Matthew 13:24....the world, or the church?

[Mathew Ward]

[quote author=Mathew Ward]I do understand what church means in Scripture.

So for example...

So when Jesus said tell to the church in Matthew 18:17 he meant tell it to the whole body of Christ?

Or would it be more along the lines of how a local church handled it in Corinth?

Remember you said...but the definition of ecclesia itself still refers to the whole body of Christ.

When Jesus told the Twelve to "go therefore and make disciples of all nations...", did He mean for them personally to go to all nations?
[/quote]

When Jesus commanded them to go, I think he meant go.  You know as Cooper would state.

However is that command given to the church?

If one takes the stance that they were set in the church first a case can be made.

1 Corinthians 12:28  And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

Also he further states...Acts 1:8  But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.



So when Jesus said tell to the church in Matthew 18:17 he meant tell it to the whole body of Christ?

Or would it be more along the lines of how a local church handled it in Corinth?

According to the Tomato ...the definition of ecclesia itself still refers to the whole body of Christ.

 

[rsc2a]

Sub -

Generally,  I would agree with you in this point. The problem here it's that the idiom feeds an incorrect understanding of what the church is,  a very common misunderstanding that affects how those in the church live their everyday lives.

When folks ask me what I do and/or where I work I tell them I am a pastor and i work for Eastland Baptist Church. I guess I need to tell them I don't work for the building or pastor the building  but the folks who assemble there, with all of the misunderstanding.

Don't you think an associate pastor should be able to recognize a figure of speech and still not allow it to poison his understanding of what church means in scripture?  Shouldn't such a simple concept be a prerequisite for teaching others?

I admitted to using "church" in a figurative way and both you and rsc2a said that is bad. So now if I call it a figure of speech (instead an expression or idiom) it is now okay? I am so confused.

"Honey, I will be in late tonight. I have an elder board meeting at that building where the ecclesia meet on Sunday."  ???

Let us say that there was a large percentage of the population who heard "airplane" every time you used the word "vehicle". Now you could use the word vehicle to describe any number of things: cars, trucks, boats, skateboards, horse carts, and even airplanes. But that didn't matter...for these people, they heard "airplane" every single time. In fact, not only did they hear "airplane" but whenever these people were told to go to the vehicle, they got down their luggage and packed as if for a week long trip, even if they were only taking the car to the grocery store.

Let us also say there was another large percentage of the population who heard the word "vehicle" and thought it meant cars and trucks and boats and skateboards and horse carts and airplanes simultaneously and that these were functionally the same thing, so much so in fact that one could talk about riding in a car, and these folks would picture them on a sailboat or in a rickshaw because they could not distinguish between the two. These people were not intellectually capable of separating these ideas because they sincerely understood "vehicle" to mean all of these things at once.

Now for the question: would it be best to continue to use the word "vehicle" when discussing boats or trains, or would it be better to use the narrower term so as to avoid reinforcing these incorrect understandings of the word "vehicle"?

Well there you have it. People in general are too stupid to be able to distinguish contextually between "my church just called a new pastor",  "I won't be able to take you up on that golf date, I have church Sunday morning" and "I left my bible at the church". If only they could tell the difference.

Therefore brethren, seeing as you are surrounded by such a cloud of idiots, put aside every temptation to use a word in more than one context.

And yet some of these people call themselves pastors and teachers. 

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Well there you have it. People in general are too stupid to be able to distinguish contextually between "my church just called a new pastor",  "I won't be able to take you up on that golf date, I have church Sunday morning" and "I left my bible at the church". If only they could tell the difference.

Let's see.  You cited three examples using the word "church" to make a point about distinguishing between the them.  Yet none of your examples reflect the meaning of the word "ecclesia".  In fact, I'm willing to bet that you almost never, if ever, use the word "church" to describe the called out. 

There's a lesson in that, if you're open to learning it. 

 

[subllibrm]

Well there you have it. People in general are too stupid to be able to distinguish contextually between "my church just called a new pastor",  "I won't be able to take you up on that golf date, I have church Sunday morning" and "I left my bible at the church". If only they could tell the difference.

Let's see.  You cited three examples using the word "church" to make a point about distinguishing between the them.  Yet none of your examples reflect the meaning of the word "ecclesia".  In fact, I'm willing to bet that you almost never, if ever, use the word "church" to describe the called out. 

There's a lesson in that, if you're open to learning it.

There is a thing called english if you are open to learning it. I tested those sentences on two co-workers and they both were able to delineate the difference by context.

And why would my first example of my "church" (the called out ones who gather together at that building on Main St. to worship God) calling a pastor not be the use of ecclesia that you are so desperate to demand? Or are you saying that my church (called out body of believers meeting together and partnering in Kingdom work) is not the ecclesia?

I can't tell if this hair is one you want to split even finer or if it is just a wild one stuck in an orifice and causing you a bad itching sensation.

 

[ALAYMAN]

The usual understanding of the position that says the church is in view in the parable would mean that while the darnels are seemingly identical (frauds and hypocrites) we should be patient.

The "usual understanding" would be that if the Son of God explained his own parable, that would settle the matter.

Nice dodge.  You asked how Paul could expel people from the church at Corinth.  I answered that they could when the darnels became clearly evident that they were tares.  It's shifty and intellectually dishonest of you to not accept a reasonable explanation to your question, but that's what people do on the FFF when they realize that their arguments fail.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Or are you saying that my church (called out body of believers meeting together and partnering in Kingdom work) is not the ecclesia?

No, it's not the ecclesia.  And the fact that you think so just makes my point.  Your "church" contains the ecclesia, but it also contains unbelievers.  That's just like the rest of the world.  Which is why "the field is the world" is all you need from the parable. 

Your examples reflect casual conversation.  And although I happen to (mildly) object to using "church" in those ways, you're right that everyone will understand what you mean.  And that's fine. 

The problem arises when you impose those incorrect references to "church" on scriptural truths. 

For example, let's apply your definition of church (a gathering of wheat and tares) to Matthew 18. 

17 And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.

Do you think Jesus is using your definition here?  He really wants this man to hear from the wheat and the tares?  The tares should have a say here? 

I'll tell you.  The answer is no.  Because ecclesia means "called out [ones]" even in Matthew 18 before there was the kind of "church" to which you are referring. 

 

[FreeToBeMe]

William Jefferson Clinton On The Meaning of "IS"

 

[ALAYMAN]

Or are you saying that my church (called out body of believers meeting together and partnering in Kingdom work) is not the ecclesia?

No, it's not the ecclesia.  And the fact that you think so just makes my point.  Your "church" contains the ecclesia, but it also contains unbelievers.  That's just like the rest of the world.  Which is why "the field is the world" is all you need from the parable. 

Your examples reflect casual conversation.  And although I happen to (mildly) object to using "church" in those ways, you're right that everyone will understand what you mean.  And that's fine. 

The problem arises when you impose those incorrect references to "church" on scriptural truths. 

For example, let's apply your definition of church (a gathering of wheat and tares) to Matthew 18. 

17 And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.

Do you think Jesus is using your definition here?  He really wants this man to hear from the wheat and the tares?  The tares should have a say here? 

I'll tell you.  The answer is no.  Because ecclesia means "called out [ones]" even in Matthew 18 before there was the kind of "church" to which you are referring.

How do you know which is the wheat and which is the tares in the 116 instances in the NT where ekklesia is translated as church?

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=ALAYMAN]How do you know which is the wheat and which is the tares in the 116 instances in the NT where ekklesia is translated as church?[/quote]

How do you know theos isn't referring to Zeus the 1320 times it is translated as "God" in the NT?

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Or are you saying that my church (called out body of believers meeting together and partnering in Kingdom work) is not the ecclesia?

No, it's not the ecclesia.  And the fact that you think so just makes my point.  Your "church" contains the ecclesia, but it also contains unbelievers.  That's just like the rest of the world.  Which is why "the field is the world" is all you need from the parable. 

Your examples reflect casual conversation.  And although I happen to (mildly) object to using "church" in those ways, you're right that everyone will understand what you mean.  And that's fine. 

The problem arises when you impose those incorrect references to "church" on scriptural truths. 

For example, let's apply your definition of church (a gathering of wheat and tares) to Matthew 18. 

17 And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.

Do you think Jesus is using your definition here?  He really wants this man to hear from the wheat and the tares?  The tares should have a say here? 

I'll tell you.  The answer is no.  Because ecclesia means "called out [ones]" even in Matthew 18 before there was the kind of "church" to which you are referring.

How do you know which is the wheat and which is the tares in the 116 instances in the NT where ekklesia is translated as church?

You see?  This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.  Your definition of "church" has so poisoned your understanding that you have redefined ecclesia to suit your understanding instead of respecting what it means.  You think that when the Bible says "called out" it means "the called out AND the not-called-out; the gathering of wheat and tares". 

You are literally asking, "How do you know who is saved and who is not saved among the people who are saved?"  You'd be perfect for this movie:

Woman:  "Isn't it because I'm a woman?"

Man:  "If a man told me [the same rubbish] I would react the same way."

You:  "Really?  ...  And what if that man were a woman?"

Trail of the Screaming Forehead - Official Movie Trailer

 

[subllibrm]

Or are you saying that my church (called out body of believers meeting together and partnering in Kingdom work) is not the ecclesia?

No, it's not the ecclesia.  And the fact that you think so just makes my point.  Your "church" contains the ecclesia, but it also contains unbelievers.  That's just like the rest of the world.  Which is why "the field is the world" is all you need from the parable. 

Your examples reflect casual conversation.  And although I happen to (mildly) object to using "church" in those ways, you're right that everyone will understand what you mean.  And that's fine. 

The problem arises when you impose those incorrect references to "church" on scriptural truths. 

For example, let's apply your definition of church (a gathering of wheat and tares) to Matthew 18. 

17 And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.

Do you think Jesus is using your definition here?  He really wants this man to hear from the wheat and the tares?  The tares should have a say here? 

I'll tell you.  The answer is no.  Because ecclesia means "called out [ones]" even in Matthew 18 before there was the kind of "church" to which you are referring.

So my "church" contains the ecclesia and some tares (but we will ignore their presence for the sake of the parable) and then when I follow Matthew 18 I need to take it to the "church" (ecclesia) even though the congregation contains some tares that, A. we don't know who they are and B. we are told not to worry about because God will sort them out later. So we are told to take these issues to a group of people who cannot be identified and is infiltrated by false professors. Yet you believe that Jesus doesn't want the tares involved in the process even though He tells us that we won't/don't know who they are. So how will we ever follow through on Matthew 18? I have heard of people who claim to have gaydar but apparently you have taredar.

So help me again, when do we use the word ecclesia with clear accuracy? We don't know who they are and we know that there are tares among them.

Split that hair one more time.

 

[ALAYMAN]

You see?  This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.  Your definition of "church" has so poisoned your understanding that you have redefined ecclesia to suit your understanding instead of respecting what it means.  You think that when the Bible says "called out" it means "the called out AND the not-called-out; the gathering of wheat and tares". 

Stuff and nonsense.  Theologians for millennia have accepted the concept of the visible church (local assembly) containing non-believers.  Those who are unbelievers but actually profess to be sorted out at the end of the age by God sometimes do fool those in the assembly, but that assembly/church doesn't cease from the responsibility to enact discipline on those that don't ultimately align with the nature of a born again believer.

 

[Recovering IFB]

Nonsense? Christ clearly explains the parable in vs 38 and you are the one arguin against it!

 

[ALAYMAN]

Nonsense? Christ clearly explains the parable in vs 38 and you are the one arguin against it!

Okay, your answer is "uh-uh, look at verse 38".  Got it. 


Now let me ask you to put your thinking cap on.  Why, if it is so obvious that Christ's words mean what you think they mean, is this such a debated subject?  And I don't mean just debated amongst dummies like us, but centuries old?  Calvin, Augustin, Henry, and a host of other people who know a whole lot more about how to interpret Scriptures than most of us here (maybe even collectively ), why do you think that they came to a different conclusion?

 

[ALAYMAN]

Okay, heretofore I haven't publicly said which side of the coin I come down on.  I tend to believe the straightforward interpretation that the world is, well, the world.  But I think Mathew Ward is onto something, in that the application from the parable means that we (the assembly, ekklesia, local body, etc) naturally will be of a similar makeup.  Judas was with the disciples for 3 years and they didn't know he was the son of perdition after all.  This small commentary from a nobody pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter...


3. How does this parable relate to the church?


This parable exposes the problem of evil intermingled with good within congregations, just as the same mix confronts nations, communities, and homes. No matter how society tries to legislate or separate out lawbreakers from the rest of society, the seeds of sin and crime find a place to grow. God's church is similarly affected by Satan's constant attacks. The genuine and the counterfeit wheat are always together in the church.

The servants' perplexity about the sowing of the tares shows that the presence of sin is often a mystery to people (II Thessalonians 2:7-10). God cannot be blamed for them because He does not sow evil—Satan does (James 1:13). By this parable, Jesus prophesies that the church of God on earth would be imperfect. The spiritual church has members with the Holy Spirit who are dedicated and loyal, yet have personal defects. It also has within it unconverted people who may recognize the truth but are there only to enjoy association with God's people. Jesus' intent is to enlighten and warn the saints of this fact, not to expose the tares at this time (Acts 20:29-32). God will root out the bad seed when the good seed has matured.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

So my "church" contains the ecclesia and some tares (but we will ignore their presence for the sake of the parable) and then when I follow Matthew 18 I need to take it to the "church" (ecclesia)

So he's talking about taking it to a "church" organization like First Baptist Church or Reformed Presbyterian Church, even though no such organizations existed at the time?  Interesting hermeneutics. 

So help me again, when do we use the word ecclesia with clear accuracy? We don't know who they are and we know that there are tares among them.

Q. "So help me again, when do we use the word ecclesia with clear accuracy?"
A. Whenever it refers to the called out.

S. We don't know who they are and we know that there are tares among them.
A. How can we not know who they are when the very definition of ecclesia tells you.  The ecclesia is the called out [ones].  By definition, this excludes the not-called out. 

For the umpteenth time, here's your problem.  You: "Ecclesia is translated as church in the Bible.  Since church now refers to a gathering of people, an organization with membership rules, a building where these people meet, etc., then that's what ecclesia must mean."

Bzzzzt. 

 

[Recovering IFB]

Uh-uh duh, maybe they are wrong? I'll take the words from our Creator over Calvin, Luther , Hyles, Schapp and you.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Uh-uh duh, maybe they are wrong? I'll take the words from our Creator over Calvin, Luther , Hyles, Schapp and you.

Okay, you've said, essentially, "uh-uh, look at verse 38" four times in this thread now.  I understand where you're coming from, and if that's the extent of what you have to add, why do you feel the need to repeat it so often?  I see what your opinion is.  Your work is done here, if indeed that's all you have to contribute.

 

[Ransom]

Nice dodge.  You asked how Paul could expel people from the church at Corinth.  I answered that they could when the darnels became clearly evident that they were tares.

Makes sense to me.  Jesus said "so it will be at the end of the age," so clearly he meant "so will it be right now, when the tares become apparent."

It's shifty and intellectually dishonest of you to not accept a reasonable explanation to your question

An explanation that assumes a wrong interpretation isn't "reasonable," by definition: it's fallacious.

 

[Mathew Ward]

So my "church" contains the ecclesia and some tares (but we will ignore their presence for the sake of the parable) and then when I follow Matthew 18 I need to take it to the "church" (ecclesia)

So he's talking about taking it to a "church" organization like First Baptist Church or Reformed Presbyterian Church, even though no such organizations existed at the time?  Interesting hermeneutics.

Whereas according to your definition he has to take it to all the believers or the universal church. Talk about interesting hermeneutics.


I believe the local church at Corinth handled it well.