I Will Build My Ekklesia

The following is a chapter from my book, Creating the Israel of God, availabe on Amazon

Most Bible scholars and teachers believe the Church was birthed on the day of Pentecost, when power fell upon them [Acts 2]. In a sense, this is correct.

However, in truth, what we call the Church, was conceived in the heart and mind of God before “the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” The Ekklesia of Christ was chosen of God in Messiah “before the foundation of the world.” This means that the Israel of God was conceived of God before He spoke forth anything of this creation [Eph. 1:4-6].

What happened at Pentecost, when the Spirit fell upon the body of disciples, was the manifestation of the Ekklesia of Christ to the world. It was birthed in the sense that the Life of God by His Spirit flooded the community of disciples, as a whole body, like it never had before. They began operating and living as a single body in a realm that was new to them. They began living as the Israel of God, a fellowship of new creations in Christ.

When a child is born, the birth is not the beginning of life. It is simply manifesting what was previously unseen. When the child takes that first breath, we say it is alive. However, the child was living long before that first breath. Life began at conception. The baby’s first breath is its first experience in a realm of life, it had not known before.

So the life of the Israel of God began when He conceived it within His mind. However, the Ekklesia of Christ took its first breath in this world on that day when God’s Spirit filled it with Power.

Also, there are many who hold the opinion that what we call, Christianity, owes its being to Judaism, i.e., Christianity grew out of Judaism. However, this cannot be the case. Why? In the chapter, A New Humanity, we will see that the creation of the covenant people known as Israel, was a step in His ultimate plan to bring forth the Israel of God, a new creation humanity.

Those “chosen in Him,” before the foundation of the world, were at the fountainhead of God’s plan for man. Sinai’s Israel came into existence as the shadow. The substance, Christ and His Body, are the Israel of God. The shadow cannot exist unless the substance is already present. In fact, the shadow is nothing but the evidence of the existence of the substance. Hence, if the Law was a shadow of good things to come [Heb. 10:1], then the good things must have already existed, if only in the mind of God. Those good things have now come in Christ, who is the substance.

We will say then, that the Israel of God, the Ekklesia of Christ, the “Church,” or whatever name we might use, existed in God long before the Israelites ever gathered at the base of Sinai to become Israel, the shadow.

THE MISTAKEN MYSTERY

Because the above is true, Clarence Larkin’s following position cannot be correct. He states that the Church is a “new thing,” never seen before and unknown to the prophets.¹

The argument he makes for the “Church” (as he defines it) being unknown to the “Old Testament patriarchs and prophets,” is taken from Paul’s statement concerning the Mystery that God had made known to him. Paul says this mystery,

Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; [Eph. 3:5]

Paul does not say that the “Old Testament patriarchs and prophets,” did not know about the mystery. There are two things wrong with that statement. First of all, Paul says that the mystery was not made known to the sons of men, “As it is now revealed unto His holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit.” The mystery was known to the ancient sons of men, i.e., the fathers and the prophets, but not with the clarity that it came to the New Covenant apostles and prophets. The ancient sons of men saw the mystery in shadows and types, but not in the clear light of day. They saw the shadow, while those of Paul’s day, saw the substance.

The second thing wrong with this statement, is the mystery spoken of by Paul was not a new thing, called the Church. The mystery that was not seen in its fullness by the sons of men, was,

That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel: [Eph. 3:6, KJV]

The ESV Translation gives us this rendering,

This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.

The mystery, not fully revealed to the ancient sons of men, was that God would bring both believing Gentiles and Jews together into one body. They would share equally in the covenant promises realized in Christ Jesus. This one body, the Israel of God, conceived of God and chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world, was the new creation of humanity, with Christ Jesus, the Last Adam, as its Head.

STEPHEN’S CHURCH IN THE WILDERNESS

In his essay on Dispensational Theology, Micheal J. Vlach noted,

Dispensationalism affirms that God has always had a people throughout history, but the church is a New Testament entity that began in the Book of Acts. The church did not exist in the Old Testament but is a New Testament organism linked with the arrival of Jesus the Messiah and the baptizing ministry of the Holy Spirit.²

The argument Scofieldism makes that the “Church,” or more correctly the Ekklesia, did not exist in the Old Testament does not hold up. Sinai’s Israel had its own Ekklesia, as we shall see. If they mean the Sinai Covenant did not have an Ekklesia, “linked with the arrival of Jesus the Messiah and the baptizing ministry of the Holy Spirit,” then of course, this would be true.

However, since Scofieldism teaches that the New Covenant has not yet been made, we have a problem. Covenantally, there are only two Ekklesia in Scripture; the Ekklesia of Israel at Sinai and the Ekklesia of the New Covenant in Christ. We will address this in more detail in the chapter, No Longer Strangers.

In Stephen’s message recorded in Acts 7, he reminded them that Moses told Israel of a prophet that God would raise up from among them. He then said this about Moses,

This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us: [Acts. 7:38, KJV]

He says Moses was in the “church in the wilderness.” Yes, the Greek word here for church, is ekklesia. The same word used for Church in Matthew 16:18. The Israelites had an Ekklesia in the wilderness. Did you know that?

Stephen wasn’t suggesting there was a Church in the wilderness, as we understand it in New Covenant terms. He was saying that there existed an Ekklesia (Hebrew, Qahal) of Israel in the wilderness. Sinai’s Israel had its own “called out assembly,” i.e., an Ekklesia. To this, Dispensationalist Clarence Larkin agrees.³ Almost every translation of this verse will either use, assembly or congregation. The KJV and the Bishop’s Bible are the only ones to translate ekklesia here as Church. What did Stephen mean that Israel had an ekklesia in the wilderness? We will find out very soon.

Consider this. Why did Jesus go to the trouble of emphasizing, “I will build My Ekklesia?” If the Ekklesia was a new thing, why would He feel the need to designate it as My Ekklesia? If the ekklesia was a new thing, why not just say, “I will build an ekklesia neither you nor the prophets have ever seen or heard of.” Could He be referring to His Ekklesia as opposed to Sinai’s Ekklesia? It would seem so. So, it remains that the Israel of the Sinai Covenant had its Ekklesia, and New Covenant Israel has its own.

JESUS USES QAHAL, NOT EKKLESIA

Jesus said He would build or establish His Ekklesia. He would not bring the old Ekklesia of Sinai into the New Covenant, due to it being ready to vanish. Rather, He established an Ekklesia built upon Himself.

“Upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it,”

When Jesus spoke these words, He was speaking of establishing the congregation of New Covenant Israel, composed of born-from-above, kingdom citizens. He was speaking of creating the Israel of God.

Contrary to what some believe, it is extremely doubtful Jesus ever taught His disciples in Greek. He would have spoken Aramaic and/or Hebrew. It is quite likely that Greek was more widely used among Jews of the dispersion, than those of Judea.

This is noted by the First Century Jewish Historian, Flavius Josephus, who states,

“I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understand the elements of the Greek language, although I have so long accustomed myself to speak our own tongue, that I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness; for our nation does not encourage those that learn the languages of many nations.” [Antiquities, 20.11.2]

Josephus, speaking as a Judean, states he had taken “a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks and understand the elements of the Greek language.” Even so, he could not pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness.⁴ He learned to write Greek well enough, but was unable to speak it with any fluency. In addition, his nation, Judea, did not encourage the learning of the different languages of the nations.

Also, he had “so long accustomed” himself to speak his native Aramaic tongue that he had to learn to write the Greek language. He did so with “a great deal of pains.” In other words, he did not pick it up while living in Judea. He had to go out of his way and make a special effort to learn to write Greek. It was not a natural thing for him, nor was it for Jesus.

Therefore, as a Judean speaking to other Judeans, Jesus would have used the Hebraic equivalent of ekklesia, which is qâhâl (qahal).⁵ In the Greek Old Testament (LXX), ekklesia occurs at least 78 times⁶ and is exclusively the equal of the Hebrew, qahal. In other words, ekklesia is connected to no other Hebrew word, than qahal.

Easton’s Bible Dictionary states ekklesia,

is synonymous with the Hebrew _kahal_ of the Old Testament, both words meaning simply an assembly, the character of which can only be known from the connection in which the word is found.

The Hebrew, qahal/kahal, is translated by these words, congregation (86x), assembly (17x), company (17x), multitude (3x).

Jerome’s Latin Vulgate (late Fourth Century AD) did not translate the Greek word ἐκκλησία but only transliterated⁷ it as, ecclesia. The first English translation of the Bible was by John Wycliffe (late Fourteenth Century AD). He translated straight from the Latin Vulgate, not from Greek or Hebrew. When he came to the word, ecclesia, he translated it as chirche (from Old English cirice)⁸. Chirche is the middle English of what would eventually become, Church.

However, both Tyndale (1534) and Coverdale (1535), working from the Greek, translated ἐκκλησία as congregation. Through the next two English translations, Matthew’s Bible (1537) and The Great Bible (1539), ἐκκλησία continued as congregation. When we come to the Geneva Bible (1560), we see the first appearance of Church for the Greek, ἐκκλησία. Later, the KJV (1611) would follow suit.

When Jesus said He would build His Ekklesia, it is most likely He used Qahal for congregation/assembly. When Qahal was translated into Greek, it became Ekklesia. Then, about fifteen hundred and thirty years later, Ekklesia became Church.

There was a Qahal, a congregation of Israel in the Sinai Covenant. Here, Jesus speaks of building the congregation of New Covenant Israel, founded upon Himself, instead of the Law. The idea of the Qahal/Ekklesia was not a new thing to the New Covenant; the Old Covenant was familiar with it also. In the New Covenant, the Ekklesia is the body of born-from-above, kingdom citizens belonging exclusively to Messiah Jesus. It is the new wine in a new wineskin, the Israel of God.

---

Footnotes

¹ Larkin, Clarence. Dispensational Truth, 1918. 74.
For Mr. Larkin to argue that the Church is a new thing, unknown to the OT prophets is a lame argument. In truth, the “Church” was unknown for about 1,500 years of the so-called “Church Age.” The term, “Church,” did not enter the English language until about AD 1560. So our use of the word is relatively new.
² https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/dispensational-theology/
³ Larkin, Clarence. Dispensational Truth, 1918. 74.
⁴ As one who has studied Biblical Greek for several years at the undergraduate and graduate level, I can attest to the fact that it is not something one picks up on-the-fly. It requires hard and steadied work. This is only with reference to learning the mechanics of its grammar. It says nothing about learning it as a spoken language.
⁵ There is no exact Aramaic equivalent to ekklesia. As a teacher, it would not be unusual for Jesus to sometimes use Hebrew.
⁶ Other sources have ekklesia, in its various forms, occurring as many as 96 times, and still dominantly the equivalent of qahal.
⁷ In case you are not familiar with the term, transliteration, it is “The process of transferring a word from the alphabet of one language to another.” Jerome transliterated the word, ekklesia, from the Greek, to ecclesia, in the Latin. ⁸ cirice, from late Proto-Germanic *kirikǭ (whence also Old Frisian tzirke, Old Saxon and Old Dutch kirika, Old High German chirihha), from Byzantine Greek κυριακόν (δόμα) ("Lord's (house)"), from Ancient Greek κύριος ("lord").