Genesis 24:1-27 - The Servant

Abraham had just buried his wife. Isaac is near 40 years old and needs a wife. How will this old widower take care of his family? Who is this obscure man that is so trusted? What I hope to show this morning is the role and character of a godly servant, a man who foreshadows a greater Servant – the One who was a servant to us and calls us to be servants one to another.

 

The Body of Christ is not "the church"

The Body of Christ is not “the church”

Since YHWH began forming a people for Himself, how man perceives and describes God has been important. In the early post-apostolic years, heresies cropped up regarding the nature of God and the person of Christ. Today, it is settled orthodoxy within the Christian faith that God is a holy trinity and Christ is fully God and fully man.

The doctrine of the trinity was the reason for the Nicaean creed of 325. The Creed of Nicaea (A.D. 325), was written mainly to refute Arianism; the teaching that Jesus was not eternal, but created. The doctrine of the Holy Trinity was at the heart of the Creed of Nicaea. This creed was the product of what was called the First Ecumenical council of Nicaea, convened by Emperor Constantine. The council met to deal with the schism created by Arianism, an over-reaction to the heresy of Sabellius, who believed in a divine nomad which presented itself as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Arians saw the Son distinct from God entirely, claiming he was a creature having a beginning: "There was when he was not." The Son was God's first creation Sabellius taught, yet out of nothing and hence has preeminence over the rest of creation. Arianism was an early form of the heresy of Modalism, still favored and taught by One-ness Pentecostals.

The hypostatic union was the doctrine developed by two major creeds, in response to gross errors taught by men who denied Jesus was eternally God and fully man since His incarnation.

The First Council of Constantinople, (A.D. 381), modified the Creed of Nicaea by adding a phrase in support of the eternality and deity of Christ; refuting Apollinarism, which taught that Jesus had but one nature. Apollinaire taught that Jesus did not have a human spirit. His views were based on the platonic tripartite view of human nature. The council condemned this view in order to show that Christ, as truly human as well as truly God, could redeem the whole person.

The filioque clause (clarifying that the Holy Spirit proceeded from both the Father and the Son) is one of the major disagreements between the Eastern Orthodox religion and others which profess Christ. This creed is still recited by some Christians, and is still needed.

The Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451) met to resolve the Monophysite controversy, which Eutyches stirred up by denying the existence of two natures in Christ. The two natures of Jesus, fully man and fully God, is a mystery not fully revealed to nor comprehended by man. That we cannot fully understand something given to us in Scripture is no excuse to deny it. The Definition document issued by the council summarizes the Church's teaching on the natures of Christ, and rightly specified the scope of Mary being the "God-bearer" - only as regards Jesus' humanness. Even so, the dispute about the two natures of Jesus continued until The Second Council of Constantinople in 533.

There is another aspect of the nature of God that has not generated the interest that the trinity and hypostatic union have: the body of Christ.

Body of Christ is described in Scripture as “heavenly Jerusalem” (Galatians 4:26; Hebrews 12:22; and Revelations 21:9-27), “living stones … a spiritual house for a holy priesthood” (1 Peter 2:5); “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for His possession” (1 Peter 2:9); “saints” and “faithful brothers” (Colossians 1:2). The list goes on; the point is the body of Christ, with its varied members all purchased by the Lord Jesus; and Christ is the head (Colossians 1:18).

We’ve been duped by the state-church into accepting “church” as the word describing the saints of the living God. The word "church" is not a translation of the Greek word, ekklesia; it’s not even a transliteration of that word. There does not appear to be a clear record of why “church” was chosen, nor of the meaning of this word. The first known use of this word in English Bibles is found in Wycliffe’s Bible, spelled “chirche.” His work was translated from the Latin Vulgate and we have no clear reason for his use of this word. English Bibles after Wycliff translated “ekklesia” as “congregation” – until the Geneva Bible, which gave us “church.”

The Greek word commonly presented as “church” is “ekklesia”. Strong’s Concordance defines “ekklesia” as “compound of <G1537> (ek) and a derivative of <G2564> (kaleo); a calling out, i.e. (concretely) a popular meeting, especially a religious congregation (Jewish synagogue, or Christian community of members on earth or saints in heaven or both), assembly, church.”

In Smith's Bible Dictionary from 1884, page 452, we read:

the derivation of the word 'church' is uncertain. It is found in the Teutonic and Slavonic languages and answers to the derivatives of ekklesia, which are naturally found in the romance languages and by foreign importation elsewhere. The word is generally said to be derived from the Greek kyriakos, meaning the lord's house. But the derivation has been too hastily assumed. It is probably associated with the Scottish kirk, the Latin circus/circulous, the Greek klukos, because the congregations were gathered in circles.

Ebenezer Cobham Brewer’s Dictionary of Phrase and Fable of 1898 agrees:

The etymology of this word is generally assumed to be from the Greek, Kuriou oikos (house of God); but this is most improbable, as the word existed in all the Celtic dialects long before the introduction of Greek. No doubt the word means "a circle." The places of worship among the German and Celtic nations were always circular. (Welsh, cyrch, French, cirque; Scotch, kirk; Greek, kirk-os, etc.) Compare Anglo-Saxon circe, a church, with circol, a circle.

The first definition in Daniel Webster’s 1828 dictionary defines “church” as “A house consecrated to the worship of God, among Christians; the Lord's house. This seems to be the original meaning of the word.”

When work on the King James Bible began, the king provided 15 rules that the translators had to follow. Rule 3 is of particular interest to this topic:

3. The old ecclesiastical words to be kept; as the word church, not to be translated congregation, &c.

King James was separating from Rome, establishing his own state-church and translating “ekklesia” as “congregation” or “assembly” would have worked against the theology embraced by the state-church. provided us a clearer picture of what God was communicating. Ekklesia rendered as "congregation" or "assembly" shows we are talking about people, not places. Advocates of the state-church have a history of building geo-political empires with ostentatious buildings for their gatherings and sprinkling infants rather than baptizing disciples. Presbyterians equate Old Covenant Israel with the New Covenant saints, providing "cover" for having unconverted children as "junior" members of the local "church." Without the word "church" being properly interpreted as the called ones (or something similar), people can easily be led astray in believing a "church" is something other than the assembly of the redeemed – like a building. Missing completely the meaning intended by God.

As a bare word, “ekklesia” doesn’t describe the purpose for which people are gathered. In Act 7:37-38, Heb 2:11-12, and the gospel accounts (such as Matthew 18:17), “ekklesia” is used to describe God’s covenant people in the Mosaic Covenant community.

In Acts 19:21-41, ekklesia is used three times to refer to townsfolk in Ephesus, showing up in English as “assembly.”

In numerous passages, “ekklesia” refers to the saints, the redeemed in Christ, those translated from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of His glorious light. And we see it English as “church.”

Do professing Christians grasp the meaning of “church” rightly? It’s common for people to talk about “going to church,” or “filling up the church,” or point out “look at that beautiful church!” These and many similar phrases betray a lack of understanding of “ekklesia.” The state-church has succeeded, we have largely lost sight of what constitutes the body of Christ.

Why does this all matter? The ekklesia of Christ is the people of God. Christ gave Himself for His sheep - all and each of them, whether they belong to a local congregation or are awaiting the resurrection of their bodies. He did not give Himself for any building. We who are still in our tabernacles of flesh are to love one another; in this way the world will know we are His disciples. This brotherly love within the local assembly is lost in most, as they have reduced worship to mere traditions and reduced biblical fellowship to a superficial "meet & greet" with an occasional meal. John would accuse us - how can you say you love God, Whom you cannot see, if you do not love the brother you can see? (1 John 4:20) I would add - how can you say you love your brothers and sisters in Christ if all you love are those far away, but not those with whom you rub up against and have disagreements? Jesus did not die only to provide eternal life for us; He also provided His Spirit to guide us in all truth, and in love for one another. We have been bought at a price by the One Who said:

John 15:12 (ESV) This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. John 15:17 (ESV) These things I command you, so that you will love one another.

After all, the Bible is all about the Lord Jesus and we ought to be, also. We rightly argue for and defend the Holy Trinity and the hypostatic union, even though these are difficult mysteries. We should no less careful or concerned about rightly and properly describing His Body. It’s not a building, it’s a redeemed people gathered into a local ekklesia.