Calvary Road Baptist Church
“THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST: ITS
METAPHORS (flock)”[1] Part 1
Earl Radmacher wrote,
“The
figure of the flock is one of the broadest in application of any of the figures
used of the church. In the Old Testament, Israel is called ‘the Lord’s flock’
(Jer 13:17; cf. Zech 10:3). Jesus referred to his small circle of disciples as
the ‘little flock’ (Luke 12:32). Again, the term is used of the church on
several occasions (cf. Acts 20:28; 1 Pet 5:3). In addition to these are the
repeated references to the sheep that compose the flock (cf. John 10:16;
21:15-17) and to the Shepherd of the flock (John 10:2-16; 1 Pet 2:25; 5:4; Heb
13:20). Although this figure is rich with potential for application, there are
a few things that deserve special note, for this figure is used to speak of
relationships within the church.”
Except for his misunderstanding the
church to mean everyone who is a Christian while I am convinced the church
refers to a congregation, I concur with his comment just read. Jeremiah 13.17
reads,
“But if ye will not hear it, my soul
shall weep in secret places for your pride; and mine eye shall weep
sore, and run down with tears, because the LORD’s
flock is carried away captive.”
Next, Zechariah 10.3:
“Mine anger was kindled against the
shepherds, and I punished the goats: for the LORD of hosts hath visited his flock the house of Judah, and
hath made them as his goodly horse in the battle.”
Jeremiah writing at the beginning of
the Babylonian captivity and Zechariah writing after the Babylonian captivity,
we see in the words of both prophets that the house of Judah is identified as
“the LORD’s flock” by Jeremiah and “the LORD of hosts hath visited his flock the
house of Judah” by Zechariah. Let us be careful to recognize that because the
house of Judah is characterized as the LORD’s
flock in the Old Testament by use of a figure of speech does not therefore mean
that using the same figure of speech in the New Testament necessarily mean that
the same thing is being referred to. I contend that the use of the flock
metaphor in the Old Testament and in the New Testament speaks more to the kind
of relationship the LORD exercises than it does to the
identity of the flock. This will become obvious as we proceed. A challenging
consideration arises when thought is given to the Lord Jesus Christ’s description
of His men as the “little flock” in Luke 12.32. Of course, this takes place
after the Lord Jesus Christ has called the twelve to be apostles, Luke 6.13. This
leads me to conclude, since the Lord Jesus Christ founded the church during His
earthly ministry, and since the first members of the church of Jesus Christ
were the apostles,[2]
that the phrase “little flock” is a fair representation of the church of Jesus
Christ when it was comprised of but twelve men recently selected.
Does the Lord Jesus Christ by His use
of the word flock when He addressed His apostles mean that they are “the Lord’s
flock” in the same sense as the house of Judah when so labeled by the prophets
Jeremiah and Zechariah? Keep in mind that the church in Ephesus was identified
as “the flock” by the Apostle Paul in Acts 20.28, though they were undoubtedly
a mostly Gentile Christian congregation:
“Take heed therefore unto yourselves,
and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to
feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.”
Consider as well the Apostle Peter’s
use of the term in First Peter 5.1-3:
1 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an
elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the
glory that shall be revealed:
2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the
oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy
lucre, but of a ready mind;
3 Neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but
being ensamples to the flock.
How can Peter’s comments not be in
reference to a particular congregation of Christians, since elders cannot feed all
of Christianity, and because Peter refers to that “which is among you”? How can
elders be examples to the flock if the flock is everywhere and not rather a
local congregation? As well, how can elders take oversight over all Christians?
No, this concept of the flock is meaningful only when referring to a congregation
or congregations and not to all sheep everywhere. All sheep everywhere is not a
flock in anyone’s thinking. Therefore, congregations are rightly understood to
be flocks of God and a church is the flock of God.
The question, remember, is whether
“the LORD’s flock” in Jeremiah and “his flock”
in Zechariah, though using the same figure of speech is referring to the same
thing in the New Testament. Is the house of Judah in the Hebrew scriptures the
same thing as a New Testament church congregation? Granting that the same
figure of speech is used with both, the notion of the flock, is the Old
Testament usage and the New Testament usage of that figure of speech therefore
the same? To help us answer the question I would like to compare and contrast
what we conclude from our study of God’s Word about the nation of Israel and
the church of Jesus Christ:
The
distinctions between Israel and the church.
J. Dwight Pentecost
has summarized in his classic work Things To Come what Lewis
Sperry Chafer has set forth in his famous Systematic Theology,
listing twenty-four contrasts between Israel and the church of Jesus Christ
which show us conclusively that these two groups can not be united into one,
but that they must be distinguished as two separate entities with whom God is
dealing in a special program. These contrasts may be outlined as follows:
(1) The extent of Biblical revelation:
Israel is dealt with in nearly four-fifths of the Bible; the church of Jesus
Christ is dealt with in about one-fifth of the Bible.
(2) The Divine purpose: Israel is the
beneficiary of the earthly promises of the Abrahamic, the Palestinian, the
Davidic, the New, and the Mosaic covenants; the church of Jesus Christ is the
beneficiary of the heavenly promises in the gospel.
(3) The seed of Abraham: With respect to
Israel the seed of Abraham is his physical seed, of whom some become a
spiritual seed; whereas with the church of Jesus Christ a spiritual seed is in view.
(4) Birth: With respect to Israel a
physical birth occurs that produces a blood kin relationship with those
descendants of Abraham who are also in covenant with God; whereas with respect
to the church of Jesus Christ a spiritual birth occurs that establishes a
relationship with Christ as a precursor to church membership.
(5) Headship: With Israel father Abraham
is the patriarchal head of the covenant nation; in the church of Jesus Christ
it is the Lord Jesus who is the head of the church.
(6) Covenants: Israel is in covenant with
God through the Abrahamic and all the subsequent covenants; the church of Jesus
Christ is indirectly related to the Abrahamic and the New covenants.
(7) Nationality: Israel is one nation;
the church of Jesus Christ is comprised of members from all nations.
(8) Divine dealing: Israel is dealt with
by God on both a national and an individual basis; the church of Jesus Christ
is dealt with by God on a congregational and an individual basis.
(9) Dispensations: Israel is seen in
scripture in all ages from the time of Abraham; the church of Jesus Christ is
seen in scripture only in this present age.
(10) Ministry: Israel has been engaged in no
missionary activity and has been given no overt gospel to preach; the church of
Jesus Christ has been charged with the Great Commission to fulfill and has been
given the gospel to proclaim.
(11) The death of Christ: Israel bears
national guilt for rejecting Christ and will someday be saved by Him; the
church of Jesus Christ is comprised of those now saved on the merits of
Christ’s sacrifice.
(12) God the Father: Israel is related by a
peculiar relationship with God as the rejected Father to the nation;[3]
those who are members of the church of Jesus Christ are related individually to
God the Father through faith in His Son Jesus Christ.
(13) Christ: Toward Israel the Lord Jesus is
as yet the unrecognized Messiah, Immanuel, and King;[4] the
church of Jesus Christ owns Jesus Christ as Savior, Lord, Bridegroom, and Head.
(14) The Holy Spirit: Several men in Israel
had some experience with the Spirit when He came upon them temporarily; those
in the church of Jesus Christ are continually indwelt by the Spirit.[5]
(15) Governing principle: Israelites
beginning with Moses were under the Mosaic Law system until Christ’s
crucifixion;[6]
the church of Jesus Christ is guided by the principle of grace.[7]
(16) Divine enablement: The nation of Israel
was provided with no ongoing and usual supernatural enablement but was
commanded to keep the Law; the church of Jesus Christ is enabled by the
indwelling Holy Spirit.
(17) Two farewell discourses: The nation of
Israel was given the rejected Savior’s Olivet discourse; the church of Jesus
Christ comprised of the apostles was given the upper room discourse.
(18) The promise of Christ’s return: The
Lamb of God who was slain will visibly return to Israel in power and glory as
the Lion of the tribe of Judah and as the King of kings and Lord of lords for
judgment at the time of His second coming; the church of Jesus Christ will be
caught up to meet the Lord Jesus Christ in the air seven years before His
Second Advent in the Rapture.[8]
(19) Position: Israel occupies the position
of a servant; the church of Jesus Christ occupies the position of members of
the family.
(20) Christ’s earthly reign: Israel will be
His subjects during the millennial kingdom; the church of Jesus Christ will be
co-reigners with Him during His millennial kingdom reign.
(21) Priesthood: Israel had a priesthood;
the church of Jesus Christ is a priesthood.
(22) Marriage: Israel is the LORD’s unfaithful wife;
the church of Jesus Christ is our Lord’s bride.
(23) Judgments: Israel must face judgment;
the church of Jesus Christ has been delivered from all judgments, with the
Judgment Seat of Christ being a time of rewards.
(24) Positions in eternity: Israel is
comprised of the spirits of just men made perfect in the new earth; the church
of Jesus Christ will be the church of the firstborn in the new heavens.
These clear
contrasts, which show the distinction between Israel and the church, make it impossible
to identify the two in one program. Therefore, the flock figure of speech in
the New Testament does not refer to the same entity as the flock figure of
speech in the Old Testament.[9]
[1] While I am convinced the New Testament does not support his understanding of the church, I am indebted to Earl D. Radmacher, What The Church Is All About: A Biblical And Historical Study, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1978, reprinted from 1972 Western Conservative Theology Seminary edition originally titled The Nature Of The Church), pages 298-307.
[2] 1 Corinthians 12.28
[3] 1 Samuel 8.7
[4] Acts 2.22-23
[5] Romans 8.9; Ephesians 1.13-14
[6] Deuteronomy 5.1-3; Romans 3.19
[7] John 1.17
[8] 1 Thessalonians 4.13-18
[9] I have modified to reflect my own convictions excepts from J. Dwight Pentecost, Things To Come, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1958), pages 201-202 and Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol. IV, (Dallas, TX: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948), pages 47-53.
Question? Comment?
Would you like to contact Dr. Waldrip about this sermon? Fill out the form below to send him an email. Thank you.