Kingdom Myth 5. The kingdom is separate from the ekklesia.
By “ekklesia,” I’m not talking about a church building, a Sunday morning service, a denomination, or an institutional organization that people call “church.”
I’m speaking about what the New Testament writers meant by ekklesia—a local, face-to-face community of people who surrendered their lives to the lordship of Christ and were learning to live by His indwelling life together. (I’ve detailed the difference between ekklesia and “church” as we know it elsewhere.)
Those face-to-face communities are “the manifestation of God’s ruling presence” in the earth. Consider Revelation 1:6:
“[He] made us to be a kingdom.”
And also Revelation 5:10:
“You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God.”
In the New Testament, the people of God are the “kingdom of priests” that was prophesied in Exodus 19 and fulfilled in 1 Peter 2 and Revelation.
A kingdom involves three things: A king who rules, a people who are ruled, and the king’s actual rulership.
The ekklesia are the people who are ruled. They embody the kingdom, just as Jesus Christ incarnates it.
When Jesus was on earth, He incarnated the kingdom. But at Pentecost, the kingdom came to earth again in the city of Jerusalem. So if you wanted to see God’s rule manifested in the earth, you had to visit the Jesus community in Jerusalem.
Just as you cannot separate the King from His kingdom, you cannot separate the kingdom from the kingdom society—the ekklesia, the people who are ruled by the King.
A widely held claim asserts something like this: “Jesus only mentioned the ekklesia [church] a few times, but He mentioned the kingdom over 100 times. So the kingdom is more important than the ekklesia.”
Well, Jesus didn’t mention the kingdom over 100 times—there are 88 distinguishable references to the kingdom in the four Gospels.
Nevertheless, this statement is false and misleading in another respect. And I’ve fully discounted it in this message.
To summarize the argument, Jesus did use the word “kingdom” more than He used the word “ekklesia” in the Gospels. But so what? Jesus made abundant references to the ekklesia in the Gospels, He just didn’t use the word “ekklesia” every time He referred to it.
For example, whenever you see that little band of twelve men and five to eight women following Jesus closely and faithfully in the Gospels, you are seeing the embryonic expression of the ekklesia. That little band of women and men was the community of the King, the new society that Jesus was creating.
And every time you see Jesus use the word “you” when speaking to His disciples, He is almost always speaking to and about the ekklesia, the community of the King.
Paul never used the word “disciple” either in his letters, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t believe in disciples or discipleship. He instead used “believers” and “transformation” to describe those two ideas.
Consequently, you cannot separate the ekklesia from the kingdom of God any more than you can separate the body from the head. The two are inseparably connected.
Put another way, to separate the ekklesia from the kingdom is like separating light from visibility. It cannot be done. The kingdom and the ekklesia are distinct, but they are not separate.
So let’s finally, once and for all, put this myth to bed, shall we?
Click here for all the articles in the Kingdom of God Series
Dispelling Kingdom Myths: Part 4
I think the real issue here is that many people have either very faint or totally wrong idea about what the kingdom is. Not grasping it they cling to whatever catchphrase they happen to remember, even if they already had learned it to be wrong.
Usually these catchphrases were made to counter some even worse idea, but they started to live a life of their own.
In any case, you made a good point: Ekklesia and kingdom are different, not separate. I think of it this way: Ekklesia is a community obedient to Christ. That obedience is expressed in the Kingdom. (For the universal ekklesia, that would be “as the Kingdom”.)
I think it’s stronger than that. I didn’t write “different,” but “distinct.” Your body and your head are distinct, but they aren’t separate. As I explained in another comment, the body and the head are used interchangeably in Scripture, and at other times, they are used to depict two distinct elements. In the same way, I quoted several texts that show the ekklesia and the kingdom are used interchangeably. So I would say they are different. The analogy I used is the connection between light and visibility. The underlying problem is that most believers don’t understand what the ekklesia. They have the concept of the contemporary “church” or all the Christians in the world. But that is not how the NT uses the term.
Well stated…once again Frank! It is such a freeing thing to realize that the ecclesia is a localized visible manifestation of the life of God (the indwelling spirit) or the rulership or life of God (kingdom) manifested (put on display or made visible) in a localized community of men and women submitted to His reign.
As Tom Skinner once said,”In answer to Jesus’ prayer ‘thy Kingdom come they will be done on earth as in heaven’ the Spirit came to inhabit men and women and produce the God life on earth as in heaven. In other words, the “church” is the live model “on earth” of the heavenly order of God.” So therefore we can say, “If you want to touch heaven, if you want to see the life of God – look as us!!!”
Sounds kind of brassy and scary! It is interesting to consider, “When the world looks at “the church” what do THEY see. What is God like?
Divided? Fighting? Utterly worldly or cultural? Obsessed with meetings…etc…and for those who have left that “church” system – what does the world see? People with a meeting mentality, people obsessed with IC vs OC?
This revelation alone has served to revolutionize my walk. It is sobering and yet freeing.
Blessings and keep up the good work!
Thanks George. That’s just it though. I’m *not* using “ekklesia” to refer to all of God’s people in the world. But rather, to face-to-face communities who are under the headship of Christ. That’s what the NT authors meant by the term. It’s difficult to grasp, but not impossible. Most people have never seen such a face-to-face community, so that’s part of the problem.
But the good news is that the Insurgence has begun, though it’s the size of a man’s hand right now.
When you say Frank that the insurgence has begun, what do you mean?
I thought you said recently that organic church interest has waned?
Please read the entire series – https://www.frankviola.org/kingdom — the entire series, and especially the upcoming book that releases in the summer of 2018, will answer your question. Start with the post called “Radicalized.”
The Insurgence and “organic church” aren’t the same. Don’t confuse them, please. Most people who are part of so-called “organic churches” — a term I stopped using years ago — have no clue as to what the gospel of the kingdom is.
Working on reading those.
Thanks
Well said. Sad that such a thing should be controversial. Should be considered Christianity 101. Speaks to the devil’s efforts to divide and confuse.
Phil, I agree. You can see from some of the comments that it’s still controversial.
Hi Frank,
I am not sure exactly how to ask the question, but I will do my best. Does the confusion between kingdom and ekklesia produce or at least reinforce the institutional mindset prevalent in western Christendom? I’ve noticed that “church” is more understood as assembly or organization than this idea of manifestation that you speak of. I apologize if my question isn’t clear. I am part of a community that I feel is caught between the two ideas, but I can’t quite figure out how to navigate a discussion.
The root problem is that most Christians still have little concept of what “ekklesia” is in the New Testament. Sadly this is the case, despite books like Pagan Christianity, Reimagining Church, and Paul’s Idea of Community. So they look at “church as we know it” and say, “That’s not the kingdom.”
They are right, it’s not. But what they are calling “church” isn’t what the NT envisions when it uses the term “ekklesia.”
To put it another way, you can’t be interested in the kingdom and neglect the ekklesia. The two are inseparable.
This will become clear when my book on the kingdom comes out.
Oh, and for those new to the blog, “ekklesia” and “house church” aren’t the same thing. Not by a long shot.
“A kingdom involves three things: A king who rules, a people who are ruled, and the king’s actual rulership..”
Great article, I think you missed one important piece of a kingdom though: a place or a land. That is why there is also an aspect of justice being established on earth, the curse being reversed, and restoring the earth to be like the garden of Eden once again.
You can refer to a city/nation or kingdom and mean the people in the city, the actual geographical location, or the ruling authority of that location, as all of them are very much intertwined.
“Church” is an unfortunate translation for ekklesia, for multiple reasons, but two main ones in my opinion:
First ekklesia was used in the Greek translation of the Old Testament (Septagint), so was not a completely “New” concept to the NT but held continuity with “the assembly [ekklesia] of Israel.”
Second the Greek word means “an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the council for the purpose of deliberating” so has much more of a concept of a people called out to exercise the kings ruling authority on earth, and should be understood in similar terms to the angelic host that gathers together to exercise God’s authority on earth (ie think Job 1).
(Understanding in the concept of the angelic host helps us to not separate “church” from a kingdom, but it also helps us not to separate ruling from prayer, worship, and preaching of the word which are the primary ways we exercise are kingdom authority on earth, as we are joining together with what is going on in heaven.)
The king’s rulership and the people ruled covers “place.”
The ekklesia is the “place” where Jesus rules. It’s not dirt or turf, but a people.
The Greek term ekklesia simply means assembly or gathering or meeting. It was used for the decision-making assemblies in the secular Greek world, but it was also used to refer to any gathering. The NT bears this out. Even a mob is called “ekklesia” in the NT.
Paul uses it to refer to a people who assemble together regularly to display Christ.
The ekklesia manifests the king and His kingdom visibly — when she’s functioning properly.
Ekklesia and kingdom are and aren’t interchangeable. For instance, the head and body are interchangeable sometimes. But other times they aren’t. We can say Christ has a body on the one hand. And on the other, we can say that Christ is the body (see 1 Corinthians 12:12; Acts 9:4).
So we can say that a genuine ekklesia manifests the kingdom in one respect. And in another respect, we can say the ekklesia is the kingdom (e.g., “He made us a kingdom” in Revelation. A kingdom includes the people who are ruled).
Some ekklesias in the first century manifested the kingdom better than others. For instance, Corinth didn’t do so well here while Thessalonica and Ephesus did better.
“The king’s rulership and the people ruled covers “place.””
I agree with the rest of what you said but can’t agree with your first line.
For example, if I talk about the “Roman Empire”, I could be referring to the people in Rome, the Caesar’s and those who exercised authority in Rome, or the physical geographical land of which Rome ruled and the people of Rome lived in. There’s overlap between all 3 but they not the same.
A huge part of the Biblical storyline is the “promised land” and returning to the Garden of Eden.
Unfortunately most Christians today read a Greek worldview into Scripture and come away thinking that the end goal of Christianity is “going to heaven and that “spiritual” is superior to “physical”. These are not Biblical concepts and have much more in common with Gnosticism and Marcionism, then they do with Christianity.
The Bible has a very positive view of the physical world and sees it intertwined with the spiritual and ends not with us getting sucked out of this world into a purely spiritual existence but actually with God coming down here to live with us, us getting new physical bodies and living in a physical “dirt and turf” city (and again city can refer to the people or the geographic location.)
The spiritual realm doesn’t work that way, Tim. The kingdom appears wherever Jesus is enthroned by His people.
Regarding the garden of Eden, I make that very point in FROM ETERNITY TO HERE http://frometernitytohere.org – but again, your thinking physical turf. It’s not turf, it’s the community of the King where they gather and function. The physical city of Jerusalem in the OT and town of Bethany in the Gospels (http://GodsFavoritePlace.com) point to a spiritual reality that is all over this earth. (If you haven’t reads those books, you may want to. They are paradigm shifters).
But back to the point of the article, the ekklesia isn’t separate from the kingdom. The other details will be treated in the upcoming book.
I have read both books you referred to, but in my opinion, it sounds like you are reading a Greek mindset into Scripture and thinking the kingdom is something purely spiritual, a common Western Christian way of thinking, but not what the authors of Scripture had in mind, at least in my opinion.
Nope. The kingdom is not “purely” spiritual. It’s primarily spiritual with physical, tangible manifestations. The ekklesia is a physical and locatable entity in the cities where it’s planted. You can visit and behold it. The kingdom is *mainly* spiritual because the kingdom is will topple completely is also spiritual — the world system. Which, as I explained in “A Clash of Kingdoms,” is like the Matrix. And it’s Lord is spiritual, not here in the physical flesh.
The NT writers neither had a Jewish concept of the kingdom (which Jesus kept fighting against and was all about physical power, physical land, turf, etc.) nor a Western viewpoint. Jesus and Paul transcended both perspectives, and that’s the viewpoint that undergirds this series. It’s neither Jewish – earthy, or Western – linear. In JESUS: A THEOGRAPHY, I tease out and expound the hermeneutic that Jesus (and later, the apostles) invoked when reading the OT. It may help to explain my perspective.
This reminds me of the scene in Acts when the disciples watch Jesus ascend into heaven. Then the angel says, essentially, “Why are you standing around looking into heaven?” Now that Jesus had ascended, the apostles represented the Kingdom on earth, preparing the world for his return.
And in Luke 17 where Jesus said, “the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.”
Thanks for brining this topic up. I enjoy reading about it.
Hi Frank. Well I would say that the church is within the kingdom, but the kingdom is much more than the church. The parable of the field the man bought. The field contained the treasure, but it also contained rats, spiders, etc. So the treasure was in the field (the Kingdom) but not all in the kingdom (field) were the church. Because a person is not aware that they live in a kingdom, does not mean they do not live in the kingdom. Anyway my take. But yes the church is the ruling authority of the kingdom.
Bob, here’s where the confusion lies. I’m not talking about the “church” (as we know it). I’m talking about the EKKLESIA. The ekklesia is NOT within the kingdom. The King and His kingdom are embodied in her. That’s the missing element and why the myth keeps being repeated. This will be expounded in detail in the upcoming book. This post is just a short sketch, but it’s sufficient to make the point.
Good point Frank—There are always going to be controversies when people try to understand life from their own opinions of how to interpret scripture and their applications of them—I went to a group once that taught we are actually living in the one thousand year millenium right now based on their own understanding of certain texts—God told me–You need to leave this group–I left and I am thankful for Father’s direction.
One final question Frank:
Will you be addressing your spiritual ‘seeing’ of the ‘millennial’ reign regarding Revelation 20 and its context within the kingdom of God in your upcoming 2018 book?
Philip 😉
Some, but from a different perspective than normal. The focus is on living in the kingdom now, not later.
I have addressed the second coming of Christ in JESUS: A THEOGRAPHY and in JESUS NOW. Whole chapters dedicated to the subject in both books.
Hi Frank,
Just a quick question. If ekklessia and church does not bear the same meaning why are you using it interchangeably?
I just need some sort of clarity if possible.
The Greek word in the NT “ekklesia” is most often translated “church” in our Bibles. However, what we understand “church” to be today is not what the NT authors meant by “ekklesia” (church).
I suggest you read REIMAGINING CHURCH which a book all about this subject. https://www.frankviola.org/books – most of my readers have read it, so no detailed explanation was needed about this point.
Dear brother Frank,
The concept of the kingdom of God seems often to be referred to by many folk as the literal ‘millennial’ reign of Christ on the earth – reigning directly from the location of the city of Jerusalem itself.
The rest of Revelation 5:10 does indeed mention ‘… And they will reign on the earth …” A footnote to that is that some manuscripts render ‘… they are reigning …’ NLT
I was wondering if you would expand on the context of Revelation 20:6, especially the second part, in sharing another myth of the kingdom:
‘… Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. For them the second death holds no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him a thousand years …’ NLT
It is interesting too me that even this reference (though figurative to me) mentions that believers would reign (together) with Christ for a thousand years. The same idea is mentioned in verse 4. There’s nothing mentioned there about Christ reigning directly from the city of Jerusalem itself …
Since I’ve had most of faith journey from a Stone-Campbell heritage and mindset, though have moved on since to a more Christocentric perspective, I’ve usually seen the number 1000 in Revelation 20, and the entire vision of John’s revelation itself, as written in symbolic and figurative language … and, amongst others, for addressing 7 congregations in Asia Minor … unveiling Him (this revelation) within their own first-century context.
Love in Christ,
Philip 😉
Philip, Revelation 20 is a separate issue from the topic at hand. Scholars differ on whether the 1,000 years is literal or figurative. I side with those who believe it’s figurative, as most of the numbers in Revelation are. But that doesn’t change anything.
Revelation 1 and 5 have application for today as 1 Peter 2 makes plain (comparing it to Exodus 19 – we are a “royal priesthood,” now, not just off into the nebulous future).
In previous posts, I’ve provided proof that the kingdom is already, but not yet. So it’s here now, just not in its fullness. This cannot be refuted. Just read the NT carefully on the kingdom, every reference, and that becomes clear.
The point of this being that it’s a major blunder to separate the kingdom from the ekkleia for the reasons I put forth. My upcoming book on the kingdom will go into more detail on this.
Frank, your article makes the subject clearly understandable. The only thing I don’t understand is why people make it controversial.
Daniel, thanks for “getting it.” What makes it controversial is that many people have a very hard time letting go of this myth. So it keeps being repeated and spread, despite that it’s been debunked. Hence, the need for me to address it yet again.
I’ll give you one example. In 2011, when I debunked it in a conference (and since, that message has been heard over 42,000 times from people all over the world), a few people in that very conference repeated the myth on social media sometime later.
In other words, they didn’t get it. That’s an example of the controversy.
Hmm, I am surprised that this is controversial. I never saw it any other way. I did not grow up going to any one “church” building or with one specific group of Kingdom people. I sought (and continue to seek) that which you write about Frank, His Kingdom here on earth where He rules and His people follow that rule. Through the years, I have experienced His Kingdom, His reign with His people in a variety of places, some of them unexpected! That is my King though, He is awesome to meet me where I am!
A controversy means that many people disagree on both sides. Just because you agree with it doesn’t mean it’s not controversial. I made some of the same points in my book “Pagan Christianity” with George Barna in 2008 and that book is STILL controversial, just as it was back then.