Perhaps someone who believes the Church existed in the Old Testament can explain this to me:

(Mat 16:18) And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

The word "will" has a sense of futurity to it. At this point Jesus Christ said that the Church had not been built yet. I believe this sense of futurity to point to the forming of the Church at Pentecost.

In addition, according to both Strong's and Young's the word "church" does noot appear in the King James Bible until this particular passage quoted above. How could it exist in the Old Testament if it was not even mentioned in scripture?

In Christ,
George

One answer sometimes given is that it is a statement of determination, "I will win this football game!"

However, the Greek does not allow for such an interpretation.

In the research I have done there does not seem to be a viable answer without taking a long detour around other Scriptures.

In essence, there seems to be no answer. However, I trust the Lord to give me a teachable spirit and I look forward to what others may bring out.

In distress, in debt, discontented...that sounds like a fundamental Baptist Church to me. And that was back in David's day!

In Christ,
George

Great post! Perhaps the best argument for an Old Testament church I've ever heard!

Hi ran across some interesting messages on this topic. go to the following link and start with the message "rightly dividing the word of truth" this is a 14 message series. http://www.jesuslovesme.org/MP3/

George

The KJV may not mention the OT church, but the NT mentions the OT church:

As I recall the word there for church simply means assembly, a gathering, but that is the case with many other usages as well.

Here the interpretation is helped by the context.

When you take into account Christ's statement that the church was something in the future tense, the definition of those who make up the church and the very distinct difference between the church and Israel it is clear the usage is not what the reformed postion would want it to be.

May I suggest obtaining that excellent book entitled "Dispensationalism" by Charles C Ryrie. There is a very helpful chapter on the Church (chapter 7) which will answer the opening question. Although there are pictures of the NT Church in the OT, and there are certain principles that apply to both OT and NT believers, the Church is, nonetheless, a distinct body which was foretold by Christ as a future entity when He said "I will build my Church".

Hello Bob

I see that you are preaching at our church later in the year.

David

Hello David

It is actually, DV, my youngest son Ben who is due to preach at your Church. However, I am hoping to bring him over for the services.

Kind regards

Bob

Thanks Bob.

Yes I got it wrong. Mike Swales told me last night.

Regards

david

Being a Strict/Refined Dispensationalists, Ecclesiology is one of my favorite subjects (along w/ Eschatology). As I was reading through the different responses, I was surprised to see Acts 7:38 mentioned to prove any church in the OT. The same word (ekklesia) is also used of pagans in Acts 19:32, 39, & 41. Does that mean they are apart of the Church as well? Of course not. Prooftexting does not determine truth.

Matt. 16:18 is a great passage to show Christ's view of the truth. Point in fact, the future tense was used by Christ to say "I will build." The grammar of the passage would not allow a church in the OT. Christ even emphatically says it is "My Church" just to differentiate it from any other assembly that it might be confused with. In other words, the Church had not yet been built in the life of Christ.

There are many other ways to show the Church beginning after Pentecost in Acts 2, but a good one is Christ becoming the Head of the Church. That didn't happen until after He ascended to the Father (as the order of events is laid out in Eph. 1:19-23). In other words, Christ didn't become the Head of the Body of Christ until after He ascended back to heaven. If you have the Church in the Life of Christ or the OT, then you have a headless body. A body w/out a head cannot live or function.

I wrote a paper for my Masters on this subject. For more on the issue you can read the paper by clicking here.

AMAZING. I wish you would have said this in the KJV arguments, it wold certainly have put another twist in the discussion.

Yes, it is very interesting that what the English language calling "church" would have been considered a homonym. But....it is not a homonym, it actually has a base greek root of ekklesia. Does that mean that it is the same then? No it does not. How do we know? By CONTEXT

There's that ugly Word. CONTEXT. The greek didn't have it any different, the English doesn't have it any different also, but guess what? Context tells us that Christ is head of the universal church, christianity, the kingdom of heaven. The same word is also used as a localized body of believers attending a sanctuary called a "church".

This same principal can be applied to the rest of the bible.

Love in Christ,

Jim

Christ is the head of the Universal Church - yes. Christ is the head of Christianity - yes only if Christianity is restricted to the universal church. Christ is the head of the kingdom of heaven - I don't know where that is said. You speak of context yet you list none. The Church is never equated w/ the Kingdom of God/of Heaven/or of the heavens (the literal and correct translation from Matthew ). The Kingdom is primarily Jewish in character. It is where God fulfills His promises to Israel. The Church is present to reign with Christ (2 Tim. 2:12), but it is primarily for the and about the Jews (Isa. 2:2-4). To blur the distinction between the Church and the Kingdom is to blur the distinction between the Church and Israel (something that even Paul made a distinction in, cf. 1 Cor. 10:32).

Also, can you give me some Scripture that actually speak of ekklesia refering to "a sanctuary called a 'church.'" I thought the IFB teaching was that the church is the people not a building. Did I misunderstand you here?

How can christianity be referred to in any other way appropriately?

Ack! I misspoke myself there. I meant to say the Kingdom of God. And the reference to the church, or within christians is in Luke 17:21. So the church is most certainly associated with the Kingdom of God in the essence of the changed state of heart and mind in Christianity.

Kingdom of Heaven, or "Kingdom" refers to the Jews, yes. But the Kingdom of God was referred to in the NT at least 69 times, and always referred to Christians.

I agree. Israel and the church are diametrically different.

Let me rephrase that sentence, so it is more easily understood. I am not the bnest at punctuation. I should have typed:

The term "church" used locally, is referring to a localized body of believers, an arm, or branch per se, of the universal body of believers.

We use the term church loosely, yes, and we all know it to refer in the English to a facility, but we also know it to refer to a body of believers in the bible.

Does that make it more clear?

Love in Christ,

Jim