of the church and its subsequent functions.

Local and Universal: A Brief Survey

Recent Christian thought, documented by contemporary systematic theologies, has

done little to explore this subject of the church universal and local. Two of the most popular

works available today, by living theologians, Wayne Grudem and Millard Erickson, barely

scratch the surface in their treatments of the church, local and universal. Their treatments are at

best peripheral, and at worst merely assumption based upon tradition.

For instance, Wayne Grudem devotes only two paragraphs to the local and universal

natures of the church in his Systematic Theology; he simply acknowledges their existence and

viability, without elaborating on either.6 Similarly, Millard Erickson treats the subject with

similar detail. In his one paragraph on the universal church, he simply lists texts that cannot be

constrained to spacio-temporal congregations and conflates the eschatological ekklesia from

Hebrews 12:23 with abstract notion of a universal church that “includes all persons anywhere in

the world who are savingly related to Christ.”7 Improving upon Grudem‟s treatment however,

Erickson compactly describes the relation between universal and local churches. He articulates,

“While universal in nature, [the church] finds expression in local groupings of believers that

display the same qualities as does the body of Christ as a whole.”8

Edmund Clowney adopts the same abbreviated understanding in his book, The

Church. At the end of his two-page synopsis on the local-universal distinctions of the church, he

6 Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing, 1994), 857-58.

7 Millard Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998), 1044.

8 Ibid., 1044.

4

says “we do better to conclude that the church can be expressed at more than one level.”9 In his

discussion, he acknowledges the historical category of the universal church, but completely fails

to analyze it, quickly moving to talk about the local church (for two pages).

At the inception of the Protestant church age, John Calvin speaks about the universal

church as it relates to its invisibility. He says, “the name „church‟ designates the whole

multitude of men spread over the earth who profess to worship one God and Christ.”10

In this

statement, he acknowledges a universal ecclesiology, but is quickly describes in terms of the

local assembly. Calvin explains, “By baptism we are initiated into faith in him; by partaking in

the Lord‟s Supper we attest our unity in true doctrine and love…and for the preaching of the

Word the ministry instituted by Christ is preserved.”11

Ironically, the great Reformer is forced

to explain the invisible and universal with the visible and local. For how can the universal

church legitimately baptize, share communion, or assemble for worship and preaching?

Following in the tradition of Calvin, Louis Berkhof acknowledges the church as

universal insomuch as it relates to the visibility and invisibility. He writes:

It is very important to bear in mind that, though both the invisible and visible Church can be

considered universal, the two are not commensurate. It is possible that some who belong to

the invisible Church never become members of the visible organization,…on the other hand

there may be unregenerated children and adults who, while professing Christ, have no true

faith in Him…and these as long as they exist in that condition, do not belong to the

9 Edmund Clowney, The Church (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995), 112.

10

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion , ed. John T. McNeill, vol. 2 (Louisville, KY:

Westminster John Knox, 1960), 1021. Writing in a context where the Catholic Church is forcefully teaching that all

who break from the church will be damned, Calvin and the other Reformers must explain the viability of

Christianity outside the Catholic Church. For Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, and others this comes in the argument for an

invisible church. Calvin‟s historical context demands that he make a Scriptural way for believers escaping from the

Catholic Church to have confidence that salvation exists outside the Catholic Church. Removed from this context,

however, overemphasis on the universal church poses more problems than it solves.

11

Ibid., 1021.

5

invisible church.12

Berkhof also touches on the universal church, almost by accident, as he considers the

other natural aspects of the church. Likewise, he goes on to address the catholicity of the church,

but he never gets around to explaining the universality of the church. Instead, he addresses the

unity of the church, and fuses catholicity with denominationalism; and in typical Presbyterian

fashion he overlooks the local congregation. Finally, by asking a concluding set of rhetorical

questions, he dismisses any possibility of an earthly, universal church13

—which actually adds to

the force of this paper‟s argument.

In all of these theologies, examination of the universal church is sparse. Arguments

for it are based more upon presumptions than on Scriptural engagement, and consequently the

reader is left to ponder, what is the universal church, in contradistinction to the local?” How do

they relate? Which is primary? In particular, how does the universal church manifest itself on

the earth?14

In order to find answers, students of the church must go back more than a century to

consider two massive ecclesiological textbooks. The first is James Bannerman‟s two-volume,

The Church of Christ (1868), the second is J. L. Dagg‟s Manual of Church Order (1858). While

coming from different ecclesiastical heritages, both rigorously examine the Scriptures to purport

weighty, biblical arguments.

In his Presbyterian treatment, Bannerman addresses the church as catholic and local

12

Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1941), 566.

13

Ibid., 575-76.

14

These are the questions that are driving this study.

6

for a full fourteen pages.15

He asserts that both the church visible and invisible have universal

applications,16

but that the invisible church is the superior type. “Local churches may perish

under the burden of their unfaithfulness and sins; but the universal Church cannot perish,

because [it is] upheld by the promise and protection of its Head.”17

Sadly, this statement is indicative of his mood towards the local church. To promote

an unseen church, Bannerman elucidates the vulnerability of the local church caused by

corruption in areas of doctrine, personal conduct, corporate fellowship, and spiritual unity.18

In

effect, Bannerman pits one aspect of the church against the other. He diminishes the glory of the

local church, and installs in the universal church the only true hope of perpetuity and truth.19

Yet, if this is true, the problem of tangible participation in the universal church keeps believers

from actually experiencing any of these blessed assurances. For again, how can one participate

in the universal church?

After examining all these Reformed theologians views on the universal church, it is

consistent that they typically conjoin the universal church with the invisible church and fail to

adequately understand Scriptures emphasis on the local church. In relief, J. L. Dagg‟s treatment

of the church is both refreshing and different, because it faithfully interacts with both the

universal and local treatment of the church. It far exceeds the Baptist works of Grudem and

Erickson, as it takes of Dagg more than forty pages to treat the subject.

Dagg begins by acknowledging the predominant usage of ekklesia to refer to the local

15

James Bannerman, The Church of Christ (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1868), 1:41-54.

16

Ibid., 42-46.

17

Ibid., 51.

18

Ibid., 46-51

19

Ibid., 51-53.

7

church, but he quickly cites texts that cannot be read as spacio-temporal congregations. Moving

quickly to examine these passages, Dagg builds a strong case for both local and universal

conceptions of the church. What is interesting for this paper, however, is the way that he

systematizes his understanding of the local church.

First, the church is universally united the way that extended family is related. The

language of Scripture describes the believer as a member of a family—brothers and sisters,

mothers and fathers, sons and daughters. Dagg writes, “Little is anywhere [sic] said of

membership in a local church; but the common recognition of Christians is as members of the

church universal, the great brotherhood…the universal family.”20

Thus universal membership is

ultimately more important than local. Still, the former is not to be unaccompanied by the latter.

Second, the universal church, while Spiritually united, is not officially organized.21

Noting the “attraction” that binds Christians together in local societies, Dagg delimits at the level

of the local church;22

for after developing that theme, he begins a section entitled, “The Church

Universal has No External Organization.”23

In opposition to Roman Catholic and Reformed

doctrines of polity, Dagg argues for autonomous churches. While each church gathers for the

purpose of worship and service to God, there is no higher connection with other churches. “The

Holy Scriptures contain no proof that the followers of Christ, after the dispersion of the church of

Jerusalem, ever acted together as one externally organized society.”24

Likewise, when

20

J. L. Dagg, Manual for Church Order (South Carolina: The Southern Baptist Publication Society, 1958;

reprint, Harrisonburg, VA: Gano Books, 1990), 120-21.

21

Ibid., 125-137.

22

Ibid., 125.

23

Ibid., 128.

24

Ibid. , 130.

8

considering Acts 15, Dagg posits, “There is not the slightest intimation that delegates went from

the other churches, which were now numerous, and scattered through different countries.”25

These two carefully constructed points, the Spiritual unity of the church universal and

the congregational organization of the local church, show J. L. Dagg‟s attention to detail and his

commitment to Scripture. His ecclesiological insights do not end there though. Consider these

comments, as he expounds on the eschatological nature of the church:

Death separates the saints below form the saints above; but they are one—one company,

one church; and the heavenly Jerusalem is the place of their joyful meeting in one glorious

and happy assembly…Though they do not meet in one assembly on earth, they belong to

the assembly above, and are on their way to join it. They have been called out of the world,

with the heavenly calling which is the summons to meet in the assembly…As the church at

Corinth were an ecclesia, considered as bound to assemble in one place, though not actually

assembled; so believers in Christ, considered as bound for heaven on their way thither, are

one ecclesia with the saints who have already arrived at the place of final meeting.26

Clearly, J. L. Dagg‟s treatment of the local and universal church takes pride of place in

this brief survey. The primacy he places on familial membership in the universal church,

coupled with his detailed attention to the local gathering of the saints, combined with his

eschatological conception of the universal church supplies a clearly defined ecclesiology.

Dagg‟s systematic treatment moves this study towards the biblical-theological considerations of

the church and the kingdom of Christ, something which I am convinced plays a formative role in

understanding the dimensions of the universal church and the purposes of the local church.

The Kingdom of Christ: One Universal People, Many Local Assemblies

When God created the world, he formed it from nothing, the church on the other hand,

did not materialize ex nihilo. Instead, the New Testament witness collaborates that the church

25

Dagg, The Manual of Church Order, 131.

26

Ibid., 118.

9

grew up out of Jewish soil. Jesus intentionally chose twelve apostles to recapitulate the twelve

tribes.27

Paul makes clear the New Israel aspect of the church too when he says that all who are

Christ‟s, whether Jew or Gentile, are “Abraham‟s offspring, heirs according to the promise”(Gal.

3:26-29). Again in Galatians 6:16, he even calls the church, defined in verses 14-15 as all those

who are new creations in Christ, as the “Israel of God.”28

Likewise, the book of Hebrews is

replete with Israelite attributions to the church. The greatest of these is Hebrews 8:8-13 and its

application of the New Covenant promises of Jeremiah 31:31-34 to the church at large.

Moreover, Peter in his letter to the “elect exiles of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia,

Asia, and Bithynia” (1 Pet. 1:1b), goes on to claim that the gentile believers of Asia Minor are “a

chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession” (1 Pet. 2:9-10).

In short, the origin of the church is unmistakably Jewish.

The relationship between the church and Israel ignites more conversation than this

paper is capable of addressing. However, it is a necessary starting point, for it gets to the heart of

the nature of the church. While much has been written on this subject in the last century, most

systematic treatments excise Jesus from the center of the equation.29

Classical

27

Frank Theilman, Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing, 2005),

708; Vaughan Roberts, God’s Big Picture: Tracing the Storyline of the Bible (Downers Grove IL: Inter-Varsity

Press, 2002), 111; 27

John Bright, The Kingdom of God (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1953), 230.

28

Tom Schreiner, Paul: Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press,

2001), 269.

29

Russell Moore, The Kingdom of Christ: The New Evangelical Perspective (Wheaton, IL: Crossway

Books, 2004), passim. I am heavily influenced by Russell Moore‟s Christocentric hermeneutic, and the way he

connects the church to Israel in and through Jesus Christ, in contrast to Dispensationalism on one side and Covenant

theology on the other. Concerning these two systems of theology, R.D. Moore writes, “the emerging Kingdom

ecclesiology fuses covenant theology‟s understanding of the church in continuity with Israel with

dispensationalism‟s understanding of the church as a new manifestation of grace. Seeing the church through the

prism of Scripture‟s Christocentric focus, there is no room for a “parenthesis” church or any notion of „two peoples

of God‟.” Likewise, no place is given to “the „replacement‟ of a Jewish nation with a largely Gentile church, but by

centering on the head/body relationship between the church and Jesus, the true Israelite,” the church find its

appropriate, Christocentric connection to Israel (Moore, The Kingdom of Christ, 149).

10

Dispensationalism bifurcates Israel and the church into two separate entities. Lewis Sperry

Chafer elaborately describes this difference when he writes.

It is disclosed that Israelites become such by a natural birth while Christians become such

by a spiritual birth; that Israelites were appointed to live and serve under a meritorious,

legal system, while Christians live and serve under a gracious system; that Israelites, as a

nation, have their citizenship now and their future destiny centered only in the

earth…Christians have their citizenship and future destiny centered only in heaven. 30

Reformed theology on the other hand, seems to simply replace Israel with the Church.

It flattens the contours of redemptive history, making the people of God in the Old and New

Covenants identical. Louis Berkhof, demonstrates this overemphasized continuity when he says,

“The church existed in the old dispensation as well as in the new, and was essentially the same in

both, in spite of acknowledged institutional and administrative differences.”31

Failing to concede

the regenerate difference of the New Covenant community from Old Testament Israel, Reformed

theologians blur the lines of community distinctives. In a chapter considering the relationship of

Israel to the church in the context of baptism, Stephen Wellum writes, “there is a redemptive-

historical difference between OT Israel and the NT church…what is unique about the nature of

the new covenant community is that it comprises a regenerate, believing people, not a mixed

people like Israel of old.”32

The aspects of continuity and discontinuity that the church does and does not retain

from Israel is critical in understanding the nature of the church, and henceforth its universal and

local applications. This is why Russell Moore contends that in order to understand the church,

30

Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology (Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948), 4:30.

31

Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1941), 571.

32

Stephen Wellum, “Baptism and the Relationship Between the Covenants” in Believer’s Baptism: Sign

of the New Covenant in Christ (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing, 2007), 113.

11

one must understand its relationship to Jesus, who is the true Israel. 33

All the promises made to

Israel have not been shifted to the church lock, stock, and barrel; instead, they have been given to

Jesus—the son of Abraham, the son of David, the second Adam, the true Israel who perfectly

kept law and rightfully earned the ever elusive blessing of God (2 Cor. 1:20). Thus, all those

who are in Christ, are in Israel, and thus are the New Israel, not by replacement but by insertion

into the True Vine.

This leads to the understanding of the church‟s organic connection to Israel and yet its

vast improvement because of its founding on the person and work of the risen Christ. His

enlightening Word and his empowering Spirit are gifts to the church that Israel never had, and

for that reason, these heavenly resources make possible a new people of dynamic faith and multi-

ethnic origin—for the Spirit and the Word are now spread abroad testifying to Jesus Christ.

This Christocentric view of the church also explains the relationship between the

church and the kingdom of God. Whereas Dispensationalism postpones the kingdom of God for

a future Israel, Moore‟s thesis, based upon the works of George Eldon Ladd and Carl F.H. Henry

in particular, and in agreement with a budding host of kingdom-minded scholars today, sees the

kingdom as inaugurated and awaiting its final consummation.34

Likewise, where Covenant

theologians spiritualize the kingdom, Moore advocates a present experience of the blessings of

God and a later, greater fulfillment in the return of Christ. Conflating the ideas of Ephesians 1:3

and Galatians 3:14, which speak of spiritual blessings and the material blessings of Abraham

respectively, Moore draws a composite that has the people of God experiencing the kingdom

33

Russell Moore, The Kingdom of Christ, 117-20.

34

Graeme Goldsworthy, Vaughan Roberts, Peter Leithart, and Michael Williams are just some of the

names of individuals who have written in promotion of this idea.

12

truly, but not yet fully. This inaugurated eschatology is none other than the already / not yet

schema advanced by the likes of Geerhardus Vos, John Bright, and George Eldon Ladd.

Ladd is most helpful in unpacking this Kingdom-church relationship. He writes, “The

church is the community of the Kingdom but never the Kingdom itself. Jesus‟ disciples belong

to the Kingdom as the Kingdom belongs to them; but they are not the kingdom. The kingdom is

the rule of God; the church is a society of women and men.”35

This helpful distinction,

distinguishes the kingdom from the church, while at the same time it keeps the inseparable

relationship between the two. Ladd continues to outline his thoughts with five helpful points

concerning the nature of the church: 1) the church is not the kingdom; 2) the kingdom creates the

church; 3) the church witnesses to the kingdom; 4) the church is the instrument of the kingdom;

and 5) the church [is] the custodian of the kingdom.36

Throughout his points, Ladd argues for the priority of the kingdom in relationship to

the church; the origination of the church derived from the kingdom; and the immediacy of the

kingdom, mediated through the church. If these delineations are adopted, it leads to an

understanding of the church as locally gathered, visible manifestations of the eschatological,

universal kingdom of Christ. In other words, in the establishment of earthly embassies, Christ‟s

rule in heaven is seen. Likewise, in the here and now of the local assemblies, the future

gathering of all the redeemed is forecast and modeled. From this kingdom theology, Christians

can begin to see the royal nature and function of the local church. Further evidence for this

already / not yet trajectory of the church can be seen in the biblical witness itself.

35

George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, Rev. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,

1993), 109.

36

Ibid., 109-117. These five items are headings in Ladd‟s chapter on the church.

13

Ekklesia in the New Testament

When considering the nature of the church in the Bible, it vital to see how the local

and universal realities play themselves out in the language of the Biblical witnesses. As will be

seen, the use of the term ekklesia connotes both ideas of a singular, eschatological, and finally

universal gathering and multiple, local, regularly assembling, earthly communities of faith—not

coincidentally, the very same aspects observed in Jesus‟ three uses of the term.

Ekklesia: A Linguistic Analysis

The word ekklesia is not unique to the New Testament Scriptures. Greeks and Jews

alike commonly employed it for all sorts of political, civilian, and religious assemblies.

Politically, the term goes as far back as Euripides and Herodotus during the fifth century B.C. to

“denote the popular assembly of the full citizens of the polis, or Greek City state.”37

In secular

language, ekklesia had a wide range of meaning. It was often used to speak of the “collecting or

bringing together of [household] things, troops, and people.”38

But it was in the activity of

guilds that the term found its technical usage, when artisans of the day would gather regularly for

“cultic fellowship.”39

Religiously, the LXX also ascribes to ekklesia some semantic flexibility. “While

ekklesia is almost always a rendering of qahal, qahal is not always translated ekklesia,” thus

eliminating the idea that ekklesia is the technical replacement for qahal. 40

Often, in situations

37

P.T. O‟Brien, “Church” in The Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity

Press, 1993), 123.

38

Lothar Coenen, “Church,” in The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed.

Colin Brown (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975), 1:292.

39

Ibid., 292

40

Karl L. Schmidt, “Ekklesia,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel and

Gerhard Friedrich, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, 10 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964-76), 3: 529.

14

where the congregation is spoken of in terms of local constraint, the term synagogue is employed

to translate qahal, indicating the sense that ekklesia is more than just the locally established

community. Nevertheless, ekklesia is never used to translate the OT term edah, which was used

to speak of the total aggegrate people of Israel, without restriction to any particular location or

place.41

Held together, ekklesia shows itself as possessing in its semantic DNA, a flexibility that

allows it to range between local congregations and a larger, more universal application.

Consequently, it is more appropriate to understand ekklesia in terms of its attributes than its

implicit meaning.

Ekklesia‟s elasticity may explain, in part, Jesus‟ selection of the term. In its

congregational manifestation, he could speak of the new covenant community‟s responsibility to

discipline the sinning member of its own community (Matt. 18:17); while at the same time, he

could speak of the coming eschatological assembly as one universal body that could not be

defeated by “the gates of hell” (Matt. 16:18). As ekklesia is employed throughout the New

Testament, it should become apparent how the apostolic writers make use of both aspects, often

conflating them in their commonplace language.

Multiple Local Assemblies

The word ekklesia occurs 114 times in the canon of the New Testament,42

and “this

local sense of the church is evidently intended in the vast majority of occurrences of the word

ekklesia.”43

P.T. O‟Brien distinguishes three uses of ekklesia. They are 1) a local assembly or

41

Coenen, “Church,” 294.

42

P.T. O‟Brien, “Church,” 124.

43

Erickson, Christian Theology, 1043.

15

congregation of Christian, 2) a house church, and 3) a heavenly gathering.44

The first two

comprise varying degrees of the same thing. Though different in size, both are local, earthly

congregations. O‟Brien‟s third category is unique in its attribution of the universal to the

heavenly realm. (This will be discussed below.)

Following Jesus depiction of a local ekklesia Matthew 18:17, Acts begins to recount a

regular pattern of local assemblies springing up throughout Jerusalem, Judea-Samaria, and the

ends of the world. Of the twenty-three uses of ekklesia in Acts, eighteen clearly refer to local

congregations.45

Three times the word is used to describe the riotous assembly in Ephesus (Acts

19:32, 39, 41); once the word is used to refer to the congregation of Israel in the wilderness with

Moses.46

In Acts 9:31, a textually disputed verse, Luke describes “the church throughout all

Judea and Galilee and Samaria.” The singular usage of church seems to point to an inter-

regional connectedness uniting the churches. This on the surface, seems to plainly argue for a

universal church, as supposed by Catholics, Episcopalians, and even Presbyterians. Yet, the

singularity of this argument, built on a passage that has textual questions, seems unwise. Too

many other passages militate against this universal reading, as shall be seen.47

44

P.T. O‟Brien, “Church,” 124-126. These three distinctions are similar to Wayne Grudem‟s

(Systematic Theology [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994], 857) but better because O‟Brien elevates the universal

church to the realm of the heavenly places, contouring this local/universal discussion in a way Grudem fails to do.

45

These include: the churches located in Jerusalem (5:11, 8:1, 3; 11:22; 12:1, 5; 15:4, 22); Antioch

(11:26; 13:1; 14:27; 15:3), “every church” in Derbe, Lystra, and Iconium at least (14:23; 16:5), “churches” in Syria

and Cilicia (15:41); Caesarea (18:22); and Ephesus (20:17).

46

This is another example of the flexibility and non-technical use of the word ekklesia.

47

See also James White, “The Plural-Elder-Led Church: Sufficient as Established—The Plurality of

Elders as Christ Ordained Means of Church Governance,” in Perspectives on Church Government: Five Views of

Church Polity, ed. C.O. Brand and R.S. Norman (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishers, 2004), 268-69; George E. Ladd,

The Young Church (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1964), 54.

16

The last passage in Acts that uses the word ekklesia is Acts 20:28, where Paul exhorts

elders from Ephesus “to care for the church of God” “in which the Holy Spirit has made you

overseers.” Not coincidentally, the language here is local and universal. Paul is addressing a

specific group of men to guard and guide a particular assembly of believers, but he speaks of

their church in universal terms, “the church of God, which [Christ] obtained with his own

blood.” Right away, the fusion of local and universal realities is joined, and it seems that Paul in

this passage is working from the greater eschatological reality of Christ‟s completed work to the

local application of its effect.

Moving from Acts to the Pauline epistles, it is once again clear that the predominant

context for ekklesia is the spacio-temporal. Paul writes to address occasional matters in specific

churches. Only the letters to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon are addressed to individuals, and

even here they instruct the individuals how to conduct themselves among the body of believers

with which they are locally joined. In its entry on the church, The New International Dictionary

of New Testament Theology has much to say about Paul‟s conception of the local church. “The

ekklesia can be thought of in purely concrete terms, and any spiritualizing in the dogmatic sense

of an invisible church is still unthinkable for Paul.”48

In Paul‟s thinking, “the ekklesia has its

location, existence, and being within definable geographical limits.”49

So while retaining a sense

of unity between the churches, “the ekklesia is always described and ordered in terms of its

particular, local form.”50

This is evident in Paul‟s address of the “church of God that is in

Corinth” (1 Cor. 1:1; cf. 2 Cor. 1:1) and the “church of the Thessalonians” (1 Thess. 1:1).

48

Coenen, “Church,” 299.

49

Ibid., 299.

50

Coenen, “Church,” 301.

17

James and John have the same sort of provincial emphasis in their understanding of

the church. James speaks of the local body of elders who can come and pray with the sick

congregant (5:14). John in his third letter also has in mind a concrete and local church,

mentioning the testimony of believers not in the abstract, but before the church (3 John 6). John

also testifies to a local understanding of the church in Revelation 1-3. Here, the ancient apostle

records the words of Jesus, who addresses the seven churches in Asia. Jesus‟ selection of seven

individual, independent local churches is strong evidence for the localized emphasis on

understanding churches as local entities in this time between the times.

All this evidence points towards the local manifestation of the kingdom of God in

individual gatherings of regenerate believers. “The fact that the ekklesia in the full sense exists

in several places at once arises out of the concreteness of Paul‟s concept. For it points to the

present manifestation of the expected rule of the crucified Christ.”51

That is to say that the

kingdom of God is seen in the visible gatherings of local churches. Still, this is not the only way

that the New Testament speaks of the church.

One Eschatological Assembly

The other primary application of the term seems to refer to Christ‟s relationship to the

eschatological assembly of Christians, often referred to as the body of Christ, and all that he has

done to procure redemption, sanctification, and glorification for this forthcoming assembly.

Here, P.T. O‟Brien‟s third category of a “heavenly gathering “ is helpful. Writing on this

subject, he says that some NT passages clearly depict the church as possessing “a wider

reference than either a local congregation or a house-church.”52

With this in mind he goes on to

51

Ibid., 300.

52

P.T. O‟Brien, “The Church as a Heavenly and Eschatological Entity” in The Church in the Bible and

18

explore the passages in Colossians, Ephesians, and Hebrews 12:23.

The unifying observation about Colossians and Ephesians is the exalted language used

to describe the church. “A particular emphasis is added to Paul‟s statements about the church by

the letters to the Colossians and Ephesians,” and this emphasis pertains to the “cosmic dimension

of the atoning work of Christ.” 53

This is not the traditional local and universal distinction, as

presupposed but rarely explicated by the likes of Erickson and Grudem.

Most commentators interpret these references in Colossians [and Ephesians] of „the

church universal, to which all believers belong‟ and which is scattered throughout the world.

But there are two serious criticisms that may be leveled against this view: first, the term ekklesia

can no longer have its usual meaning of „gathering‟ or „assembly‟, since it is difficult to envisage

how the world-wide church could assemble, and so the word must be translated in some other

way to denote an organization or society. Secondly, the context of Col. 1:15-20 which is moving

on a heavenly plane suggests it is not an earthly phenomenon that is being spoke of in v. 18, but

a supernatural and heavenly one.54

Ephesians speaks of the church in the same manner that Colossians does. Ephesians

1:21-22 describes the church positioned with Christ, far above all created things. The locus of

this assembly cannot on earth, for as of yet Christ has not yet brought all things under his feet.

Likewise in Ephesians 3:10, the church is to be the means by which God makes known his

manifold wisdom to all the angelic beings in heavenly places. While this is happening, the

totality of it is still pending. Ephesians 5:23ff reiterates the same already/not yet tension. While

the World (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2002), 93.

53

Coenen, “Church,” 301.

54

P.T. O‟Brien, “The Church as a Heavenly and Eschatological Entity,”93.

19

the church is already the bride of Christ, that bride is still being prepared for her royal husband.

At present, the bride of Christ is still incomplete and impure. To mix metaphors, many more

sheep must come into the fold (John 10:16), and Christ‟s sanctifying Spirit must continue to

purify his bride before he is able to receive her (Rev. 21:2ff). This qualification is not to demean

the work of Christ in anyway. Rather, by asserting that the church is not yet fully purified as

Christ‟s bride, nor yet totally completed as Christ‟s body, is to speak biblically about the present

situation of the church in the world today. It recognizes the progressive nature of God‟s wise

plan of salvation, in gradually converting the people Christ sought to redeem in his once and for

all payment for sin on the cross.

Consequently, Colossians and Ephesians, both use proleptic language to describe the

universal church. Misunderstanding comes when the chronology of Scripture is folded into a

singular fulfillment. This is the same mistake that first-century Jews made, thinking that the

Kingdom had come in its fullness with Jesus claim to David‟s throne. Rather, just as the

kingdom developed gradually, so it seems legitimate to consider the church as coming

incrementally as well. In this inaugurated eschatology, the universal church is in fact an

eschatological reality, not a contemporaneous one. Today, local churches are hope-giving

harbingers of its future coming.

Another passage that reinforces this idea of an eschatological church is Hebrews

12:22-24:

But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly

Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the

firstborn (ekklesia prototokos) who are enrolled in heaven, and to God , the judge of all, and

to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant,

and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.

This passage is unmistakably eschatological. The place is Mount Zion, the city of the

living God, the heavenly Jerusalem. Gathered at God‟s holy mountain are innumerable angels

20

and all the redeemed of humanity, those who are enrolled in heaven, whose spirits have been

made righteous. It is a picture of “the final [and eternal] encounter between God and his

people.”55

For the entire corpus of God‟s covenant people, that is his ekklesia, is present; and the

promised kingdom has finally come (12:28), so that the population of the kingdom is finally

complete. This it seems should be the formative understanding of the universal church. All local

churches are moving towards this glorious reality, but because of the time of redemptive-history

the universal church is still not yet complete.

Once this unambiguous notion of the eschatological and universal church is seen in

Hebrews, it is possible to return to Ephesians to see allusions to the way believers are currently

united with this coming assembly. One example of this is found in Ephesians 2:5-6, which says

that God “made us alive together with Christ…and raised us up with him and seated us with him

in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus.” The language is in the present tense because the promise

is unshakably secure, not necessarily because believers in the church have yet attained this

glorified status, but because they are guaranteed that they will graciously be received into

Christ‟s presence in the coming ages (2:7).56

Finally, if the universal church is not understood eschatologically, problems arise in

the Christians‟ understanding of God‟s magnanimous promises to the church. For instance, while

the church is promised victory (Matt.16:18), not every church, nor every believer is currently

55

P.T. O‟Brien, “The Church as a Heavenly and Eschatological Entity,” 95.

56

Consider this analogy. Just as a Notre Dame booster club meets in Louisville, Kentucky for the

purpose of fellowship, festivity, and promotion of their Fighting Irish. In this assembly each member is united by

their common alma mater and their future hope of sojourning to South Bend to spur on their team. So it is with local

church whose regular assembly is based upon their common confession of faith and their unified hope of future

assemblage together in the New Heavens and New Earth—with all the other saints found in local churches. In this

scenario, every time they meet they remind themselves of God‟s ancient promises, and they rejoice in their future

corporate destiny. Their assemblage is not due to anything local or current, but due to something entirely heavenly

and eternal.

21

undefeated. Ask the underground church in China, or the Christian brother in Somalia.

Likewise, while Christians possess spiritual blessing, union with Christ, and promise of health,

riches, and unspeakable joy in Christ, these things are not the everyday experience of the church.

Why? Because the blessing and victory of the universal church is forthcoming. Christ said he

would build his church, and that final eschatological assembly of the redeemed is still under

construction. The church‟s best life now, is not yet.

A Local/Eschatological Synthesis

After establishing the reality of the church local and the church eschatological, the

relationship between the two must be discussed. Building from the preceding discussion, two

questions must be addressed. First, how do the two senses of the church relate, specifically, how

does the local church relate itself to the eschatological assembly? Second, how should a world

full of local churches relate to one another before the eschatological and finally universal church

is gathered?

Local churches should labor to build up the universal kingdom. Through the

proclamation of the rule and reign of Christ to those outside the church and by means of

manifesting the ethics of the kingdom inside the church, does the kingdom grow. For doing

these things, these local churches move along a continuum towards the eschatological church.57

Matthew 13:31-32 tells the parable of the mustard seed and how as the smallest of seeds, it is in

time able to become “larger than all the garden plants…so that the birds of the air come and

make nests in its branches.” So too, Jesus says, is the kingdom of God. Even in the history of

57

Ideally, each church should be a visible reflection of the Kingdom of Christ. Much like a movie-

trailer hints at the contents of the movie, the church should strive to show the blessedness of the age to come. So

that when someone asks, “What will heaven be like?” A church member can reply, “Come with me to church this

Sunday, and I will show you.” (Credit goes to Robbie Sagers for helping me apply these practical dimensions of the

corporate witness of the local church.)

22

the church this growth can be seen. The church, which began in Jerusalem, has now covered the

globe, with notable exceptions, but with ongoing growth into new regions of unreached peoples.

With every person that hears the gospel and believes, the kingdom grows and the total of the

eschatological church draws nearer to its foreordained number. All of this moves each local

church closer and closer to the climax of history—the return of Christ and the completion of

Christ‟s church which he has promised to build (Matt. 16:18).

Christ, who came to fulfill all the OT promises of kingship, restoration, and blessing,

has done so by inaugurating his kingdom on the earth and leaving its keys with the church (Matt.

16:19). This is seen in the authority vested in the disciples, who founded the first outpost of the

kingdom in Jerusalem‟s ekklesia. Hear the words of King Jesus, “all authority has been given

unto me, therefore go and make disciples of all nations” (Matt. 28:18). No language could be

stronger to authorize his ambassadors to go and proclaim the kingdom in enemy-occupied

territory. This royal governance is seen in only one other place in the gospels. Not by

coincidence it is found in Jesus only other mention of the church. Congruently, it is the local

congregation that has the final and official say in matters of congregational discipline (Matt.

18:19-20).58

Since the goal of redemptive history is to secure a multiethnic kingdom of the

redeemed perfectly united with Christ, eternally dwelling with Him in the New Creation (Rev.

21-22), it is perfectly consistent that he has installed in the church a pattern of what is yet to

come. While at the same time, he has instructed the church to carry the message of his gospel of

58

Only twice are the keys of the kingdom mentioned, and in both instances they are related to the

outworking of the local church. The local church is given the keys in Matthew 16:19, as an eschatological promise

of the church‟s imminent success. Again the keys are mentioned in the daily operation of the church in Matthew

18:19, so that what is ultimately true in heaven is made available on earth through the Spirit and word of Christ.

23

the kingdom to the ends of the earth, establishing visible, local assemblies of believers all along

the way. In doing this, the church grows ever closer to it eschatological zenith.

Local churches must contend and cooperate with other churches. This begins to

answer the second question. While there does not appear to be a structural extant universal

church, there is nevertheless the reality of a Spiritual brotherhood in Christ.59

Ever since the

pronouncement of the curse, there have been two kinds of people—sons of the women and sons

of the serpent, those who are of the lineage of Cain and those who follow after Seth and call

upon the Lord (Gen. 4:26). Consequently, there is an unmistakable reality of the elect scattered

abroad, that when they meet they have a unique bond in the Lord. Still this should be attributed

to a Spiritual unity, more than a prescribed structural institution.

Much in Scripture lends support to Spiritual cooperation.60

Both Philemon and 3 John

concern the relationship of Christians that extend the boundaries of the local fellowship.

Likewise, when Paul writes to the Corinthians, he can speak of a spiritual presence with them

even in his bodily absence (1 Cor. 5:3).61

How is that possible, unless some sort of

interconnectedness extends beyond the local congregation? Still while this unifying mystery

remains, it is the present persuasion of this writer that such a connection is spiritual in nature and

not structural. Just as intercessory prayer for an unknown brother or sister is vital and effective,

the people of God are also related in ways unseen.

59

Dagg, Manual of Church Order, 125-37.

60

The Southern Baptist Convention is wholly devoted to this sense of voluntary partnership.

61

I would contend that a certain measure of apostolic privilege should be granted to Paul for his right to

instruct and even demand obedience to his instructions to the churches he writes his letters. For such an example of

enforced obedience consider 1 Corinthians 14:37 or 2 Thessalonians 3:14.

24

It might be helpful to speak of this sort of “spiritual universalism,”62

not with the

nomenclature of the ekklesia, but rather that with that of the soma or the aggregate body of

Christians in the world. For in speaking of the church in an eschatological sense in Ephesians

and Colossians, Paul makes choice usage of the term soma (Eph. 1:23; 5:22-33; Col. 18, 24).

Likewise, in speaking of the distinctive unifying features in Christianity, Paul makes explicit

reference to the oneness of the body and the Spirit (Eph. 4:4ff). So, due to the eschatological

reality of being “in Christ,” positioned with him in the heavens, transferred into his kingdom, and

finally secured in his presence at Mount Zion, there can be a sense in which the corporate body

of believers in the world is spiritual unified. Still, this unity is based upon something future, not

yet something current. It extrapolates from a yet unreached reality, but one that is most

assuredly coming. All of this to say, in speaking about the church there must be some helpful

guidelines in speaking more precisely about it nature. For the way that its ontology is conceived

directly effects the ways in which the church functions in the world today.

Implications for the Local Church

Reiterating what was said earlier: The church is the local, visible manifestation of the

eschatological, universal kingdom of Christ. Therefore, as the appointed representative agency

of Jesus Christ, it must not operate according to its own prerogatives or it own power.

Consequently, notions of the church being a social club, an activist group, a political power, or

anything other than a kingdom-minded band of witnesses would be a perversion of the nature

and function of the church.

George Eldon Ladd in speaking about the kingdom and church had this to say about

the church‟s function in the world today:

62

This is universalism in an ecclesiological only sense, not a soteriological sense.

25

The Church therefore is not the Kingdom of God; God‟s Kingdom creates the Church and

works in the world through the Church. Men cannot therefore build the Kingdom of God,

but they can preach it and proclaim it; they can receive it or reject it. The Kingdom of God,

which in the Old Testament dispensation was manifested in Isreal, is now working in the

world through the Church.63

P. T. O‟Brien adds this crystallizing comment:

Perhaps it is best to suggest that the local congregations or house-groups are earthly

manifestations of that heavenly assembly gathered around God and Christ…Because of

one‟s membership of the heavenly assembly gathered around Christ, Christians ought to

assemble in local gatherings here on earth.64

With this ontological notion of being an annex or outpost of the kingdom, the church

can progress in the way that it is going to function in the world. For lack of space, only three

primary features will be considered: 1) the self-identity of local assembly, who the church is to

be; 2) the mission of the local assembly, what the church is going to do; 3) the practice(s) of the

local assembly, how the church is going to be the eschatological people of God.

Identity

First, the church‟s self-understanding should stem from the rule of Christ. Self-

awareness of its king and its inheritance in his kingdom, is the only way a church will persist in

manifesting to the world a heavenly kingdom.65

For only then will the church begin to be the

true body of Christ. Likewise, only by the Spirit, will each body of witnesses have the power to

reflect the kingdom in their living and proclaim the gospel in their speaking. As a local

assembly, churches should model what they, as a part of eschatological people of God, will be

doing forever—ruling with Jesus Christ and rejoicing because of him. Citizenship in heaven, not

63

G.E. Ladd, The Gospel of the Kingdom: Scriptural Studies in the Kingdom of God (Grand Rapids,

MI: Eerdmans, 1959), 117.

64

P.T. O‟Brien, “The Church as a Heavenly and Eschatological Entity,” 97.

65

The family and national governments reveal certain aspects of Christ‟s kingdom, but it is the church

that has been appointed to be the witnesses of the kingdom.

26

positions, possessions, or prestige on earth, should be the sole motivation that demarcate these

churches as being set apart for the kingdom of Christ (Phil. 3:20).

With this in mind, the gospel becomes more than simply a message of ablution for

sins, a “Get Out of Jail Free” pass; it becomes what Jesus always proclaimed the gospel to be,

entrance into his glorious kingdom.66

In the churches of Jesus Christ then, the message they

proclaim is one of eternal gratefulness for the completed work of Christ and radical obedience to

their cosmic Lord. Such an attention to kingdom has the power and possibility of transforming

every member of the congregation into the Imago Dei that they were created to be.

Mission

Second, the church‟s commitment to the kingdom of Christ is going to impact what it

does. Primarily, the church should be engaged in the spread and explanation of the Kingdom. It

cannot be reinforced too much, but when Christ‟s disciples ask about the restoration of Israel,

Christ told them of their mission to be His witnesses. The Spirit of Christ gives power to speak

(Eph. 5:19-21), and to speak about Christ (John 16:14). The church that is empowered by the

Spirit of Christ, then, must be consistently and loudly proclaiming the message of the gospel.

While the church legitimately promotes ministries of mercy, benevolence, social

justice and the like, none of these can outweigh the explanation of the Word of God and the

proclamation of Jesus Christ as Lord. Jesus gave the church a mission, and it is not to rest until

the task is complete, until Christ has come to claim His bride. It is not a more pious Kiwanis

club, or a religious alternative to group therapy; and it is certainly not a collection agency for

cultural, sub-cultural, or casual Christians. It is a place where radical steps of self-discipline are

employed to train men and women to be workers in the vineyard of the Lord. In every way, the

66

Moore, The Kingdom of Christ, 106.

27

church is to be on mission. It is to be a community on the Way, moving towards the heavenly

assembly, commanding people to submit to the Lordship of Jesus Christ and to subsequently join

in the local assemblage of those waiting for that final ekklesia.

Practice

Third, the conduct of the corporate assembly will be determined by who Christians

believe themselves to be and what they assume God‟s primary calling is upon them. Again,

kingdom identity and activity must shape the nature of how each Christian community operates.

As ambassadors of the king on mission to the world, the church is to conduct itself in accordance

to the rules of the King. Since Christ has left the church His Word and His Spirit, which leads

believers into all truth (1 John 2:27), it is imperative that churches be a people committed to the

Word of God, for they are the chosen “pillar and buttress of truth” (1 Tim. 3:15).

Four things come to mind in the way that churches must conduct themselves in order

to maintain their kingdom witness. First, churches must hold to a regenerate church

membership. If the local congregation is to model what the final, universal assembly of

redeemed will be, it is essential that each aspiring member show signs of genuine faith and

repentance. This is simply the historic Baptist doctrine for church membership, that the

membership should strive to be coterminous with the elect of God. Of course, this requires the

extra step of enforcing church discipline and upholding Matthew 18:15-20‟s injunction to

confront the unruly brother.

Second, the regular observance of the ordinances, rightly observed, is a part of the

kingdom responsibilities of the church.67

Baptism shows to the world and to the principalities

67

I mention this ahead of the regular proclamation of God‟s Word only because of the order found in

the Great Commission, where baptism precedes instruction. Though, in actual practice neither can occur without the

other.

28

and powers, the transfer of citizenship of an individual from the kingdom of darkness to the

kingdom of the beloved Son (Col. 1:13). Participation in baptism signifies new life in Christ

(Rom. 6:4), where both the convert professes his/her new found faith in Jesus Christ as Savior

and Lord, and the church publicly testifies to the marks of salvation in this person‟s life. In

performing this baptism, the earthly assembly is representative of the eschatological community

in welcoming this brother or sister into the eternal household of God. So, baptism is more than a

symbolic act cumbersomely imposed upon the church, it is a proclamation of the believers

standing before God at Mount Zion.

Likewise, the Lord‟s Supper is a meal to commemorate Christ‟s defeat of death on the

cross, while looking expectantly to the day when every tongue, tribe, people, and nation will be

called to dine with Christ in the realization of His kingdom. Again, the local assembly foretells

of the coming universal assembly of the redeemed who will partake in the marriage feast of the

lamb (Rev. 19:7-9). Here again, Christ‟s directive to partake of the bread and wine in

communion foreshadows a coming eschatological fulfillment.

Third, the regular proclamation of God‟s word and the ethical application thereof is

crucial for the watching world to hear and see the kingdom of God taught and lived. The

mission of the church is unalterably founded on this Word. Moreover, the ethics of the kingdom

must be taught to all those who have been converted and are now under the rule and reign of

Jesus Christ. For as every disciple is won to Christ, each must be taught, as Jesus said, “to

observe all that I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:20).

Figuratively speaking, the church is called to be a city on a hill, which shines light

unto the world (Matt. 5:14). The way that the church does this is through a faithful spoken

witness about Jesus Christ‟s gospel, and through loving and righteous behavior that causes the

29

world to take notice (1 Pet. 3:15). Once again, it cannot be a coincidence that this description of

the redeemed and gathered people of God in this age, image forth an ever-illuminated city, the

New Jerusalem, seated on the holy hill of Mount Zion.68

In Jesus command to be a light-bearing

witness, Christ calls his church to shine forth the glorious things to come.

Fourth, the kingdom of God is seen in the local church in its congregational order, its

fruits of charity and unity, and in the exercise of its Spiritual gifts. God did not leave his church

without instruction on how to order itself. Through the deposit of the Holy Scriptures, God

affirmed the establishment of two governing offices (Phil. 1:1), qualifications for those elders

and deacons (1 Tim. 3:1-13), particular roles for men and women (1 Cor. 11:3-16; 1 Tim. 2:8-15;

Tit. 2:2-8), ethical admonitions for members of the congregation (see for example, Rom. 12:9-

21), and instructions for church discipline (Matt. 18:15-20; 1 Cor. 5). When all of these

measures for church life are employed, they resemble the coming rule of Christ. For as he has

given the keys of the kingdom to the church (Matt. 16:19), and as he has gifted men to lead and

teach for the upbuilding of the body (Eph. 4:7-16), the church forecasts, still in an imperfect way,

the righteous and peaceful rule of the Son of David.

Beyond the order set in place by God is the command for the assembly to love one

another (John 13:34-35; Rom. 13:8). Time and time again the New Testament commands the

church to good unto one another, and with the presence and unifying power of the church, it is

able to manifest again the righteousness, joy, and peace of the Kingdom of Christ (Rom. 14:17).

The unity of the local church manifests again the singularity of the kingdom of Christ (John

17:22-23; Eph. 4:3-6). Again, while these characteristics of the church are seemingly lacking in

most churches, it is not the case that such standards are not given and such resources for unity

68

D. A. Carson concedes this as a possible reading in “Matthew” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary

(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishers, 1984), vol. 8, 139-140.

30

supplied. Additionally, the exercise of Spiritual gifts points to the giftedness of Jesus Christ

himself. While no one man or woman in the church possesses all the gifts, all together these

abilities build up the body of Christ, and further express the blessedness of Jesus Christ.

Finally, these marks of the church manifest what the church is in its identity, and they

demonstrate how the church is to carry out its mission. For the mission of the church is not left

up to the fickle whim of each church or the creativity of a dynamic pastor. Rather, the local

assemblies of bonded believers, are to send out workers to set up more and more churches. The

task is to make disciples, but those disciples are to be bound in local assemblies. So, the

relationship between the kingdom and the church, once again impacts how the local church is to

function.

It is not enough to simply produce literature, or broadcast radio programs, or to make

isolated converts among tribesman in Papua New Guinea or among Chinese college students.

These are steps along the way, but the telos of the Christian mission, this side of Christ‟s return,

is to establish annexes of the Kingdom in every people group in the world. In other words,

planting churches should be the goal of missions, because nothing else accurately depicts or

proclaims the glories of Christ‟s kingdom. The church is the end of the gospel, for it is the

chosen vessel to show the powers and principalities the wisdom of God (Eph. 3:10). Mission

agencies, inter-denominational ministries, and independent evangelists do not have the

perogative to change the Missio Dei, because God‟s plan is to establish churches all over the

world that can communicate to the world the gospel of the kingdom.69

69

Howard Snyder. The Community of the King, Rev. Ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press,

2004), 62-68.

31

Conclusion

Much ground has been covered in this survey of local and universal churches in

relationship to the Kingdom of Christ. Much more terrain needs to be explored in the biblical

text, the theological formulation, and in the practical application. A new generation is

experimenting with new methods and new constructions of Christian community, and what they

desperately need is a renewed, biblical-theological understanding of the ontology and function of

the local church. Otherwise, more and more Christians may find themselves born in spiritual

orphanages, receiving the message of forgiveness for sins, but without a church to nourish and

mature them (Eph. 4:11-16).

Others who sense the need for Christian community bank on the outdated and

misapplied notion of the universal church. They feel content to go from one Bible study to the

next, aimlessly floating on praise music and disconnected messages insidiously promoting

individualistic Christianity. Without even knowing it, this latent notion of a universal church,

undermines the very thing it seeks to establish: a healthy, global body of believers. For only in

local churches, can Christians employ all of the applications mentioned above. In no way can

the universal church exhibit the kingdom of God in regular ordered worship and joyful

fellowship; nowhere does the universal church baptize and serve communion in conjunction with

church discipline; and neither can it regularly practice the “one anothers” that stretch the

Christian to mature and conform unto the image of Christ. These things are reserved for the

local church.

It is no wonder that Christians keep looking for sanctified highs and new experiences,

because the experience they were created to have in the local assembly of the redeemed is by the

promotion of an abstract universal Christianity. As churches continue to “emerge,” it is my hope

32

and prayer that they might return to the Scriptural mandate to be the custodian of the kingdom,

instead of any number of other creative enterprises. My fear is that in an effort to be innovative,

churches simply bypass the Scriptural guidelines for the ekklesia and move right on to the

pragmatic. In so doing the church is treated like an outdated relic, and without even knowing it,

the gospel of the kingdom becomes muffled and distorted as it travels naked, apart from its pillar

and buttress, the local church, which God gave to preserve its purity. Sadly, for the sake of

cultural adaptation and creative worship then, the local visible manifestation of the kingdom of

God is lost, and the dividing line between heaven and hell is blurred. This should not be.

May God raise up a generation of pastors, professors, elders, and devoted laymen who

would live and die for the bride for whom Christ died (Acts 20:28). Until churches recapture a

vision for this eschatological assembly of the kingdom of God manifested in their midst, I am

afraid that the church will limp impotently to glory. May it not be so. May it be the challenge

for this generation to love Christ by loving his church, in its ugliness and splendor, in both its

local and eschatological forms.

Now to him who is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, according

to the power at work within us, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout

all generations, forever and ever. Amen. (Ephesians 3:20-21)

33

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Bannerman, James. The Church of Christ: A Treatise on the Nature, Powers, Ordinances,

Discipline, and Government of the Christian Church, Vol. I. London: T. & T. Clark, 1868.

Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1941.

Bright, John. The Kingdom of God. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1953.

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion . 2 vols. Ed. By John T. McNeill. Trans. And

indexed by Ford Lewis Battles. The Library of Christian Classics. Philadelphia, PA:

Westminster John Knox, 1960.

Carson, D.A. Biblical Interpretation and the Church: The Problem of Contextualization.

Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1985.

Carson, D.A. The Church in the Bible and the World: An International Study. Eugene, OR:

Wipf & Stock, 2002.

Carson, D.A. Matthew. The Expositor‟s Bible Commentary, vol. 8. Grand Rapids, MI:

Zondervan Press, 1984.

Chafer, Lewis S. Systematic Theology. Vol. 4. Dallas, TX: Dallas Seminary Publishers, 1948.

Clowney, Edmund. The Church. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995.

Cullmann, Oscar. Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, trans. Floyd V. Filson. Philadephia, PA:

Westminster, 1953.

Dagg, J.L. Manual of Church Order. South Carolina: The Southern Baptist Publication Society,

1958; reprint, Harrisonburg, VA: Gano Books, 1990.

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998.

Goldsworthy, Graeme. According to Plan: The Unfolding Revelation of God in the Bible.

Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1991.

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.

34

Hoch, Carl B., Jr. All Things New: The Significance of Newness for Biblical Theology. Grand

Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1995.

Hoekema, Anthony A. The Bible and the Future. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979.

Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology. Vol. 3. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1999.

Ladd, George E. A New Testament Theology, Rev. ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993.

Ladd, George E. The Gospel of the Kingdom: Scriptural Studies in the Kingdom of God. Grand

Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1959.

Ladd, George E. The Young Church. Bible Guides, vol. 15, ed. William Barclay and F.F. Bruce.

Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1964.

Moore, Russell D. The Kingdom of Christ: The New Evangelical Prespective. Wheaton, IL:

Crossway Books, 2004.

Motyer, J. A. The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction and Commentary. Downers Grove, IL:

Inter-Varsity Press, 1993.

Roberts, Vaughan. God’s Big Picture: Tracing the Storyline of the Bible. Downers Grove, IL:

Inter-Varsity Press, 2002.

Saucy, Robert L. The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism: The Interface Between

Dispensational and Non-Dispensational Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1993.

Schreiner, Thomas R. Paul: Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity

Press, 2001.

Schreiner, Thomas R. and Shawn D. Wright. Believer’s Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in

Christ. Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing, 2007.

Snyder, Howard. The Community of the King, Rev. Ed. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press,

2004.

Thielman, Frank. Theology of the New Testament: A Canonical and Synthetic Approach. Grand

Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing, 2005.

Williams, Michael. Far as the Curse is Found: The Covenant Story of Redemption.

Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 2005.

35

Articles

Coenen, Luther. “Church,” in The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology,

ed. Colin Brown, 4 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975.

O‟Brien, Peter T. “Church” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne,

Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993.

Schmidt, Karl L. “Ekklesia” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel

and Gerhard Friedrich, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, 10 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,

1964-76.