Well Said.

Thank you.

As far as ekklesia in the Septuagint (LXX) is concerned, I was depending heavily on Grudem, and may not have understood his point accurately. From further study in Colin Brown’s near exhaustive resource (Dictionary of New Testament Theology Vol. 1) it is clear that qahal and edah are the two Hebrew words similar to church. Yet ekklessia is only used for qahal in the LXX (while synagoge is used for both but especially for edah). Edah came to encompass Israel as a whole with her laws and distinguishing characteristics as a people. It is natural that the NT authors would not employ synagoge which translates edah in the LXX for the church, as they saw the church as distinct from Judaism and its ritual laws. Qahal was specifically the formal assembling of Israel in relation to its covenant and in regards to worship. It is significant that ekklesia translates qahal but this does not prove that ekklesia should be understood as universal (which point I wrongly attempted to make earlier, as you pointed out). Rather ekklesia’s use for qahal is significant in that the ekklesia should be seen as a continuance of the assembly of God’s people, rather than a wholly new entity. As the assembly of God’s people, who now are spread abroad beyond Palestine only, the ekklesia can be seen as the one people of God–the sum total of all the visible expressions/physical assemblies of God’s people.

Let me quote Grudem (from pg 854 note 2 in his Systematic Theology Zondervan edition) “However, the extensive use of the word ekklessia in the Septuagint to refer to assemblies not of pagan mobs but specifically of God’s people certainly must be taken into account in understanding the meaning of the word when used by New Testament authors. The Septuagint was the Bible that they most commonly used, and they are certainly using the word ekklessia with awareness of its Old Testament content. This would explain why Luke can so easily record Stephen as referring to the “church” in the wilderness with Moses and yet many times in the surrounding chapters in Acts speak of the growth of the “church” after Pentecost with no indication that there is any difference in meaning intended. The New Testament church is an assembly of God’s people that simply continues in the pattern of assemblies of God’s people found throughout the Old Testament.”

Yes in the OT all of God’s people assembled in one time and place. In the NT this was not the case. Yet still all of God’s people could be considered the “church”. This is clear from the NT authors use of the term to mean the following (taken from Colin Brown’s conclusions [he is the editor of a translated work and the article was actually written by L. Coenen] in the Zondervan 1975 edition vol. 1) “[The church] is ‘the realm of blessing in which the crucified Lord and the realm of dominion in which the risen Lord continues to work’” (pg. 300). Also, “the ekklessia thus becomes a way of describing the sphere towards which Christ’s Lordship is directed” (pg. 302). Locally, this is the local church. But taken in whole, this is the universal church. Brown also contends that particularly in Eph. and Col. (but also in 1 Cor.) as well as in Acts, the universal sense of the church (its oneness) is evident.

Yes I do know that most of the 118 references to ekklessia are local. The other 10% allow us to understand the term universally too.

Do not take this as a full-blown defense of the universal church, just a defense of your criticism of my use of ekklessia in the above comment. Plenty of works abound with a full-blown defense of the universal church, perhaps that is why most of that church understand this to be the case. Indeed Dr. Kevin Bauder (an IFB) is correct when he says that it is a minority position (among Baptists even) which recognizes only the local church. (See his article here in that regard.)

I do contend that each of us should have a high view of local churches. We should seek to submit to the church as a whole and our leaders/elders/pastors specifically. Yet any church may be in error, and believers can prove all things and hold fast what is good. They can leave errant churches too. The Spirit guides all believers in the truth. It is popish to contend that he only guides churches or pastors.

The Spirit is the one who brings about unity and guides believers in truth. As we look back to the Reformation, for instance, we can see the Spirit’s work clearly. Not to say that any one group or any one church has a corner on correct doctrine, but the Spirit has moved the vast majority of believers throughout history to affirm the principles behind the universal church doctrine. It is a very small and divisive group which contends that there is no legitimacy to that doctrine. This is not “the time and place” (to borrow a common expression) for a discussion of the universal church. But an understanding of the LXX’s use of ekklessia as the predominant term to apply to the whole people of God (much more so than the word for synagogue) in the OT, helps one understand the implications of the term ekklessia when it is used in the NT.