The Community of God

W. Carl Ketcherside

[Page 1]

     It was Simon Peter who answered the greatest question ever proposed to sinful man, and set the stage for a theological controversy which has echoed through the centuries. And the circumstances surrounding the occasion are filled with consuming interest for all who are caught up in love for Him who asked the question then, and who still requires a personal reply from each of us.

     The physical environment in which Jesus chose to propound the question was extraordinarily appropriate. It was in the district of Caesarea Philippi. This was about twenty-five miles northeast of the Sea of Galilee, and about four miles from the site of Dan, the northernmost city of the ancient tribal inheritance. The area was populated heavily with non-Jews and rival cultures and religions strove for recognition.

     The hills were sites of ancient altars and ruined temples devoted to the Baals of Syria and Phoenicia. These were fertility gods, sometimes grim and implacable, and sometimes smiling and beneficent. They were worshiped by the release of sexual passions in orgies at harvest festivals. It is a matter of history that whatever men employ in their liturgies will be furnished by others for a price, so the green hills and forest glades became the haunt of cult prostitutes, both male and female.

     Near Caesarea Philippi there was a towering hill, a steep wall of rock, and opening into its bowels was a famous cavern, regarded by many as the birthplace of Pan. This god of flocks and fields and forests was described as the son of Zeus, and the nymph Callisto. His playing upon the reeds, or the shepherd's pipe, was supposed to strike a frenzy of sudden fear into the hearts of all who heard it. We still call such groundless fright panic.

     Pan was pictured as an animal-like figure with horns, a crooked nose, a tail and goat's feet. In medieval times he became the prototype of the devil in superstitious minds. It is interesting to remember that the city of which we speak was first called Paneas. The Greek influence thus blended with the more primitive paganism of the area.

     But this is not all. The cave which we mentioned was the entry to a great subterranean lake. Just as every prominent cave in the Ozarks region where I was born was said to have a bottomless pit, so Josephus declared of this lake that its depth was unfathomable. "When anyone lets down anything to measure the depth of the earth beneath the water, no length of cord is sufficient to reach it." Out of the cave's mouth flowed a great spring which was the principal headwater of the Jordan River, hallowed by the Jews because of its historical influence on their national life. Thus the Jewish influence was felt, as well as that of the Greek and pagan. Of even greater significance was the

[Page 2]

political status of the city. When Herod the Great, half-Jew and half-Idumean, was given control of the country by Caesar, he included Paneas as one of the cities where his Works Project Administration engaged in an urban beautification program. Here he built a great temple of gloaming white marble which was dedicated to emperor worship. Later on, his son, Philip the tetrarch, remodeled the temple and carried out a slum clearance project. He changed its name to Caesarea which means "Caesar's City." Because there was already a city of the same name which was the seat of the occupation government in Palestine, he added his name Philippi, which means "of Philip." The Roman interests were joined with the pagan, Greek and Jewish concerns at this spot.

     The great question of Jesus was not asked in Jerusalem, the religious center of Judaism in the world. It was not asked along the shores of Galilee, the teeming commercial center of Palestine. Instead, he waited until he stood near the foot of Isbel Shrik, the Prince's Mount, a lofty branch of the Lebanon range which formed the boundary between Palestine and Syria. Here at the one spot in Palestine where all of the cultures of the world met, on the very threshold of "the nations" and at the back door of "the land of the people," he asked his disciples about his identity.

     We do not imply that there was preconsidered significance in the location. We only point out how remarkable it was that a question, whose answer would affect the destiny of all the world should be propounded at such a place, remote from the area where the greater part of the personal ministry was carried out.

     The time of Jesus on earth was growing short. It was imperative that there be those who understood his mission and identity, or his work and advent would be a total loss. He begins by asking about the public reaction, and the answers were varied. This furnishes us a good example of the difference between the opinions of men and the revelation of God. All of the opinions proved to be in error. Only the one to whom God revealed the truth had the correct answer.

     It is sometimes easier for men to adopt error than to accept the truth. To believe that Jesus was any of the characters designated, except Elijah, would have necessitated believing in the resurrection of those who had died long before, yet many of these very people refused to believe that Jesus had risen from the dead when they were confronted with the claim.

     The names with which the people identified Jesus stand as an indirect proof of the powerful impact of his preaching and work. John the Baptist had exercised such a tremendous influence that all Jerusalem and Judea and the region round about Jordan "were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins." During his life all men mused in their hearts, whether John was the Messiah, or not (Luke 3:15); now that he was dead, many questioned if the Messiah was John the Baptist. Such are the vagaries of human thought.

     When Herod Antipas, who had John beheaded in the prison at Machaerus, heard about the wonders performed by Jesus, his stricken conscience immediately jumped to the conclusion that John had risen from the dead. It is obvious that others also felt that the slain reformer had returned to prosecute the work of turning the hearts of fathers and children back toward each other.

     Some said that Jesus was Elijah. In doing so they paid him a great tribute because the scribes placed Elijah at the

[Page 3]

very top of the prophetic roster. He was the great restorationist who was to come before the great and dreadful day of the Lord. Even Jesus declared, "Elijah shall truly come first and restore all things." Elijah was the prophet of zeal and of miracles, and the fact that people thought of Jesus and Elijah in the same connection demonstrates how the signs had affected them.

     Still others argued that Jesus was Jeremiah. The tradition was widely held that Jeremiah would also come before the Messiah did. This prophet was living at the time when the Chaldeans sacked Jerusalem and carried the people into exile. It was believed that before the city fell in the siege that Jeremiah had spirited the ark of the covenant away and carried it across Jordan to hide it in a cave in Mount Nebo, the burial site of Moses. It was also confidently expected that before the Messiah came, the prophet would precede him and restore the tables of stone containing the Torah. So the people confused Jesus with those whom they regarded as forerunners, but they did so because they could not otherwise account for his mighty miracles, and yet they believed that the Messiah had to be preceded by these other great personages.

     The world is always attempting to fit Jesus into traditional patterns. They seek to pour him into traditional moulds or fit him into human categories. In spite of the passing of twenty centuries there are those who still say that Jesus was one of the prophets, but that is all. But the greatest prophets of all ages pale into insignificance beside him who is the Lord of all. The answer still rings true, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."

     In an attempt to understand this we must remember that the word for "blessed" is makarios, which literally means "happy." The source of happiness in this case was that Peter had access to divine revelation, and was thus enabled to ascertain the truth. Without it he would have been reliant upon speculation and could have been as mistaken as others. That man is fortunate indeed who is permitted to know the will of God.

     Our readers may be aware that one eminent modern Jewish scholar suggests that "Bar-jona" may be the Aramaic "Baryona" which means "unrestrained or lacking self-control, that is, impetuous." He translates the statement, "How fortunate you are, impulsive Simon!" Examination proves there is such a word, and we grant that the disposition of Peter seems to exhibit this characteristic, but it is our personal opinion that Jesus identified him by naming his father, since Simon was a common name in that day, and distinctions were ordinarily made by using the father's name.

     Simon had just said, "You are the Messiah (that is, the Anointed)." Jesus replies, "And I tell you that you are Peter (a Rock)." Then he makes the statement, "And on this rock I will build my church." Our readers will be familiar with the various positions taken as to the identity of the rock, and especially as relates to the Greek petros and petra. It is generally supposed that the Romish commentators are the only group which seriously contends that Jesus alluded to Peter, but this is far from being the case. Many Protestant commentators lean to the same view, without giving credence to the claim of papal or apostolic succession.

     It is our personal opinion that the rock referred to here is neither Christ nor Peter. Nor do we believe that it is necessarily the confession made by Peter. We incline rather to the idea that it is

[Page 4]

the fact of the Messiahship and Sonship of Jesus. The foundation is that which was revealed to Peter by the Father, and it would have been a fact if Peter had never confessed it.

     In this article we are going to be more particularly concerned with what our Lord meant by the word which has been translated "church." And that there may be no doubt of the turn our study will take, let us at the very outset say that we hold that this translation is correct, and the ecclesiastical connotations connected with it in our day are misleading and deceptive.

     We are not unaware of the attitude of many who do not want their prejudices disturbed. It is much easier not to have to study again these things we have always accepted. But we think that nothing else is quite as important to us just now as recapture of the real meaning of "ekklesia," the very word our Lord used for what he would build. We make no apology for this investigation of it!

     When we use the word "church" we automatically connect it with a religious institution. This is because we have adopted this word which really has no relation at all to what Jesus said, and have given it a meaning of our own. When Jesus declared that he would plant or construct his ekklesia upon the fact of his Christhood and Sonship, he certainly was not talking about "building a church" in the sense in which we use the expression today. And not one of the apostles would ever have thought about it in such a light.

     The Greeks used ekklesia to designate a certain gathering of citizens summoned to deal with problems related to a Greek city-state. It was not applied to a casual crowd such as often convened to argue in the marketplace, nor to the informal throng surrounding a philosopher. It was a proper assembly of qualified and accredited citizens possessed of credentials and the right of franchise, called out of the mass to discuss matters of state.

     There are certain things which invite our attention at once when we consider the original connotation of the term. First, the ekklesia is composed of persons. It is not a place or a structure. Second, those who compose it do so as the result of a summons which has been issued and to which they respond. One could not be a part of the ekklesia who had not heard the call. Third, the act of calling out is also an act of calling in, or calling together into a fellowship.

     We must not overlook the fact that the disciples of Jesus were Jews, and any term he used in addressing them would impress them in the light of their Jewish experience with it. And the old covenant scriptures employ two words to signify the gathering together of the people, Israel.

     One was edhah which was sometimes used for gathering the sheaves of grain at the threshingfloor, or the grapes at the winepress. It was also used for the assembling of the people preparatory to a battle. Thus it came to be used for the congregation of Israel.

     More than two hundred years before

[Page 5]

the birth of Jesus eminent Jewish scholars had translated the Hebrew old covenant scriptures into Greek. Because there were seventy men employed in the task, their version is called The Septuagint. This was the version in common use in the days when Jesus was upon earth. And generally, although not invariably, this version translated the Hebrew word edhah, by the Greek sunagoge.

     This word is a combined form of syn, together; and ago, to bring. The bringing together, as we have found of the Hebrew equivalent, might relate to things, or persons. Eventually it came to refer primarily to an assembling of persons. In an attempt to find a consistent English term for translating edhah, the Revised Standard Version adopted the word "congregation." This is from the Latin grex, flock; combined with con, together. A congregation is composed of those who are drawn together as sheep in a flock.

     The other Hebrew word is tahal, to call or summon. Where this term occurs the Septuagint generally uses ekklesia, and the Revised Standard Version uses "assembly." Note then that "congregation" and "assembly" are employed by our English versions to translate the equivalent of sunagoge and ekklesia in the old covenant scriptures. Not once does the King James Version or the Revised Standard Version use "church" in the old covenant scriptures. If the proper translation of ekklesia in the version used in our Lord's time on earth was "assembly", why do the translators carefully avoid it and substitute another word?

The word "church" comes to us as an abbreviation of kuriou oikos, which literally means "house of a lord." It referred to the manor house of a feudal lord, as contrasted with the huts of his serfs, thus, an elevated house occupied by a dignitary. It is true that the ekklesia of God is "the house of the living God," a temple composed of living stones, but neither the word "house" or "temple" can translate ekklesia.

     Why do we have "church" instead of a word which signifies a body of people who have been called out of a former state to share in a new communal relationship in the Lord Jesus Christ?

     We may blame the developing hierarchy which carried the saints into what Martin Luther described as "the Babylonian Captivity." More particularly the fault lies at the door of James I, who commissioned the translation of a version "authorized to be read in the churches." Earlier free English versions employed the word "congregation" for ekklesia. But James was an ardent exponent of the divine right of kings and a firm advocate of the rule of the state over the church. He did not want to be merely the titular head of the congregation.

     Accordingly, he dictated a set of fourteen orders to be observed by the translators, the third of which provided: "The old ecclesiastical words to be kept; as the word church not to be translated congregation, etc." The translators followed this directive, as they pointed out in their preface, where they declared they had "avoided the scrupulosity of the Puritans, who left the old ecclesiastical words and betook them to others, as when they put washing for baptism, and congregation for church." Do not forget that scrupulosity means "carefulness, exactness, or conscientiousness."

     Alexander Campbell was aware of this, and printed the list of "King James' Instructions to the Translators of the Bible--with extracts and remarks" in the November, 1824, issue of "The Christian Baptist." When he published his new version of the new covenant scriptures, familiarly known as "The Living Oracles," he did not include the word

[Page 6]

"church" even once. Instead he used the word "congregation" as a translation of ekklesia. In this he followed the lead of Drs. George Campbell and Philip Doddridge.

     Campbell wrote about ekklesia, "It is an assembly of the called, or those brought together by one leader, or profession. The whole community of professing Christians make the one body or congregation of the Lord; and those meeting in one place constitute the Christian congregation in that place."      George Smith, editor of the Episcopal Recorder in 1834, attacked Mr. Campbell's usage and deemed it incongruous that Christ should be referred to as "head of the congregation." To this Campbell replied, "But what incongruity in the word congregation here more than in calling Christ the head of the church. The head of the community, or the congregation, or the assembly is to my optics as clear and intelligible as the head of the church" (Millennial Harbinger, 1834, page 299).

     In addition to this we have compounded the offence by applying it to sects, factions and parties in such a manner as to defeat the very purpose of God.

     I am inclined strongly toward the use of "community" as our best modern English equivalent for ekklesia. The Authentic Version uses this word in every instance where ekklesia is found in the original. This is the only translation of the new covenant scriptures by a Jew. In his preface the author states that he rejects the word "church" because it is an ecclesiastical term.

     While I am not at all averse to the employment of "congregation" or "assembly" it seems to me that both of these words now represent a concept that is somewhat too limited or restricted. I find myself rejecting the view of some very admirable and respected brethren that the ekklesia is manifested only when assembled in a local sense. I am wondering if their reaction to the "institutional church" with its forms and structures may have driven them to a position which will eventually prove untenable.

     The word "community" signifies a company of persons joined together by common ties, and in the case of the saints the ties that bind are faith in the Lord Jesus as the Son of God and love for one another kindled by an awareness of the love of God for all. The community is formed by God. The formation is an act of divine creation. It is established on the foundation that Jesus is the Messiah and God's Son. It is a community of the reconciled and a reconciling community.

     But if the idea of "community" is inherent in ekklesia, why did Jesus use the word "build"? I think it stems from the circumstances surrounding the area where his question elicited the answer from Peter. The city of Caesarea Philippi was built upon a ledge and it honored the name of him who claimed universal dominion. At this very time Caesar-worship was rife in the land.

     The statement of Jesus assured that he would not found a community upon a crumbling ledge but upon a principle of such enduring significance that the gates of hades would not swallow it up as they have long since engulfed the Palestinian centers of Caesar-adoration.

     I think Jesus was saying something like this: "Simon, you have just acknowledged that I am God's Son, and I recognize that you are only Jonah's son, but you are fortunate because my heavenly Father has revealed unto you a truth which you could not have learned from men. Truly you are a stone but upon the bedrock fact which my Father disclosed unto you I am going to found my community, and the gates of hades will not engulf it."

[Page 7]

     1. Although the word "church" is not a translation of ekklesia, is it not possible that through common usage it may become expressive of the idea and he rendered indispensable?

     Yes, this could happen, for the word could be invested with a meaning regardless of origin, or it could acquire a meaning through usage. All written words are simply combinations of characters representing certain sounds employed for communication, and they convey only the meaning infused into them by the writer or reader. However, the word "church" is now a professional term of the ecclesiastical establishment and it is unlikely they will ever relinquish it from their grasp.

     Moreover, it is very confusing because it is now used to designate a multiplicity of sects. This is an unthinkable thing in the light of God's revelation. One might as well speak of a Methodist God, a Baptist God, or a Presbyterian God, as to speak of these sects as separate "churches." There is only one ekklesia. It is composed of all the redeemed and reconciled ones. No man can call people out of sin, therefore no man can form an ekklesia of the saints. There is one body!

     2. Do you seriously think that what you have said will influence many of what you call "the heirs of the restoration movement"?

     No, I do not. But I never ask what results will accrue from my writings, nor do I concern myself with how many people will concur. I am committed to stating the truth as I understand it if I must stand alone. I am willing to stand in the judgment and answer for what I say. Our brethren have delivered too many inane lessons on such subjects as "The Name of the Church" to really study what I am saying. I know how they feel; for one of my favorite topics used to be, "Whose Name Shall the Bride Wear?" The arguments which I borrowed and made in my sincere ignorance appear downright silly in the light of maturing study and meditation. It would have been much more harmonious to have spoken on "What Common Nouns Designate an Uncommon People?" The community of heaven has no distinctive title. It needs none for there is nothing else in its class from which to distinguish it.

     Our brethren have been conditioned and influenced by men with the kind of sectarian spirit which I once possessed, to find their safety in a signboard rather than a Savior. They will hardly accept a translation which reads: "The Christian communities send greetings to you," instead of: "The Churches of Christ Salute You--Romans 16:16." To do so would wreak havoc with signboards, cornerstones and "altar cloths."

     If we give up such distinctive titles as "Church of Christ" we will lose our identity among other parties and sects, so I doubt that many whom I know will want to read about "the communities of the saints," or "the community of God which is at Corinth." To some it is much more important to defend our traditions than to acknowledge the truth.

     3. How can the local "community" be identified and even distinguished from other such communities?

     Exactly as it was done in apostolic times. The ekklesia was never identified by a special title. To give such an organizational name is to denominate and this creates a denomination. The primitive saints were identified only by the location of their assembly-point or gathering-place. For example: "This is to commend to you Sister Phoebe, who is an administrator of the Cenchrae community." "Paul, prisoner of Christ Jesus, with Brother Timotheus, to our dear friend and co-worker Philemon. . . . and

[Page 8]

to the community in your house." "Give my regards to the brothers at Laodicea, also to Nympha and the community in her house."

     Our brethren have not only sectarianized themselves with a title, but have doubly sectarianized themselves in parentheses. They not only want to be distinguished as to sect, but also to be separated from their brethren in the same historical party. Thus one reads such absurd signs as "Church of Christ (Christian)" and "Church of Christ (Vocal Music)." Those who erect such signs ought never to have the audacity to go on the radio and condemn only single-minded sectarians. They should at least limit their attacks to those like the "Brethren Church (Progressive Bunkers)"; or "Baptist Churches (Duck River)"; or to the "Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America (Old School)."

     Try and imagine an apostle writing, "All the Christian communities (Christian) send their regards" (Romans 16:16). Or, "Paul, Silvanus and Timotheus, to the community of Thessalonians (Vocal Music) in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." Of course I know in advance the arguments which will be made to justify these twentieth century signboards. Please pardon me for mentioning that it still looks a little childish and silly to me!

     4. In the divided state of the religious world today, whom do you regard as constituting the ekklesia?

     We must recognize that the state to which allusion is made is of post-apostolic origin. This complicates matters when we attempt a scriptural approach, and this is the only approach in which I am interested. However, I regard all naturalized citizens of the kingdom of heaven on earth as being in the ekklesia, and the citizens are those who have been delivered from the power of darkness and translated into the kingdom of God's dear Son.

     To state it in another fashion, every person who has been born from above and has been inducted into the family of God is a citizen of the community of the holy ones. In our fragmented world God's sheep are scattered over the sectarian hills. They are not all in one partisan corral. Those who think they are generally count some goats and overlook a lot of sheep about whom they know nothing because of lack of association.

     5. Just what do you regard as essential to becoming a part of the ekklesia?

     Since the word means "called out" one must hear the call of God (1 Corinthians 1:9) and make a proper response to it. Those who never hear the call are not among the called; those who hear it and refuse to respond, or who do not respond in God's way are not called out. The call is made through the gospel, that is, by proclamation of the kergyma (2 Thessalonians 2:14). The proper response to the message is belief of the proclamation and immersion in water upon the basis of that faith (Mark 16:15, 16). It seems to me that there can be no question but what those who believe and are immersed thereby become citizens of the community of God on earth. Certainly one who has complied with these things from the heart, may safely assure himself that he is in the ekklesia. Such an assumption by others would be without scriptural warrant, and hazardous to say the least.

     6. Do you think that those who do not recognize the distinctions that you have made are guilty of sin?

     Of course not. Our brethren need to grow up and stop equating every error of judgment and vocabulary with sin. A little child does not sin against its parents when it becomes confused and does not call everything by its right name. We should not always remain in the baby class, but it requires time to grow and develop greater communication skills. The problem is augmented when we have tutors whose vocabulary is faulty and who threaten those who want to improve.

     One can be honestly mistaken about a lot of things without being a sinner, and no one is more seriously mistaken than he who does not know this. It is probable that, in our current climate of investigation, all of us will learn a great many

[Page 9]

things. This will require alterations and amendments in life and speech conformable to our newly acquired knowledge. There is little to be gained by those who are too stubborn to learn, or those who under the impact of new insights become fervent iconoclasts and start chopping down signboards and other symbols. After all, the real issue is not so much what appears on a signboard as what occupies the hearts of those who gather behind it. Violent revolution of ardent spirits will not serve the divine interest half so well as the gentle reformation of the Holy Spirit.

     Next month, if God wills, we will present another phase of our investigation of the primitive community of believers under the heading "The Crisis of Change." We will show how difficult it was for the Jewish saints to countenance acceptance of uncircumcised Gentiles, and how a council of apostles and elders at Jerusalem fixed upon a compromise, with the help of the Spirit, which provided for unity in diversity. This provided for recognition of cultural and national differences while preserving the unity in Christ which made for one body. We earnestly solicit your attention to this coming article which may have tremendous implications for those who seek renewal through recovery of the apostolic order of things.