The question has been raised whether the terms "the Church of God" and "the House of God" are ever used of the Church as a whole, or whether these expressions do not always refer to the local assembly of saints gathered to the Lord at one place. In seeking the answer, we will first examine the various passages in which these expressions occur, and seek to gather their meaning from them and their context. We will next seek for the reason for this meaning, and what it involves. We will then, as the Lord enables, look at the question as a whole, in the light of the Word of God.
1. Uses of the terms "Church of God" and "House of God." The first passage in which the expression "Church of God" occurs is in Acts 20:28. "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the Church of Gad which He hath purchased with his own blood." Those whom the apostle is addressing are the elders of the church at Ephesus, ver. 17, and there can be no question that he presses upon them their responsibility in the local assembly. But this does not make the expression we are examining necessarily a local one. We have two other phrases which serve to give character to it:"All the flock," and, "Which He hath purchased with his own blood." Our Lord in speaking of the gathering of believing Gentiles to Himself said, "Other sheep I have which are not of this fold:them also I must bring, and they shall hear My voice, and there shall be one flock (Gk.), one Shepherd" (John 10:16). Evidently the thought of the flock is coextensive with the whole number of believers, Jew and Gentile. Have we any other thought of the flock in Acts or elsewhere?
"The elders which are among you (1:e., wherever "the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia" were found) I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ and a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:Feed the flock of God which is among you" (τό έv ύμv πoίμvιov τo Θεo ), "the among you flock of God," 1 Pet. 5:1, 2), The term, while necessarily including the local saints, does, not distinguish them from all other sheep of Christ. It is the characteristic expression for the "one flock" over which the Chief Shepherd rules. While the responsibility is exercised in the place where the elders are, yet the reason for it is as wide as the whole flock. "Being en-samples to the flock" also shows this. There was nothing local in this, save that it would be shown wherever these elders were. This care and oversight would be automatically exercised in as wide an area as the whole flock, "in (not, over) which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers" (Acts 20:28).
The other expression is, "Which He hath purchased with his own blood" διά τo αματoς τo δίoυ, "with the blood of his own," J. N. D.). The price here surely is coextensive with the whole Church of God. It was not that Ephesus had been purchased thus, and therefore all other assemblies, but the reverse-the whole flock under the one Shepherd, all the purchase of His most precious blood.
The next passage where we have the expression "the Church of God" is in 1 Cor. 1:2. "Unto the Church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints (κλητoς άγίoις, "called saints," that by virtue of their calling) with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours." Here again the Church is addressed as local, but the language descriptive- of it is not local, but true of all "who are sanctified in Christ Jesus," as indeed follows in the next clause-"all in every place," etc. Similar language is used in the Second Epistle (2 Cor. 1:1), where "all the saints which are in all Achaia" are included in the address. Necessarily the apostle is addressing the saints at Corinth, but with no limitation as to the life, nature, and responsibility, the common portion of all the Church of God.
The next passage is in 1 Cor. 10:32:"Give none offense, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the Church of God." Here the apostle divides, we may say, the whole world into three classes, of which the Church universal is one. It is no more possible to limit the Church to Corinth, than the Jew or Gentile. True, all have their local aspect, but because of their universal relationship. The next instance bears this out-"If any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God" (1 Cor. 11:16). Here evidently the plural individualizes each assembly, but at the same time the apostle shows the all-pervasive unity which marks them. It is thus evidently but two aspects of the Church, the local and the universal.
"Have ye not houses to eat and to drink in, or despise ye the Church of God" (1 Cor. 11:22)? The little gathering at Corinth, many of them poor and of little account in the world, is seen as endowed with all the dignity of "the Church of God." The term, however, is not local, but general and moral.
"I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the Church of God" (1 Cor. 15:9). Which Church? At Jerusalem? In Judea? Surely the saints who were persecuted were there; but who could introduce the thought of a local assembly here? "Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou Me?" cannot be narrowed down to any locality. And the act of "the chief of sinners" applied to the entire Church of God, the Body of Christ. So also Galatians 1:13. In Phil. 3:6, "Concerning zeal, persecuting the Church," the modifying phrase "of God" is not added, which serves to introduce all similar expressions, and shows us that the term "Church of God" is synonymous with "the Church which is His Body," "the Church," etc. Thus we must limit these expressions also to the local assembly, if we are compelled to do so with the phrase we are examining.
In 1 Thess. 2:14, "the churches of God," and in 2 Thess. 1:4, we have the local assemblies so described. No one questions such usage. The local assembly has the title that belongs to the whole Church, because it is indissolubly linked with it. It is the whole Church localized. So also 1 Tim. 3:5, "If a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the Church of God?" The contrast is between his own house and that of God. It is not a question of locality.
"If I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:IS). Timothy's behavior was surely not limited to any one assembly; as a matter of fact he had responsibilities which carried him into many localities. His conduct was the same everywhere, and it was because he was in the House of God, which is the Church of the living God. To localize his behavior would surely be the reversal of the teaching of the whole passage. Was the local Church primarily "the pillar and ground of the truth," and the Church universal that only because it was the aggregate of all the Churches? Why should we reason thus? Does it not detract from the dignity and the greatness of our position as indwelt by one Spirit-the holy Temple of God, His present abode by the Spirit?
These are the scriptures in which the expression "the Church of God" is used. We come next to examine those which speak of "the House of God,"Οκoς τo Θεo. The scripture we have just been considering naturally occupies us here also, simply to point out the identity of the "House" with "the Church of the living God." The two are coextensive, the difference of expression serving, as always, to direct our attention to some special feature. The term "House" suggests, in contrast with the abode of man, and subject to his order, the habitation of God, where His presence and His will control all. That it is identical with the "Church of the living God," emphasizes its spiritual character. This is thus described in 1 Pet 2:4, 5, "To whom coming, as unto a living Stone.. .ye also as living stones are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." The "House of God" is thus not a material building, not a select company of a portion of the people of God, but all who belong to Christ- "Whose House are we" (Heb. 3:6).
It is thus that our Lord speaks of His Church, as an abode; "On this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18), Himself the foundation and the Head of the Corner, binding together, we may say, Jew and Gentile into one complete abode, "a habitation of God in the Spirit" (Eph. 2:22). The "stones" are, as we see in Peter, believers, which the context in Eph. 2 also enlarges upon, as we shall presently see. Let us also note the universality and unity of this "House of God." "For the time is come that judgment must begin at (lit., "from," see Ezek. 9:6) the House of God:and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?" (1 Pet. 4:17). This is so manifestly moral and general, that no comment is needed.
The same may be said of Heb. 10:21, "And having an High Priest over the House of God." The House is pervaded by the presence of the Priest, and neither can be limited to a locality.
We have two occurrences of the similar word oίκία, one of which refers to the abode here of the believer in his body-compare ver. 6-and the eternal home in heaven, "a house not made with hands" (2 Cor. 5:1); and the other to the "great house" of profession (2 Tim. 2:20). Neither of these could apply to a local assembly, although the moral character of all profession can be seen in an individual gathering.
Οίκoδoμή, "building," is of similar import. "Ye are God's husbandry, God's building" (1 Cor. 3:9). The context shows the apostle as the "wise master-builder," and gives the warning as to care in building upon the foundation, which is Jesus Christ, any material which cannot stand the test of fire. The primary application may be said to be to Corinth, but in such a way as not to emphasize its local, but its moral character. The remaining passage, Eph. 2:21, is most clearly coextensive with the other buildings spoken of in the same connection. "In whom all the building, fitly framed together, groweth unto a holy temple in the Lord; in whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God in Spirit" (Gk.), ver. 22. The latter word, "habitation," is a derivation from the same root, Κατoικητήριov, a dwelling-place of God. The previous verse manifestly refers to the growing temple, whose consummation will be in glory-a temple composed both of Jews and Gentiles, or rather of "neither Jew nor Gentile," but "one new man."
While speaking of the word oίκoδoμή, it will be noticed that the reference to the spiritual is manifest, and indeed it is most frequently to be rendered "edification," or moral upbuilding-see Rom. 14:19; 13:10, and especially Eph. 4:12,16, where it is significantly connected with the "Body," the Church.
2. We have now reviewed most, if not all, of the passages bearing upon the question before us, and might now look at the reasons for the use of the words and their significance. Without doubt in some cases they refer to the local assembly, but never as in contrast to the whole Church, and most certainly not in contradiction to it. The words serve rather to throw into dear light the truth of the one House, one Body of Christ. Perhaps a rapid glance at the second chapter of Ephesians will best serve to show this. The first ten verses of this chapter are, we might say, devoted to the "Body." It is the impartation to Jew and Gentile alike, of life, with a joint portion and place in Christ. The second part of the chapter is similarly devoted to the "House," as the abode of God, founded upon Christ, where we have access by the Spirit to the Father, made nigh by the blood of Christ, and Jew and Gentile both reconciled to God in one body by the cross.
Thus the unity of the Body is seen in the unity of the House, and they are therefore coextensive. The House is the "holy temple," where priestly worship is offered, and fullest fellowship enjoyed:where the middle wall of partition is broken down, and the soul is free to enjoy the privileges of the House in common with those who though outwardly nigh, needed the reconciliation as much as those afar off. We are in no local atmosphere in this chapter. Ephesus may be forgotten as we dwell upon truths which include the whole Body of Christ, all saints, and who are by this fact the whole House of God. We all thus have access by one Spirit to the Father.
It would take us far beyond the limits of this present article to examine the various passages which speak of "the Church " and "the Body." Those who have raised the question have no difficulty as to the universality of the "Body," and therefore we do not need to dwell upon this. But we do point out that the scripture in Eph. 2 links together these great truths-the Body and the House -as composed of the same living members, subject to the same blessed guidance and control. We conclude therefore that these terms are coextensive, both being essentially descriptive of "the Church which is His Body."
It may be well also to point out that the distinction in Ephesians between "we," Jews, and "you," Gentiles, is not local but racial. Sometimes indeed the "we" is all-inclusive, as in chap. 1:3-10.In ver. 11 there is the distinction between those who had first trusted-"pre-trusted"-and "ye Gentiles," and so through much of the epistle. But let it be clearly marked that the ground of the distinction is, as we have said, between Jew and Gentile, and not between Ephesus and some other place. Let us however note chapter 2:5. "When we were dead in sins" is not Jewish but universal, and the same may be said of the following clause, "By grace are ye saved." He is evidently pressing the truth of sovereign grace upon them personally, hence the "ye."So in verse 10, the first person is surely not the Jew, but all the new creation of God. From verse 11 to the end of the chapter the distinction is usually between Jew and Gentile; but verse 14, "He is our peace," is evidently true of "both," and so in verse 18.The connection therefore must be our guide in the application of the pronoun. But again let it be clearly seen that the distinction does not raise the question of locality. There were doubtless Jews at Ephesus who believed, as well as Gentiles, but they would come under the classification indicated, and not be classed as of Ephesus or elsewhere.
While dwelling upon this chapter, we would call attention to the translation of πσα oίκoδoμή in verse 21. The R. V. renders it "every several building," which if correct would indeed provide for as many "houses" as there are localities. But apart from the possibly correct insertion in some MSS. of η before oίκoδoμή. the phrase is correctly rendered "the entire building." See Acts 2:36, πς oκoς Iσραήλ, "the whole house of Israel." Moral and general ideas may thus be expressed without the article.
3. A brief word must suffice as to the whole question, Why this insistence upon the narrower application of the phrase "House of God?" Is it not clearly to limit all thought of government, order, and the unity of the Spirit to the local assembly? Therefore Ephesus need not concern itself with evil at Corinth, save in the way of brotherly counsel. Corinth must attend to its own affairs, Ephesus to its, and so on. Thus we have a doctrine which suits the practice of local independence. We are all prone to do this, to make a doctrine that supports our practice.
Without doubt, Corinth must attend to its own affairs, but it must do so on the ground of Scripture, which governs Ephesus as well. The apostle, though not local, judged already what must be done(l Cor. 5:1), and surely the putting away from "yourselves" would mean the putting away at Ephesus also. Nor can we think of his care as merely apostolic, though with special authority in that capacity. He was stating what was the judgment and mind of the Spirit, who dwelt in every believer everywhere, and in the whole Church.
Of what value would the admitted universality of the Body of Christ be, if the members did not "have the same care one for another" (1 Cor. 12:25)? The suffering is general, the care is also general, the disciplinary dealing is also general, for that is but another form of care -"for edification and not destruction." This is the truth of the unity of the Spirit (Eph. 4:3)-a truth which requires all lowliness, meekness, and forbearance to carry out.
In conclusion, let us all be reminded that "speaking the truth in love" is needed if there is to be a growing up into the moral likeness to our Head. Let us approach these holy themes in a spirit of earnest desire to "mind the same things." May the Lord preserve us from mere strife, which is but the forerunner of "schism in the Body." May He deliver us from a spirit of pride, or of accusation. Let us be much in prayer-believing, hopeful prayer. Let us earnestly seek a right way, that we may, if the Lord tarry, pass on to the younger generation a heritage of divine truth, and not of sectarian differences.
Lord, grant it for Thy Name's sake. S. R.
Extract from a letter
We had ,a refreshing time on the first chapter of John, verses 14 to the end. What a fulness is there unfolded -and to think we can say:"Of His fulness have all we received, and grace upon grace." We dwelt upon Him as made flesh, as the Son in the Father's bosom, as the Lamb of God, and as the Giver of the Spirit. Then we saw Him attracting others to Himself, and associating them with Him. From such precious communion true soul-winners are made. "Come and see" is after all the best gospel.
We had Colossians 1,2, and 3-a few features in chapter one; the Lord in His two-fold headship, etc. in chapter two, as the Head who binds us together into a divine unity; and in chapter three as all in all for the new man, in our daily personal walk. It makes a wonderful view of our object, privilege, and power.