Misconceptions about the Church

There are many caricatures and stereotypes of the church in the evangelical circle. Church is
misconceived by laity and scholars alike. Sometimes, Church is seen merely as a people without
considering its constitution. The Covenant Theology argues for the existence of the church in the
Old Testament. Both Covenant Theology and New Covenant Theology blur the distinction
between the nation Israel and the New Testament Church. There are two popular misconceptions
about the church: Israel was the church of the Old Testament and the Church is the Kingdom of
God.

Israel was the church of the Old Testament

Those who argue that the church existed in the Old Testament base their argument on the usage
of the words Qahal and Ekklēsia. The Septuagint1 uses the Greek word Ekklēsia to translate the
Hebrew word Qahal and therefore the church existed in the Old Testament, argues, the Covenant
Theologians. However, the Greek word Ekklēsia has a semantic range, meaning, it has a range of
meaning. It was used to refer to any gathering before being employed by the New Testament
authors to refer to the disciples of Jesus Christ (Regenerated and Spirit-baptized people).

Even in the New Testament, after the inauguration of the church, Ekklēsia retained some
of these usage. For e.g., Ekklēsia is used twice in Acts 19 to refer to the angry mob and once to
refer to the legal political gathering:

Acts 19: 32 “The assembly was in confusion: Some were shouting one thing, some
another. Most of the people did not even know why they were there”

Acts 19:41 “After he had said this, he dismissed the assembly.”

Acts 19:39 “If there is anything further you want to bring up, it must be settled in a legal
assembly.”
1
Septuagint is the translation of the Old Testament from Hebrew to Greek. It is usually referred as
LXX.
Hence, to argue the existence of the church in the Old Testament based on the Septuagint’s use
of Ekklēsia is not a sufficient warrant. Moreover, the word Qahal exclusively refers to the
gathering of the people and not to the people. The Old Testament uses the word edah to refer to
the people who gathers. Robert Saucy rightly notes, “The Old Testament qahal with its
Septuagint translation, ekklesia, like the secular Greek use, never seems to refer to other than an
actual meeting. However, a synonymous term, edah, did come to have the broader meaning
referring to the congregation, whether actually assembled or not. In this sense it is nearer to the
New Testament use of ekklesia than qahal; yet, it is never translated ekklesia in the Septuagint
but, rather, predominantly by synagoge, which is also a common translation of qahal.”2
Therefore, arguing for the existence of the church in the Old Testament based on the usage of the
word Qahal is unjustified. Mark Snoeberger provides a good summary of the differences
between the nation Israel and church:

The Church is distinct from Israel in terms of their origin, purposes, and destiny.3

a. They have distinct origins.

Israel The Church

Began as an ethnic group with the call of
Abram, and as a political entity with the
giving of the Law
One joined the covenant community by
natural birth and circumcision, without
respect to spiritual condition.
Israel had geographic boundaries.
Began on the day of Pentecost as a spiritual
body without ethnic or political distinctions.
One joins the church by experiencing the new
birth as pictured in water baptism by
immersion.
The church is universal.

b. The have distinct purposes.

2
Robert L. Saucy, The Church in God’s Program (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1972), 14.
3
Mark A. Snoeberger, “The Doctrine of Church” (course notes, Community Bible Church,

Trenton, Michigan), 8.
 Israel The Church
Israel’s influence on the world was The Church’s influence on the world is
national and corporate individual.
Her purposes were realized in her political Her purposes are realized in her
structures missionary/evangelism endeavors.
Israel had no missionary mandate. The church has no political mandate.

c. They have distinct destinies.

Israel The Church

Israel will take her place as the head of The church will share in the Messianic
the nations, where she will serve as a reign as the bride of Christ and first in
kingdom of priests (Isa 61:4–6) rank in the kingdom (Heb. 12:23)

The Church is the Kingdom of God

Another popular teaching in the evangelical circle is that the church is the kingdom of God.
Some argue that the Church is the spiritual kingdom and the fulfillment of the Old Testament
promises to David. The anticipated Kingdom has been inaugurated and there is no physical
kingdom in the future. For instance, Jonathan Leeman argues, “When Christians formally gather
together in Christ’s name, they become the “geography” of Christ’s presently landless kingdom.
You can literally see it with your eyes because the people are gathered together.” 4 Leeman takes
away the essence of the Kingdom of God by saying “church is the landless kingdom.” He further
argues, “Christ’s kingdom rule becomes visible in the local church, and the demonstration of that
kingdom rule requires a gathering where the saints affirm one another in the gospel and one
another’s membership in the gospel.”5
4
Jonathan Leeman, One Assembly: Rethinking the Multisite & Multiservice Church Models

(Illinois: Crossway, 2020), 47.

5
Leeman, 48.
Contrary, to Jonathan Leeman, the Bible presents the Kingdom of God as physical, political, and
still future. Mark Snoeberger rightly argues, “For centuries, the nation of Israel functioned as a
theocratic kingdom with a human king reigning as a vice-regent for God. Throughout the OT,
anticipation grows for the arrival of the Messiah, the great King who was himself God, who
would reign over the geophysical earth (Isa 40:4) in a literal, biological/zoological (Isa 35),
political (Isa 32:1) kingdom. This kingdom is still future.”6 The Kingdom was promised to
Nation Israel and will be inaugurated when Christ will sit on the Davidic throne and rule the
whole world. The Church will be co-regents of Christ (2 Tim. 2:12).

Commencement of the Church

Scholars divide over the inauguration of the church. Some argue for the inauguration of the
church at the time of Abraham, Adam, Moses, Christ, etc. However, we will argue for its
inception at the day of Pentecost. The following are the scriptural warrants for the conception of
the church at the day of Pentecost:

1) The Ministry of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit started on the day of Pentecost, hence, the
church could not have begun prior to the day of Pentecost (Acts 1:5–8; Matt 3:11; Luke 3:16).

2) The death of Christ on the cross to purchase the church is essential for the commencement of
the church (Acts 20:28; Eph.5:25).

3) The Ascension of Christ is essential for him to grace the church with spiritual gifts (Eph. 4:7-
10).

6
Mark A. Snoeberger, “The Doctrine of Church” (course notes, Community Bible Church,

Trenton, Michigan), 9.
4) Christ’s death was essential for the ordinances of the Church (baptism and communion) to
have any meaning: they are symbolic of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, events
unknown to OT Israel.7

5) Ephesians 1:20–23: Christ’s headship of the church demands his ascension to the right hand
of God.8

7
Mark A. Snoeberger, “The Doctrine of Church” (course notes, Community Bible Church,
Trenton, Michigan), 7.

8
Ibid.