House church or excuse?

[mfblume]

Esaias, in my opinion your commentary about Matt 18 did great until you got to the verse in question. Jesus is merely saying that if two or three do something IN HIS NAME, it's like Him personally being there. he is represented as being there in those two or three. It's not saying He is present Himself, since that is redundant. He is everywhere anyway, and He indwells us all anyway as well. But the reason that which is bound or loosed in earth is also so in heaven is because those in earth who do this in his name are AS GOOD AS HIMSELF being there and having done it. Its is not saying two or three can gather and He will bless us with His presence. For that matter, we can be alone and He is with us!

It is speaking in terms of proxy, He is in our midst by proxy if we do this in His way and in His name.

Paul said the same thing!

1 Corinthians 5:3-5 For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed, (4) In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, (5) To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

The power of Jesus is His authority, and that is what it means to do things in His name. It's putting us in the place of Jesus by proxy. We're doing this in His authority, and not our own.

When a policeman commands somebody to do something in the name of the Law, the law is not physically there except in the person of that officer. That is what Jesus mean by two or three gathering in His name and Him being present. By proxy.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Esaias, in my opinion your commentary about Matt 18 did great until you got to the verse in question. Jesus is merely saying that if two or three do something IN HIS NAME, it's like Him personally being there. he is represented as being there in those two or three. It's not saying He is present Himself, since that is redundant. He is everywhere anyway, and He indwells us all anyway as well. But the reason that which is bound or loosed in earth is also so in heaven is because those in earth who do this in his name are AS GOOD AS HIMSELF being there and having done it. Its is not saying two or three can gather and He will bless us with His presence. For that matter, we can be alone and He is with us!

It is speaking in terms of proxy, He is in our midst by proxy if we do this in His way and in His name.

Paul said the same thing!

1 Corinthians 5:3-5 For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed, (4) In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, (5) To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

The power of Jesus is His authority, and that is what it means to do things in His name. It's putting us in the place of Jesus by proxy. We're doing this in His authority, and not our own.

When a policeman commands somebody to do something in the name of the Law, the law is not physically there except in the person of that officer. That is what Jesus mean by two or three gathering in His name and Him being present. By proxy.

I wasn'tsaying Christ is only present if two or three are gathered together. I was speaking of the role and authority of the ekklesia, which is Christ's authority, which is in force in ecclesial matters when the church comes together for Kingdom business. One believer cannot exercise the authority given to the Body. That would be popery. So the believerS must gather as his Body to transact any official business, and the minimum number is two or three.

I believe the context shows Jesus was speaking directly to the concept of the minyan and the required quorum under Jewish tradition to "bind and loose". The ekklesia is not subject to the halacha of the rabbis. Ten are not necessary. Two or three is sufficient.

And this necessarily determines the minimum number for an ekklesia to exist.

Otherwise, what is the number? One? Twenty?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Esaias, in my opinion your commentary about Matt 18 did great until you got to the verse in question. Jesus is merely saying that if two or three do something IN HIS NAME, it's like Him personally being there. he is represented as being there in those two or three.

Not so. I notice that you didn't quote the text. Let's look at the text:

Matthew 18:20
For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Jesus didn't say, "it is like I am there in the midst of them". Jesus said, "there I am in the midst of them".

Sorry, I feel the Scriptures refute your notion of representative presence. Jesus is truly there to participate in the actions performed.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Not so. I notice that you didn't quote the text. Let's look at the text:

Matthew 18:20
For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Jesus didn't say, "it is like I am there in the midst of them". Jesus said, "there I am in the midst of them".

Sorry, I feel the Scriptures refute your notion of representative presence. Jesus is truly there to participate in the actions performed.

I studied this out in depth, and that doesn't mean I must be right, though. But I once agreed with you, but saw context refuting it. He is there in proxy. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. As I said, it would be redundant to say he actually is there in very presence, since the is everywhere and is with any given single believer, anyway.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I studied this out in depth, and that doesn't mean I must be right, though. But I once agreed with you, but saw context refuting it. He is there in proxy. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. As I said, it would be redundant to say he actually is there in very presence, since the is everywhere and is with any given single believer, anyway.

How is he 'present' with any single believer, and this not be 'redundant', since he is omnipresent to begin with?

Perhaps when he said 'there am I in the midst' he was not speaking of omnipresence, but of being 'present in authority/power'. The Holy Ghost is most definitely 'present' at times and in places, and at other times and places is definitely NOT 'present'. Yet, God is omnipresent at all times, in all places whatsoever. Thus, 'present' has more than one meaning.

In the text before us, 'present' is not referring to omnipresence, as in 'God is present everywhere anyway'. Nor is he merely being 'present' in the SAME SENSE that he is present with every believer who has the Holy Ghost 'in them'. It remains that he is present in some other way. 'By proxy' I think is not the way, because 'by proxy' actually means 'not really present'. He did not say 'my authority is present', but 'there *I am* in the midst'.

So I believe there is a middle way between the extreme of 'this refers to his actual location' on the one hand, and the other extreme of 'he is not really there anyway, he just has his proxies there representing him' on the other hand.

While it is true that when we act in the name of Jesus Christ, we act as his 'proxy' in a sense, what does this actually mean? Does it not mean that we are his proxies because He is spiritually present in us? Just as Christ was and is God's proxy because God is in him and operating through him, as a vessel or channel of authority? So we, the Body of Christ, are the 'physical presence of Christ on the earth'. Howso? Because Christ is in us AS A BODY. One member is not the Body, they are a part of the Body. The Body itself is the BODY of Christ in this world. Therefore, the Lord is present IN HIS BODY (the church), so the CHURCH is the 'proxy' in regards to carrying out government Kingdom functions (such as church discipline) precisely because Christ is present in the BODY, corporately.

And this corporate 'presence' is only possible when the members themselves have Christ in them, individually. A group of unregenerate men gathering in the 'name of Christ' is not the Body, obviously...

So it seems to me we all here are arguing for each of our particular viewpoint along a spectrum. Let's not lose sight of the spectrum, though, as if my particular locus or your particular locus or somebody else's particular locus is all there is to the spectrum.

'So there's this elephant, and a bunch of blind men are touching the elephant and trying to describe it...'

(Not saying anyone here is blind, the blindness is simply a necessary accidental for the parable to even make sense...)

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I studied this out in depth, and that doesn't mean I must be right, though. But I once agreed with you, but saw context refuting it. He is there in proxy. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. As I said, it would be redundant to say he actually is there in very presence, since the is everywhere and is with any given single believer, anyway.

There is an omnipresent aspect to God in Christ. However, there is God's "manifest presence". I believe that where ever two or more believers gather together for fellowship, Christ's manifest presence in body ministry can be experienced. I've experienced it myself.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Matthew 18:20
For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Note the "For" in Matthew 18:20. It is gar in Greek and is a preposition indicating causation, and can be and sometimes is translated "because". So, reading Matthew 18:20 as "Because where two or three are gathered together in my name, there I am in the midst of them" makes one realize that Matthew 18:20 is a conclusion on all the material that came before, and the material that came before is about church discipline, not a worship based communual meeting.

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/18-20.htm

http://biblehub.com/greek/1063.htm

HELPS Word-studies
1063 gár (a conjunction) – for. While "for" is usually the best translation of 1063 (gár), its sense is shaped by the preceding statement – the "A" statement which precedes the 1063 (gár) statement in the "A-B" unit.

NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
a contr. of ge ara (verily then)
Definition
for, indeed (a conjunc. used to express cause, explanation, inference or continuation)

So it's pretty clear Matthew 18:20 doesn't have anything to do with the saints getting together to praise the Lord and edify each other. Consider the following parable, which is all about forgiveness and reconciliation, and what happens when a brother doesn't forgive a brother. It's a reinforcement of the principle regarding church discipline.

There isn't any one Scripture that says how many it takes to qualify a meeting of the church. It could be two or three, it could be something else. But the Bible is silent on the matter, and Matthew 18:20 doesn't offer any additional insights, since it's not what the verse, or even passage, or even entire chapter, is about.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Note the "For" in Matthew 18:20. It is gar in Greek and is a preposition indicating causation, and can be and sometimes is translated "because". So, reading Matthew 18:20 as "Because where two or three are gathered together in my name, there I am in the midst of them" makes one realize that Matthew 18:20 is a conclusion on all the material that came before, and the material that came before is about church discipline, not a worship based communual meeting.

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/18-20.htm

http://biblehub.com/greek/1063.htm





So it's pretty clear Matthew 18:20 doesn't have anything to do with the saints getting together to praise the Lord and edify each other. Consider the following parable, which is all about forgiveness and reconciliation, and what happens when a brother doesn't forgive a brother. It's a reinforcement of the principle regarding church discipline.

There isn't any one Scripture that says how many it takes to qualify a meeting of the church. It could be two or three, it could be something else. But the Bible is silent on the matter, and Matthew 18:20 doesn't offer any additional insights, since it's not what the verse, or even passage, or even entire chapter, is about.

Is Christ's manifest presence for body ministry present only when two or more gather together for church discipline but not if they gather together for fellowship???

Sounds silly to me. If Christ is present for church discipline whenever two or three are gathered in His name, surely He's present if they gather to worship. Would you argue that He isn't???