Article by W. Robert Godfrey – Original source: https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/the-marks-of-the-church

If you move to a new town, you have to find a new church. The search for a new church can be difficult and frustrating. If you pick up the Yellow Pages and look under “church,” you are likely to confront a bewildering array of possibilities. Perhaps you already have some fairly definite ideas of what you want in a church. You may be looking for a good youth group or active senior citizens group. You may want a powerful preacher or a certain kind of music. You may be very loyal to one denomination or you may like to “shop around.”

What should you be looking for in choosing a new church? Your first concern should be that the church be a “true church.” You do not want to choose a church that is part of a sect or a cult. You do not want a church that still bears the name of church, but whose lampstand Christ has removed (Rev. 1–3). How do you recognize a true church? This question was acute at the time of the Reformation. The Roman Catholic Church in the sixteenth century basically argued that Christ preserved the true church through the work of the pope, the bishop of Rome. The true church is easy to recognize because it is in fellowship with the pope. Any church that does not submit to the pope is a false church.

The Reformers did not accept Rome’s approach. They argued that the true church is not marked by submission to a supposedly infallible apostolic office—the Papacy—but by acceptance of apostolic truth. Luther declared that “the sole, uninterrupted, infallible mark of the church has always been the Word.” The true church is marked by submission to the Scriptures.

Anyone familiar with the Reformation knows the importance of the Bible in the formation of Protestantism. Against the claims of the medieval church that tradition, bishops, and councils were authoritative along with the Bible, the Reformers insisted that the Bible is the only absolute authority for Christians. The Bible must judge all traditions and church officers and assemblies. It is not surprising then that the Reformers taught that the centrality of the Word is the key mark of the true church. As one of the Reformation confessions put it, the true church is known “in short, if all things are managed according to the pure Word of God, all things contrary thereto rejected, and Jesus Christ acknowledged as the only Head of the Church” (Belgic Confession, Article 29).

This general recognition of the Word as the mark of the true church came to specific expression. Among the Reformed churches, eventually three marks were identified: faithful preaching of the Word, faithful administration of the sacraments, and faithful exercise of discipline.

In focusing on the marks of the church, the Reformers were not saying that all a good church needs to have are the marks of the church. They focused on the marks because the marks make the true church recognizable. The church of Christ has many more characteristics than the three marks. But these characteristics—we might mention prayer, fellowship, devotion—are not so easy to observe. The marks are important because they display the faithfulness of the church.

Preaching

Faithful preaching was the first mark of the true church because preaching most directly brings God’s Word to His people. The Reformers stressed that God’s great means of speaking to His people was by preaching. Luther talked of the several forms that the Word takes. The first is the eternal Word, the second person of the Trinity. The second is the incarnate Word, Jesus. The third is the inscripturated Word, the Bible. The fourth is the “shouted Word,” the preaching. At the heart of Christian worship and life is the ministry of the Word in preaching. If preaching is not faithful, the life of the church cannot be faithful. It is an essential mark of the true church.

Calvin added that this first mark of the true church is not just faithful preaching of the Word. A man standing on a street corner may be faithfully declaring the Word, but there is no church. Calvin said that in a true church a further dimension of this mark is that the Word must also be faithfully heard and received. Reformed worship is sometimes called a dialogue between God and His people—God speaks and His people respond. Calvin’s point is that if God speaks through the preaching of His Word and no one is listening and responding, then no church exists. But where the Word is faithfully preached and received, there the mark of the true church can be seen.

Sacraments

The second mark of the true church is the faithful administration of the sacraments. At first glance we might be tempted to think that this mark is really more a sixteenth-century concern than a contemporary one. The Reformation, after all, confronted the Roman church, which stressed the absolute centrality of its seven sacraments. Did the Reformers make the sacraments a mark of the church just to distinguish their teaching of two sacraments (baptism and the Lord’s Supper) from the sacraments of Rome?

The Reformers certainly had a more fundamental concern than just to separate themselves from Rome on the sacraments. They were convinced that the sacraments are a fifth form of the Word, the visible Word. That phrase—“the visible Word”—had originated with Augustine and Calvin in particular had repeated it. The sacraments visibly display the very heart of the Gospel. Baptism shows that we are saved only by the washing away of sin in Jesus, and the Lord’s Supper shows that Christians live only through the body and blood of Christ offered as a sacrifice on the cross. These sacraments are an observable mark of the true church. In a true church the biblical sacraments are faithfully administered and received.

Discipline

The third mark of the true church is discipline. The exercise of the discipline taught in Scripture demonstrates the church’s determination to pursue holy living before the Lord. If flagrant heresy or notorious unchristian behavior is tolerated in the church, how can that church be genuinely receiving the Word of God? Paul clearly insists that the church exercise such discipline (1 Cor. 5:1–5, 13). Discipline is necessary in the church according to the Belgic Confession (Article 32) to preserve harmony, unity, and obedience. Where such discipline is missing, the church is not recognizable as a holy community.

The early Reformers such as John Calvin did not identify discipline as a mark of the church. Calvin certainly recognized the vital importance of discipline and even called it “the sinew of the church.” Perhaps he felt that discipline was too subjective to function well as a mark. How faithful must a church be in discipline to qualify as a true church? But later Reformers saw the mark of discipline as one way of testing Calvin’s concern that the Word not only be preached but be truly received. If a Christian community does not exercise and submit to discipline to some extent, then no true church exists.

Each of the three marks is an expression of the one great mark, the Word. Each mark expresses an aspect of the Word’s life and power in the church. The true church submits to the Word of God. As the church father Tertullian said, “They are true churches which hold to what they received from the apostles.”

By God’s appointment the church is a vital and necessary institution. Each Christian needs the fellowship and ministry of the church. But that spiritual need can only be met by a true church. Today the variety of churches in the Yellow Pages makes the marks of the church more important and useful than ever. The Reformation insight into the Word as the great mark of the church must still guide and direct us to true churches of Christ.

While I can understand a new or baby Christian not grasping the significance of ‘Church’ it is astonishing to me that so many otherwise elite theologians have no robust, biblical ecclesiology. While promoting much in the way of sound doctrine, saying many true things, their lives are not rooted and grounded in the life of a local church. There seems to be a fundamental disconnect between Christ as the Head of the Church and His Body (the church). Such should never be the case. Their view of ‘Church’ is not only unbiblical. It is anti-biblical! As to ecclesiology, many theologians are still babies.

The following is an excellent article by Grayson Gilbert concerning the place of the church in the life of the Christian. Original source: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/chorusinthechaos/church-your-excuse-for-missing-everything/

I am under the unwavering conviction that unless I am genuinely ill, people are in the throes of death, my legs are rendered inoperable, or we are trapped in our house, church attendance is mandatory. I will not miss it. Even when I’ve had to miss it under those circumstances, which is quite rare indeed, I have hated it. However, for the sake of being completely transparent, this was not always the case, especially early on in my faith. There was a point in my life where I consistently worked on Sundays. I was a Christian and had been for only a couple years at that point, yet I considered myself to be a faithful Christian who was stuck in between a rock and a hard place. I had no other means of income that I was bringing into the family at that time. My wife worked, but we needed both streams of income to make ends meet and care for our newborn—and yet there was a steadily growing conviction in my heart that I should be coming to church every single Sunday.

While the argument could be made that it was necessary for me to miss due to the circumstances I found myself in, the reality was that I needed to swallow my pride, get another job that could allow me to attend church on a weekly basis, and just be found faithful to come. At some point, the conviction came to me that church was a non-negotiable. What’s more than this is that I came to believe church attendance is a non-negotiable for every Christian. The reason this is so is that I believe the New Testament teaches that our time together as believers in formal, corporate worship, is to be one of the most precious things we partake in as Christians. I believe that regular attendance is so important that it reveals our hearts and priorities. It reveals much of what we treasure, and likewise, much of what we don’t. It especially reveals what we understand about the person of Christ and His saving work upon the cross. Right then and there is where I lost several of the readers.

This is one of those areas where many people have it settled in their minds that church attendance is optional. They can miss here and there without any large repercussions to their spiritual well-being, and their own families will not be any worse off either. However, the reality is that I have never known a casual attendee to thrive in any meaningful capacity. I have yet to meet another pastor/elder that can testify to the exemplary faith of the professing Christian who abdicates regular church attendance. I have witnessed seasons of growth from them, yet I have simultaneously witnessed a stunted growth because invariably, they are sporadically absent from the ordinary means God has given them for their maturity, encouragement, and perseverance in the Christian faith. More often than this stunted growth though is no growth at all, or worse, a “back-sliding” of sorts.

At the onset, I will clarify that there are extenuating circumstances that allow for people to miss church. There are always exceptions to the rule, but exceptions exist as exceptions because they are not the rule. Exceptions to the rule prove the rule. Often, people capitalize on the exceptions to the rule because they have no real intent to be found faithful to the rule itself. Thus, they can confidently assert there are valid reasons to miss church, and thereby assuage their conscience. I would argue that not only does this fundamentally misunderstand the point of why the body of Christ gathers together to worship corporately on Sundays, but the thing which garners their focus is the wrong thing. We ought not to be looking for all the reasons we can miss church. We ought to be looking for all the reasons we should come to church.

Instead of trying to find ways we can settle our conscience by neglecting the assembly of the brethren, we ought to highlight the very reasons that coming to church regularly is a benefit to our souls. We ought to find delight that we can be united in a local body that functions together in service to one another (1 Cor. 12:12-27). In this unique giftedness being exercised among the members of a local church, particularly through the gifting of teachers, we then come to grow in maturity as we attain to the unity of the faith and knowledge of the Son of God (Eph. 4:11-13). These teachers also equip us for works of service for the edification of that local church body (Eph. 4:12), which in particular is expressed through bearing one another’s burdens (Gal. 6:2), encouraging one another (1 Thess. 4:13-18; 5:11), building each other up in our most holy faith (Jd. 1:20), pushing one another on in perseverance to the end (Heb. 10:23-25), and pouring out compassion (Eph. 4:32), forgiveness (Col. 3:13), love (Jn. 13:34; 1 Jn. 4:7), brotherly devotion (Rom. 12:10)—and even simply putting up with one another (Eph. 4:2).

How can we be found to not only benefit from these things, but be a blessing to our brothers and sisters in Christ if we are regularly missing church? Can we be said to really understand the importance of these things if we are willing to miss out on these benefits in favor of other things, even if only every once in a while? The reality is that we cannot. You cannot even within the company of “two or more” other Christians, for very good reason. Not only does Matt. 18:15-20 have nothing to do with a bonafide definition of the church, God has not designed for these things to be worked out amongst only those whom we would like to be numbered among.

Beyond these “one-anothers” mentioned above, it cannot go without being stated that another key aspect to attending church regularly is being found in a position of submission to one’s elders (Heb. 13:17). The author of the book of Hebrews issues a straightforward command to obey your leaders, but to do so in an attitude of humility and genuine submission. The reason being: they give an account for your soul, and if you are a person who causes them grief in this task, it will be unprofitable for you. The idea here can be taken to mean that you give them joy by being found in obedience, but also, that you are quite literally just a joy to shepherd. Thus, the natural conclusion to this is that if you are difficult to shepherd, uncooperative, argumentative, negligent, complacent—or simply even non-existent, it doesn’t benefit you in any sense. Beyond this, we are called to consider the outcome of our leader’s lives and imitate their faith (Heb. 13:7); how can we do this if we are not among them on a weekly basis? How can your elders faithfully shepherd you if you are a fair-weather attendee?

There are numerous other, positive benefits to attending church—but at the heart of this post, I really want to address what I believe to be the fundamental issue behind why people treat church attendance as optional: they believe that the church exists to serve them and their felt needs. In other words, they are consumers. They believe the church exists for them and to serve them. They come to the church when it suits them and once they have had their fill, they either move on to another church, or, they simply come at their leisure as they feel some pressing need. In their minds, church is not a place where they can live out their faith in community. It is likewise not a place they feel any meaningful connection with, save for those times they feel a particular thirst for a “dose” of religion. They never move beyond a me-centered approach for why they come to church in the first place, which invariably leads to their departure for one reason or another.

I believe this to be the case because much in the same way, they have treated the Christian faith as a commodity to be consumed. In other words: they have not understood the fundamental principle that while the Christian faith is for them, it is certainly not about them. They have not grasped the truth that even their salvation was not about them. It was for them, but it was about Jesus Christ. It has always been about Jesus Christ; from Genesis to Revelation, the whole of the Scriptures testify—not to man and something winsome within him that merits God’s love—but of the great love of the Father which was demonstrated to the world through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ (1 Jn. 4:9-10). Once we understand this, not only will the whole of our Christian existence change rather radically—how we view the church will also differ. We will become Christ-centered and other-focused rather than me-centered. Our view of the universe will grow beyond the scope of our own nose as we see how we play a part in the grand drama that is playing out before our very eyes. We will become less and less preoccupied with meeting our own “felt needs” and grow more and more concerned with what we can do to meet the needs of others.

Part and parcel to this will be a fuller understanding of the importance of being part of a local manifestation of the body—not simply as we feel like it, but as often as we can, because we will grow more dissatisfied with yoking ourselves with this world in favor of the bride of Christ. In essence, we will begin to see the body of Christ as Scripture portrays her: the spotless bride of Jesus Christ, for whom He died. We will look upon her radiance and loveliness, see her clothed with the righteousness of Christ, and her dear union with her Bridegroom—and we will desire that same union for ourselves. Here then is the fullest reason why we do not abdicate the assembly of the brethren: we are to meet together and encourage one another all the more as we see that great Day coming (Heb. 10:25). In other words: together, as this corporate gathering, we look with great anticipation of the Day when Christ will return and we get to partake in the wedding feast of the Lamb (Rev. 19:7-10).

If I could put it even more clearly: we gather with the saints each Sunday, not simply out of obedience, nor even because of all the wondrous benefits found therein. We convene with the local church each weekend because we are betrothed, not as individuals, but as a body, to our Lord, Jesus Christ. We assemble together because He has assembled us together. We gather while it is still called “today” because we will be gathered together in His great halls with the believers of all time. If you can’t stomach meeting with believers today, while they too groan as they await the day of their redemption, in what possible reality can you say with earnestness that you will be united with them at the end of all days? When we get down to it, if you understand the importance of why we gather together each week—church should become the “excuse” you use to miss everything else that conflicts with it—not the other way around.

Two articles:

Article: “The Church is All Over the Old Testament” by Gary DeMar (source: https://americanvision.org/22591/the-church-is-all-over-the-old-testament/)

Dispensationalists continue to spread the false claim that the Church is something new in the New Testament. As a result, dispensationalists make a distinction between Israel and this supposed new entity called the “church.” The argument goes something like this: When Israel rejected Jesus as the Messiah, God stopped dealing with Israel and started with something that was unknown in the Old Testament—the church.

First, Israel did not reject Jesus as the promised Messiah. Some Jews did and some Jews didn’t. It’s the remnant principle (Rom. 9:27–29). The gospel was first preached to Jews in Jerusalem “from every nation under heaven” (Acts 2:5). The first converts were Jews. Peter’s message was directed at “the men of Judea and all who live in Jerusalem” (2:14) and the “men of Israel” (2:22). When the people heard Peter’s message “they were pierced to the heart” and asked what they should do (2:37). They were told to “repent and be baptized” (an Old Covenant symbol) in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins” (2:38).

Peter tells them that what was happening was a promise to Israel, those Israelites living in Jerusalem and Judea and those living in the diaspora (the dispersion, James 1:1; 2 Pet. 1:1). The result was that “there were added that day about three thousand souls” (2:41). Not long after, “those who had heard the message believed; and the number of the men came to be about five thousand” (4:4).

These believing Jews, part of the remnant, were the ekklēsia—the “church”—the assembly of God’s people (5:11, 13).

A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature notes that “the term ἐκκλεσία apparently became popular among Christians in Greek-speaking areas for chiefly two reasons: to affirm continuity with Israel through use of a term found in Gk. translations of the Hebrew Scriptures, and to allay any suspicion, esp. in political circles, that Christians were a disorderly group.”

Why did Paul persecute the “the church [ekklēsia] in Jerusalem” (8:1)? Because the Jews identified themselves as the fulfillment of all the Old Testament promises about their future redemption. Paul understood what was going on. No Jew ever asked, “What’s the church?”

This short analysis should be enough to convince anyone that the church isn’t anything new, but, alas, it doesn’t seem to be enough for some people. So, we continue.

The ekklēsia is all over the Old Testament. When the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek, the Hebrew qahal was in most cases translated as ekklēsia.

It is . . . probable that the rendering ἐκκλεσία was used purely for its general surface meaning of “assembly” and corresponded simply to an understanding of qahal as “assembly”; and that the derivation from καλέω “call” or any associations with ἔκκλητος “called out” or κλῆσις “calling” (in the theological sense) had no importance. ^[1]

The Hebrew translation of the Greek NT translates qahal  as ekklēsia. Ekklēsia is not a new word or idea in the NT.

It’s unfortunate that King James insisted that ekklēsia be translated as “church” rather than “congregation” or “assembly” as William Tyndale did in his translation of the New Testament. His insistence cost him his life.

Here is how Tyndale’s translation handled the first two appearances of ekklēsia in the New Testament (spelling modernized):

• “And upon this rock I will build my congregation: and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it (Matt. 16:18). ^[2]
• “If he hear not them, tell it unto the congregation: if he hear not the congregation, take him as an heathen man, and as a publican” (Matt. 18:17). ^[3]

Catholic Church officials protested Tyndale’s use of “congregation” as the proper translation of ekklēsia since at that time “church” signified an “organized body of the clergy” and a place to worship ^[4] and resulted in a clear distinction between the clergy and laity.

In 1529, Sir Thomas More (1478–1535) published Dialogue Concerning Heresies, a frontal assault on Tyndale’s New Testament translation. “At bottom, More asserts that Tyndale’s offence has been to give the people Paul in English, and to translate key words in their Greek meanings as ‘senior’ [presbuteros], ^[5] ‘congregation’ [ekklēsia], ‘love’ [agape] and ‘repent’ [metanoia], instead of the Church’s ‘priest’, ‘church’, ‘charity’, and ‘do penance.’” ^[6]

More wanted to ensure that the hierarchy of the church was protected and the division of the clergy and laity maintained. It’s no wonder that More attacked Tyndale on the translation of specific words that would have called into question the hierarchical division. The common reader could have seen, in addition to how ekklēsia was translated, that the English word “priest” ^[7] referred either to Jewish or pagan priests and not elders in the Church. “As a result, many New Testament references that could have been taken as endorsing the institution of the Church were now to be understood as referring to local congregations of believers.” ^[8] More believed that Tyndale’s translation undermined “the authority of Tradition,” ^[9] that is, the ecclesiastical traditions of the Roman Catholic Church.

Like Wycliffe, Luther, and others, Tyndale believed that the invisible Church of the faithful was the only true Church, and that, as C.S. Lewis observed, “the mighty theocracy with its cardinals, abbeys, pardons, inquisition, and treasury of grace” connoted by the word “Church” was “in its very essence not only distinct from. But antagonistic to, the thing that St. Paul had in mind whenever he used the Greek word ekklesia. More, on the other hand, believed with equal sincerity that the ‘Church’ of his own day was in essence the very same mystical body which St. Paul addressed.” ^[10]

For his efforts, Tyndale was strangled and burned at the stake in 1536 for defying church authority, opposing the Church by promoting doctrines such as sola Scriptura, justification by faith alone, the denial of purgatory, questioning the number of sacraments, and translating particular words that could lead the laity to believe that the Church’s authority was limited. Tyndale’s most pernicious “attack” on the Church was his insistence that ekklesia should be translated “congregation” rather than “church”:

In his major defense of his translation, An Answer to Sir Thomas More’s Dialogue, Tyndale begins with ekklesia in its relation to the English word church. He announces that “This word church hath divers [many] significations” (PS 3.11). ^[11] He then sets out . . . three senses of the English word: first, a building; second, the clergy; and third, “a congregation; a multitude or a company gathered together in one, of all degrees of people” (PS 3.12). ^[12] He rejects church as a translation of ekklesia, because the first two senses do not appear in the New Testament, and the last is “little known among the common people” (PS 3.12). ^[13] They would thus be misled into thinking that “church” referred to the bishops, monks, and priests, rather than to themselves as a collectivity. He therefore prefers congregation, which carries the third sense clearly, and the first and second not at all. ^[14]

As William Stafford writes, it was understood by the laity and church officials that “it was the clergy who were the ecclesia, the church.” ^[15] But as Tyndale saw it, “the church was not the clergy, nor was it the hierarchical, legal, and ceremonial edifice sustaining the clergy, but rather the congregation of all who responded to the word of God.” ^[16] This hierarchical understanding of ekklēsia did not stop with protests against Tyndale’s more accurate translation of the word. One of the Rules to be Observed in the Translation of the [King James] Bible required the following: “The old Ecclesiastical Words to be kept, viz. the Word Church not to be translated Congregation &c.” ^[17] It seems that church officials, this time “the Anglican establishment,” ^[18] wanted to impose on ekklēsia a contemporary “ecclesiastical” understanding of the word rather than its biblically contextual definition. Because of Rule 3, the hands of the translators were tied since they were in the employ of the king.

[Bishop Richard] Bancroft was determined to ensure that the translation process was judiciously guided, and limit the freedom of the translators. The translators were instructed to follow strict “rules of translation,” drawn up by Bancroft and approved by [King] James, designed to minimize the risk of producing a Bible that might give added credibility to Puritanism, Presbyterianism, or Roman Catholicism. ^[19]

Whether translated “church” or “congregation,” neither Tyndale nor the ecclesiastical powers of his day had any notion of the modern-day dispensational understanding of ‘church.’ Even so, it’s unfortunate that some of these early English translations—the Geneva Bible (1560) and the King James Version (1611)—translated ekklēsia as “church” since the word obscured its biblical definition of “assembly.” In a similar way, because dispensationalists did not make a formal study of the translation issue, they developed a foreign understanding of ekklēsia that had more to do with the state of the church in the 18^th century then with the actual meaning of the word.

That’s why Stephen could mention the “ekklēsia in the wilderness” and the writer to the Hebrews could quote Psalm 22:22: “I will proclaim Thy name to My brethren, in the midst of the ekklēsia” (Heb. 2:12). The ekklēsia doesn’t replace Israel. The nations were grafted into the ekklēsia that was made up almost exclusively of Jews.

1. James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford: Oxford University, 1961), 121.[↩]
2. “And I saye also vnto the yt thou arte Peter: and apon this rocke I wyll bylde my congregacion. And the gates of hell shall not prevayle ageynst it.”[↩]
3. “If he heare not them tell it vnto the congregacion. If he heare not ye congregacion take him as an hethen man and as a publican.”[↩]
4. Benson Bobrick, Wide as the Waters: The Story of the English Bible and the Revolution It Inspired (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2001), 114.[↩]
5. In a later edition, Tyndale translated presbuteros as the more accurate “elder.”[↩]
6. David Daniell, The Bible in English: It’s History and Influence (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2003), 149.[↩]
7. The Greek word hiereus, not presbuteros, is translated accurately as “priest.”[↩]
8. Alister McGrath, In the Beginning: The Story of the King James Bible and How it Changed a Nation, a Language, and a Culture (New York: Doubleday, 2001), 75.[↩]
9. Bobrick, Wide as the Waters, 115.[↩]
10. Bobrick, Wide as the Waters, 115–116.[↩]
11. William Tyndale, An Answer to Sir Thomas More’s Dialogue (Cambridge: The University Press, [1536] 1850), 11.[↩]
12. Tyndale, An Answer to Sir Thomas More’s Dialogue, 12.[↩]
13. Tyndale, An Answer to Sir Thomas More’s Dialogue, 12.[↩]
14. Matthew Decoursey, “The Semiotics of Narrative in The Obedience of a Christian Man,” Word, Church, and State: Tyndale Quincentenary Essays, eds. John T. Day, Eric Lund, and Anne M. O’Donnell  (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of American Press, 1998), 77.[↩]
15. William S. Stafford, “Tyndale’s Voice to the Laity” in Word, Church, and State: Tyndale Quincentenary Essays, 105.[↩]
16. Stafford, “Tyndale’s Voice to the Laity,” 106.[↩]
17. Quoted in Daniell, The Bible in English, 439.[↩]
18. McGrath, The Story of the King James Bible, 172.[↩]
19. McGrath, The Story of the King James Bible, 173.[↩]

Eric Davis

In an article entitled “Talking About The Church” Nicolas Batzig writes (source: https://feedingonchrist.org/talking-about-the-church/ )

Talking about the Church is actually quite a difficult task, since Scripture speaks of the Church in a variety of ways. More often than not, individuals have failed to rightly distinguish between the different ways in which the biblical authors speak about the church. This, of course, raises the question, “What is the Church?” In order to give the most biblically robust answer possible, we must consider the origin of the word “church,” scriptural titles for the church, theological categories by which the church is distinguished, and the defining attributes of the church.

The Origin of the Word 

The English word “church” comes from a translation of the Greek word κυριακόν. Geerhardus Vos suggested that it “comes from the Greek κυριακόν, the neuter of κυριακός, ‘what is of the Lord,’ ‘what belongs to the Lord^.’”1 In our English Bibles, however, the word ekklēsia (ἐκκλησία) has been translated to the word “church.” The word ekklēsia carries with it the idea of something or someone being “called out.” Those who have trusted in Jesus have been “called out” of the world by God to be members of His kingdom. The word also carries with it the idea of being “gathered together.” On account of this, the English words “congregation” and “assembly” are translations of the Greek word ekklēsia. The church is the assembly of the saints who have been redeemed and called out by God in order to be gathered together to worship Him. This definition covers the teaching of Scripture both in the Old and New Testament. In his dying speech, the first New Testament martyr, Stephen, spoke of Moses as the “one who was in the congregation (ἐκκλησία) in the wilderness” (Acts 7:38). The Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians over matters related to the Lord’s Supper, saying, ‘When you come together as a church (ἐκκλησίᾳ)…” (1 Cor. 11:18). From this word, the biblical meaning of “the church” is formed. 

Scriptural Titles

There are a number of titles Scripture gives to the Church. In the Old Testament God addresses the sacred assembly (ἐκκλησία) by the name “Israel,” “the Daughter of Zion” (Ps. 9:4; Is. 1:8; 62:11; Micah 4:8), “The Daughter of Jerusalem” (2 Kings 19:21; Song of Songs 2:7; Lam. 2:13; Zeph. 3:14), “Jerusalem,” “Jacob” (Ps. 14:7; 53:6; Is. 9:8; 10:21; 27:9; Jer. 10:25), “Judah” (Ps. 76:1; 97:8; 108:8), “Ephraim,” “Zion,” and “the City of God.” In the New Testament, the Apostles refer to the the Church as “the people of God,” “the house of God” (Heb. 3:1-6; 10:21); “the Temple” (1 Cor. 3:16-19; Eph. 2:21), “the children of God” and “Israel” (Gal. 6:16). All these names and metaphors have specific meanings by which God represents various characteristics of His people. 

In whatever respect Scripture refers to the Church, it always identifies it with Christ. He is the only head of the Church (Eph. 1:22; 4:25; 5:23; Col. 1:18; 2:19). The Apostle Paul refers to the Church as “the body of Christ” (1 Cor. 12:27; Eph. 4:12). Additionally, he speaks of the Church as “the bride of Christ” (Eph. 5:25-27). Jesus died for the Church in order to make her His bride. To Him all glory is due and from Him the church receives all of her ordinances and revelation. Everything in Scripture leads to Christ and is given by God to build up believers in Christ. The Apostle’s press home this truth by employing the metaphor of Jesus as the chief cornerstone and foundation of the spiritual Temple of God (1 Cor. 3:10-14; Eph. 2:20).

Distinguishing Categories

When distinguishing between the different aspects of the church in time and space, theologians have frequently used the following four categories: the invisible church, the visible church, the church militant, and the church triumphant.

If we focus on the nature of the “church,” we must first distinguish between the invisible and the visible church. The invisible church is the body of believers who are mystically united to Jesus Christ. Considered from this viewpoint, the Church is the totality of the elect on earth and in heaven—those who have been effectually called by God, redeemed by the blood of Jesus, trusted in Christ for the forgiveness of their sins, and are savingly united to Him by faith. This is what Paul means when he speaks of Christ loving the church and giving Himself for her (Eph. 5:25). This is also that to which he refers when he charged the elders in Ephesus to “care for the church of God. which he obtained with his own blood” (Acts 20:28).

While we must form our understanding of the church by starting with our understanding of the invisible church, the visible church is that which is most often in view in the New Testament. The visible church is the collective group of baptized, professing believers and their children who gather together in order to worship the Triune God. It is the visible church—with its God-appointed leadership—to whom biblical revelation is addressed (Phil. 1:1; Rev. 1:4). God gave Old Testament revelation to the members of Israel and addresses New Testament revelation to particular visible churches throughout the world. For instance, the Apostle Paul wrote letters to the churches in Rome, Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, Philippi, Colossae, and Thessalonica. In each of them, God addresses particular circumstances in the life of each congregation. All of the “one another” passages, exhortations to obey elders, and warnings in the epistles are given to the visible church and are to be carried out, first and foremost, among the members of local churches. These congregations consisted of a mixed multitude of professing believers—some of whom were savingly united to Jesus and some of whom are hypocritical in their profession. 

In addition to speaking of the visible church and the invisible church, theologians have referred to the church militant and the church triumphant. The church militant is the collective group of believers fighting their way to glory. The church triumphant is the collective group of believers who have finished their pilgrimage and have entered into their rest in the presence of God and the Lamb. When theologians refer to the church militant and the church triumphant, they are referring to the elect. Vos explains, 

“The elect, be they already in heaven or still on earth or yet unborn, would then as such fall within the Church. One easily sees that the concept can be exchanged with that of the invisible church. At the same time, it already has within itself as a subdivision the distinction between the church militant and triumphant. Many of the theologians also begin with election in defining the church.”2

In this sense, the elect members of the visible church on earth—prior to the second coming of Christ—are one and the same as the church militant. Again, Vos explained, 

“…the return for judgment is indicated as a glorious vindication of Christ and His own in the sight of their enemies. Despite His unlimited kingly power, until that day a segment of creatures will be permitted to oppose Him and fail to appreciate Him. Many will deny that He is glorified and exalted as the militant church believes Him to be glorified and exalted.”3

Defining Attributes 

Finally, the attributes of the Church have been described in what believers confess in the Nicene Creed: “I believe in one, holy, catholic (universal) church.” These attributes capture the essence of the true Church. They describe not the external organization of the church, with its government, but the internal reality of the Church among the people of God. 

The first attribute of the Church is unity. There is one body of blood bought people from every tongue, tribe, people and language, over whom Christ is the sole Head (1 Cor. 12:12; Eph. 1:22-23). It is because of each believer’s union with the Savior in the Spirit by faith that we are united to one another. With the unity of the church in view, believers live out their Christian lives in the visible church. 

The second attribute of the Church is holiness. Since believers have received the imputed righteousness of Christ by faith alone and are being made subjectively more and more into His image and likeness, it may be said that the Church is holy. Additionally, the word holy sometimes refers to God setting something apart for a special purpose. In this way, we can speak of the church being holy in the world. However, we ought never forget that holiness is not what gives someone a right to entrance into God’s Church—since we are all dead in sins prior to God’s work of grace in our lives and continue to be sinfully imperfect in this life. Instead, holiness is a defining characteristic of those who have been savingly united to the righteous One, Jesus Christ, by the grace of God. 

Another attribute of the Church is catholicity. The idea of the catholicity (i.e. universality) of the church is best summarized in the Westminster Confession of Faith, where we read, 

“The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of Him that fills all in all…

…This catholic Church has been sometimes more, sometimes less visible. And particular Churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the Gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.”

There is a universal solidarity among believers, throughout all time, based on their union with Christ and the biblical truth they confess. 

The final attribute of Scripture is imperishability. When Jesus told Peter, “I will build My church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18), He was indicating that there would always be an invisible church and a manifestation of thechurch militant on earth until He comes again. As Vos explained, “The Church…can never completely disappear from the earth. The number of members of the true Church who fall within the church militant may continually change—are now more, then less; [yet] it is always there.”4 Jesus also meant that He would strengthen the church militant in the battle on its way to glory, and that there would be an ultimate day of victory for the church triumphant.

Samuel Stone drew together the many ways in which Scripture speaks about the church in his hymn, “The Church’s One Foundation” He wrote, 

The Church’s one foundation
Is Jesus Christ her Lord,
She is His new creation
By water and the Word:
From Heav’n He came and sought her
To be His holy bride,
With His own blood He bought her
And for her life He died.

She is from every nation,
Yet one o’er all the earth;
Her charter of salvation,
One Lord, one faith, one birth;
One holy name she blesses,
Partakes one holy food,
And to one hope she presses,
With every grace endued.

The Church shall never perish!
Her dear Lord to defend,
To guide, sustain, and cherish,
Is with her to the end:
Though there be those who hate her,
And false sons in her pale,
Against both foe and traitor
She ever shall prevail.

Though with a scornful wonder
Men see her sore oppressed,
By schisms rent asunder,
By heresies distressed:
Yet saints their watch are keeping,
Their cry goes up, How long?
And soon the night of weeping
Shall be the morn of song!

’Mid toil and tribulation,
And tumult of her war,
She waits the consummation
Of peace forevermore;
Till, with the vision glorious,
Her longing eyes are blest,
And the great Church victorious
Shall be the Church at rest!

Yet she on earth hath union
With God the Three in One,
And mystic sweet communion
With those whose rest is won,
With all her sons and daughters
Who, by the Master’s hand
Led through the deathly waters,
Repose in Eden land.

O happy ones and holy!
Lord, give us grace that we
Like them, the meek and lowly,
On high may dwell with Thee:
There, past the border mountains,
Where in sweet vales the Bride
With Thee by living fountains
Forever shall abide!

1. Geerhardus Vos, Reformed Dogmatics, ed. Richard B. Gaffin, vol. 5 (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012–2016), 13.

2. Ibid., p. 13.

3. Ibid., 241.

4. Ibid. 23.