(1) “The church of Ephesus” in Revelation 2:1 is referred to as “the saints … at Ephesus” in Ephesians 1:1. Again, here is a local church (individual saints), but not a local church organization. If someone asked, “Is there a local church in that town?,” Paul would say, “Yes, there are saints living there.” They need not form themselves into an organization that can purchase and buy in its own name, own Real Estate, Bibles, songbooks, etc.
(2) Paul addressed “The saints at Philippi” in Philippians 1:1 and later writes, “no church but ye only…” (4:15). This proves that local churches were equal to the saints in that location. The fact that these saints gave to Paul does not require them to have formed an organization. Philippians 1:1 refers to elders and deacons which implies the recognition of certain individuals serving among God’s people. There can be no doubt that such men devoted themselves whether as deacons or elders, but there’s no indication of these men occupying a position in an organization that resembles a CEO with upper and middle management teams.
(3) We are not surprised, therefore, to see the phrase, “churches of the saints” (1 Cor. 14:33), a phrase synonymous to “the churches of Christ” (Romans 16:16). Since childhood, I had heard Romans 16:16 and had seen it posted on many signs outside the “church building.” But, do you think anyone would emphasize 1 Corinthians 14:33? Is it not because we saw a description in one the ekklesia made up of individual saints and a title in the other that defined a local church organization belonging to Christ.
(4) The apostle Paul writes of the ekklesia ‘te ouse en Korintho’, “the called-out who lived in Corinth” (1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:2), indicating saints living in the city. They were individuals living in Corinth who were added by the Lord. When Paul addressed the saints there, he addresses them as the “called out” of God in Corinth, and further describes them as being called “saints.” Translators added the words “to be” to give it some idiomatic sense, but the sense of it is that these individuals were saints by calling. Disciples of Christ are called out of something and called into something else. This suggests first a change, but also a new mission or purpose.
(5) Other examples of Christians living in particular cities and regions include the ekklesia (individual saints) living at Antioch (Acts 13:1) that had apostles, prophets, and teachers. There was an “ekklesia” in Cenchrea (Romans 16:1), Corinth (1 Cor. 1:2), and a region or area of churches such as “the churches of Galatia (Gal. 1:2) that consisted of Lystra (Acts 14:20-23), Iconium (Acts 14:20-23), Antioch of Pisidia (Acts 14:20-23), and Derbe (Acts 14:20-23). The lists that form the greetings in the New Testament letters is comprised of individuals, not local churches (cf. Romans 16, Colossians 4). Paul doesn’t write, “The Westside Church of Christ” salutes you. Instead, he names individuals some of which were in association with households.
(6) The disciples in Antioch of Syria, a home-base for Paul, determined to send relief unto the brethren that dwelt in Judaea (Acts 11:29-30). When Paul writes the letter to Galatia, he writes that he was unknown by face unto the ekklesias of Judaea (Gal. 1:22). Here, we have the churches in Judea identified as “brethren” who dwelt in that particular region. Nothing in this language demands the formation of local church organizations. The churches of Judea were the brethren that dwelt there.
(7) When the disciples were scattered from the persecution in Jerusalem, the Bible says that they were scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria. Brethren in Judaea not only lived in the city of Jerusalem. It seems these brethren of Judea were some of the same brethren who were previously living in Jerusalem. Do you suppose that when they fled Jerusalem to another town that they formed another local church organization so that others who came through could place their membership? Here are brethren who were living in Jerusalem when the persecution arose that scattered them through the region of Judaea. They kept preaching the word wherever they lived. Wherever the seed of the kingdom was preached, and souls were added to the saved (the called-out), the presence of “brethren” or “saints” were felt in that town. As we rightly say, “succession is in the seed.” For this reason, Paul and others who planted the seed were not “church planters.” They were “seed planters.” For this reason, we do not speak of “starting churches” or “planting churches.” That’s what you do when you want to establish another corporate church organization. In keeping with the New Testament pattern, we must conclude that the called out of Judaea were simply the “brethren that dwelt in Judaea” who had heard the word of truth which was the gospel of their salvation (cf. Eph. 1:13). The saved are the product of the seed, the Word of God.
(8) Finally, after the Jerusalem conference recorded in Acts 15, a letter was drafted that began, “The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia (v. 23). Upon leaving Jerusalem, they came to Antioch and “when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle: Which when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation. And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words and confirmed them (Acts 15:30-32). Yet, verse 41 speaks of Paul with his companion, Silas, going “through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the ekklesias.” Confirming the brethren and confirming the ekklesias are one and the same.
(9) Consider the description of the ekklesia(saints) in Antioch found in Acts 11.
(a) “And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a large number who believed turned to the Lord (v. 21).
(b) Barnabas “rejoiced and began to encourage them all with resolute heart to remain true to the Lord” (v. 23).
(c) “And considerable numbers were brought to the Lord” (v. 24).
(d) “And for an entire year they (Barnabas & Saul) met with the called out and taught considerable numbers, and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.
Regarding this same group in Antioch of Syria, Luke records in Acts 14:27, “And when they (Paul & Barnabas) were come and had gathered the ekklesia (called out)together, they rehearsed all things that God had done with them, and that he had opened a door of faith unto the Gentiles”. The text reads, “…and had gathered the ekklesia (called out) together.” There is an obvious reason for this togetherness that we will address later, but for the sake of establishing what a local ekklesia is, you will notice that the church need not be gathered together for it to be the church in that area. This supports the idea that Christians are so identified whether gathered or not just like a cow is a cow regardless of it being in the herd. We will do what saints naturally do as working individual units.
(10) A few passages use the phrase “in the church” in connection with their gathering. For example, Acts 14:19,28, 34-35 has women, tongue speakers and prophets speaking “in the church.” In the case of the first two, they were told to be silent in their meetings. These two classes of people within the broader classification (in the ekklesia) are told to be silent when they were all come together in one place. Acts 11:26 speaks of Paul bringing Saul to Antioch where a number of them “were gathered together in the assembly” (συναχθῆναι ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ). However, the reference to the Christians in Antioch coming together “in the ekklesia” neither refers to a corporate institution nor their church building.
Unlike “gathering the called out together” where the spiritual gathering or assembly (the church) is physically gathered, the passages that use “in the church” reverses the order and speaks of the physical coming together “in the eklesia” (the spiritual relationship). Again, if this ekklesia can refer to God’s people in a specific town, then the disciples can be gathered together in this relationship as God’s people or as this classification of the saved (more correctly, “the being saved ones”). They didn’t gather as fellow citizens of the city of Antioch or as fellow tentmakers but they gathered in the called out body of Christ. A similar use is seen in 1 Corinthians 11:18 with the further description of the saints in Corinth being gathered in one place (1 Cor. 11:20). Here is a specific reference to one place. This does not mean that when brethren gather, it must be in one place as that is not an exclusive pattern. However, it does prove that “the whole ekklesia” can and will come together in one place. Knowing the purpose for which they came together (“to eat”), Lukes’ description of the early called out in Acts 2:42 and Acts 20:7 of “breaking bread,” it would seem that early Christians who lived in the same town all gathered together in one place to eat the bread and drink the cup (1 Cor. 11:26-29). To gather in the ekklesia is the same as saying “to assemble in the assembly of God. Both are a reference to a physical gathering of the spiritual assembly (the ekklesia) into one place to eat. Acts 14:23 has “the whole ekklesia coming together into one place”. Therefore, the same thought is expressed in two different ways. Either, we may speak of (1) the ekklesia (the spiritual collectivity) coming together in one place (physically) or (2) we may reverse the order and speak of the coming together (physically) “in the church” (a spiritual collectivity). Either way is the same, but nothing in these texts support an institutional local church organization.
1 Corinthians 11:17-34 is quoted below with notations:
“Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together (ye =the disciples gathered together) not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye (the disciples) come together in the church (physically gathering in God’s spiritual gathering), I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one place (disciples physically gathered in one place), this is not to eat the Lord’s supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.
Someone might think that I am confusing the “local” church with the “universal” church. The reason for this accusation is that both share the same definition, with one exception. One is limited to a specific location. If there’s no corporate organization and the church are those called out of the world by the gospel, then that definition can be discussed universally or in a specific town where they live. Either way, the individuals, not corporate church organizations, compose it. Such individuals may be viewed as being part of the big picture or they may be viewed as belonging to a particular community of believers. Paul asked, “Or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not?” We are not using church, here, in the sense of the physical gathering, are we? He’s identified the poor people among them as the “ekklesia of God.”
To summarize, the assembly, like the assemblies of Ephesus, formed a class of people brought together by the call of the gospel, not by “church corporate membership”. We have presented the evidence that a called out body in any single location will be identified as the “ekklesia” (translated “church my majority of translators) who live in that particular city or as the “ekklesias” who live in a particular region. Yet, both only describe the brethren or individual saints who live in that city or region. The recognition of there being elders and/or deacons among them support such individuals committed to serving “one another” on a daily basis – each living according to their ability and opportunity.