While I have not been a regular participant here for quite some time now, I often return to see how things are progressing, and sometimes to look back through the list of old threads and how certain topics were addressed then.
I was reading something a couple of days ago (not on this forum) and the question of what constitutes a church came up. And, as is often the case, the "two or three gather in my name" idea was raised. While it was mostly ignored in what I was reading, I decided to see what we had done with the whole topic over the decade + that we have been here. And sure enough, there was a thread titled "
What is the New Testament Definition of a Church" that began on October 14, 2016. While the opening thread tended to indicate that the LC determination of what was a true church was at least partly the real thing to be considered, it did quote Matthew 18:20 as follows:
Quote:
What is the church?
. . . .
Matt 18:20 for where there are two or three gathered together -- to my name, there am I in the midst of them.'
|
The reason I was looking was that I noticed something in what I reading the other day that I was curious to see if it had come up before.
If you read the portion of Mathew 18 that includes this one verse, it is actually 6 verses (15 – 20). This is where Jesus tells the disciples about how to help another brother (or sister) with sin. You first tell them. If they don't listen you bring one or two more. If they still don't listen, you tell it to the church.
Let's see . . . me plus one or two = two or three. Yet we are not presumed to be the church and must then take it to the church if they still do not listen. So simply having Christ in our midst must not be synonymous with being (the/a) church.
I realize that this does not preclude that as being possible. But it would seem that if such a thing were intended to be commonplace, then bringing one or two more with you to confront the sinning brother/sister would often be the end of the story. No further "take it to the church" step required.
The point is not to say that two or three cannot be a church (in the assembly sense of the word), but rather that it does not appear that this was considered to be the normal case and the context of this popular verse would tend to support that conclusion. I admit to being a little hard-pressed to agree that two or three can be the church, and that I have always had a problem with the idea. But depending on practical circumstances, I would not say it is impossible. Just not a basic definition of the church.