Are we entering the House of God on Sunday?

[Deleted member 7239]

I hear people quoting the Psalms to remind us to rejoice as we go to the House of the Lord. Or that we are entering the presence of the Lord in Sunday worship. Not to discount singing Psalms today, but wouldn't this be a central issue?

How is this right/wrong considering we aren't actually entering the Temple or a sanctuary as the Psalmist/ OT people did?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Not exactly sure what your question is getting at, but...

Perhaps this thought will be useful. Worship is our foretaste of heaven. As Israel was called up to Jerusalem, so we are called to Zion, Heb.12:22-24, "Ye are come to Mt. Zion... the heavenly Jerusalem... to angels... to the general assembly and church of the firstborn in heaven... to God... to the spirits of the justified... to Jesus."

Calvin said that we go to heaven when we worship. We go "in the Spirit" on the Lord's Day. You cannot see it with the eye, but by faith it is a more glorious sight than your eyes will tell you. There is in true worship a cosmic-intersection of this world and the next; and afterward we come back to earth to live our lives, looking forward to the next feast; and ultimately to the wedding supper of the Lamb, which has no end.

Perhaps, this concept will change your perspective a bit on what's going on when we meet on the Lord's Day.

Blessings,

 

[Deleted member 7239]

The question is about the term "House of the Lord" and if we should or shouldn't be using this terminology when we speak about entering a church building or worship service.

So are you saying that when the Psalmist enters the house of the Lord he is speaking figuratively? He isn't referring to the brick and mortar temple?

I would say that if he is referring to a physical temple, then it would make sense that we can't really say we are going into the "House of the Lord" in the same way David meant it, right?

 

[Cymro]

From 1Tim3:15 it would still be legitimate to use the expression. The church (believers) is the house of God and wherever the church meets it is the house of God.

 

[Deleted member 7239]

Jesus' conversation (John 4:20-25) with the Samaritan woman speaks of a change in worship that took place when Christ arrived and the temple was destroyed. Wouldn't the end of the physical temple 1) end the physical House of God on earth and 2) be the end of us referring to any building as the House of God?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I can appreciate your reluctance to assign a "temple-designation" to any particular place in this world today. In the sense you mean it (or are taking others to mean), then yes, it is false to view any earthly geography or edifice as having the same sanctity as Israel's old Temple.

That doesn't mean we can't, or that it is wholly improper to refer to the time-and-place of our gathering as analogous to those past gatherings at the central shrine. Is.11:9 says, in language reminiscent of the Temple, "They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain, For the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord As the waters cover the sea." It was to be as Jesus declared it had come to be in himself, that the "holy mountain" has in effect "filled the whole earth," Dan.2:35.

If that is the case, and wherever the people of God meet, then there is the house of God and the gate of heaven, Gen.28:17. For the space of the hour of worship, God sets in his ladder, and makes then and there a Bethel. It is not the space, nor even its "dedication" by men that makes any building "holy" or a "sanctuary." But that God is willing to meet with his people--that is what makes our attendance at some earthly address into an attendance actually taking place elsewhere.

Our meeting in heaven is as REAL as was David's entrance to the Tabernacle up the street. Not for the sake of the physical construction, or even if we met out in the clear air someplace; but because we are "in the Spirit on the Lord's Day," Rev.1:10. Solomon realized that even the House he built was only an illustration of the real thing, 1Ki.8:27. To come to the Temple was itself, a way of attending higher in the Spirit. The presence of the Temple made Zion "the highest of mountains," Ps.68:15-16; Is. 2:2, higher than Hermon in the north, higher than Everest (if they had known it). For its service brought men of faith right out of the world of signs and into the reality.

I would sum it up this way: no, the church building is not inherently special or "the house of the Lord," as the OT temple was. But it can be a temporary and mystical house of meeting when we are together in the Spirit to attend the throne of grace, Heb.4:16; Rev.1:4.

 

[malcolmmaxwell60]

Yes. Hebrews chapter 10:24,25

Sent from my SM-G530T using Tapatalk

 

[Deleted member 7239]

Yes. Hebrews chapter 10:24,25

Sent from my SM-G530T using Tapatalk

Can you explain how those verses relate to this?

 

[Deleted member 7239]

I can appreciate your reluctance to assign a "temple-designation" to any particular place in this world today. In the sense you mean it (or are taking others to mean), then yes, it is false to view any earthly geography or edifice as having the same sanctity as Israel's old Temple.

That doesn't mean we can't, or that it is wholly improper to refer to the time-and-place of our gathering as analogous to those past gatherings at the central shrine. Is.11:9 says, in language reminiscent of the Temple, "They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain, For the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord As the waters cover the sea." It was to be as Jesus declared it had come to be in himself, that the "holy mountain" has in effect "filled the whole earth," Dan.2:35.

If that is the case, and wherever the people of God meet, then there is the house of God and the gate of heaven, Gen.28:17. For the space of the hour of worship, God sets in his ladder, and makes then and there a Bethel. It is not the space, nor even its "dedication" by men that makes any building "holy" or a "sanctuary." But that God is willing to meet with his people--that is what makes our attendance at some earthly address into an attendance actually taking place elsewhere.

Our meeting in heaven is as REAL as was David's entrance to the Tabernacle up the street. Not for the sake of the physical construction, or even if we met out in the clear air someplace; but because we are "in the Spirit on the Lord's Day," Rev.1:10. Solomon realized that even the House he built was only an illustration of the real thing, 1Ki.8:27. To come to the Temple was itself, a way of attending higher in the Spirit. The presence of the Temple made Zion "the highest of mountains," Ps.68:15-16; Is. 2:2, higher than Hermon in the north, higher than Everest (if they had known it). For its service brought men of faith right out of the world of signs and into the reality.

I would sum it up this way: no, the church building is not inherently special or "the house of the Lord," as the OT temple was. But it can be a temporary and mystical house of meeting when we are together in the Spirit to attend the throne of grace, Heb.4:16; Rev.1:4.

Good thoughts. I guess with all of those caveats we could call a meeting house the House of the Lord.

Maybe the confusing part is explaining how David meant the term House of the Lord one way, but we mean it another way. Unless we interpret that David wasn't actually speaking of the earthly copy/physical temple, but the actual one in glory where we all still worship today.

 

[Deleted member 7239]

A few examples:
"in the courts of the house of the Lord, in your midst, O Jerusalem. Praise the Lord!"
"I was glad when they said to me, “Let us go to the house of the Lord!"
"who stand in the house of the Lord, in the courts of the house of our God!"

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Give believers like David and Solomon credit for spiritual perceptions. Allow them the sensibility to appreciate both a sign (the physical Tabernacle/Temple) and the thing signified (heaven).

Hebrews 8:5 teaches that Moses understood he was copying by pattern what is present (in some form) in the heavenlies. If he knew that, then surely David and Solomon coming after him might also know it.

It's only if we deny to David and other Psalmists, and Israelites generally, anything beyond a dull, earthly vision, that those examples adduced have to be confined to what could be gathered by five senses in time/space.

True enough, a particular historic context supplies the original terms and analogies for the expressions; but these are taken up by every generation of the faithful thereafter. And while administrations change, the substantive realities do not.

It's like when we exchange one President for another in the USA; what's not supposed to change are the fundamentals of governance; even if policy varies tremendously. A later administration may use inherited expressions from a prior administration; the more legitimately if the appeal is not an attempt to recreate the original occasion, but to establish a second occasion on the same principled authority.

 

[Deleted member 7239]

I absolutely agree with you. There is a higher truth to all of the earthly old testament signs. Discussions like this help me become a better reader of scripture. So when David says that he will dwell in the house of the Lord forever, he is making a true statement although it is not an actual physical house/temple.

Maybe the heart of my question is how the old testament temple was a temporary type of the heavenly temple, but there isn't a new testament counterpart to that. Since the church itself is the same in the old and new testament the only thing that passed away was the physical building. The OT church wasn't a "type" of the NT church.

 

[Joseph Noah Gagliardi]

Matthew 18:20 "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." So yes, anywhere we meet to worship Him, be it a basement in China that one may share Christ, or in a steepled edifice in the U.S., we may rightly call the place of congregation, with the intended purpose to meet with God and sing His praises, the "House of God".

 

[lynnie]

1 Peter 2:5 says that "you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ."

We the people are the stones and we make the house. It is people, not a church building.

I should mention that it is rather difficult to be built together with other people if you are home alone. I would say the church building is a means to the end of the saints gathering as the spiritual house.

 

[Deleted member 7239]

1 Peter 2:5 says that "you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ."

We the people are the stones and we make the house. It is people, not a church building.

I should mention that it is rather difficult to be built together with other people if you are home alone. I would say the church building is a means to the end of the saints gathering as the spiritual house.

All of this was true of the OT church also, right? But there was a temporary actual building that was destroyed in 70 ad. So in a sense calling a building God's house in a figurative sense could have been done in the old testament as well. Would an NT Apostle have referred to meeting in a cave as "God's House"?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I don't think there would be any reason why a NT apostle couldn't have so referred. Paul writes to Timothy,

"but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." 1Tim.3:15.
​

He writes there about the church of living stones/souls, but he uses language "in the house." He seems to have in mind the church-collective, which would be a thing most visible when it was gathered together for worship.

That which would make the cave, or the upper room, or a meadow, or any assembly into a Bethel (Heb. "house of God," it is the name Jacob gave a stony patch of open ground, Gen.28:17) would be: meeting there with the Lord God.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

The Apostle Paul warns those creating divisions in the church with these words:

Know ye not that ye [i.e. "you all"] are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are. 1 Cor. 3:16, 17​

It is not the building they meet in, but they themselves which are the Temple of God on the earth in this present age.

Consider also the words of the Apostle in Ephesians 2:19-22

Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
​

So no matter where the Church of Christ gathers—whether in a typical church house, gymnasium, in a basement, or under a tree—where a true church is gathered—there is the House of God, there is the gate of heaven, there is the Temple made of living stones.

I think we should be careful to make it clear that we are refereing to the gathered people and not the builing when we use this language. For that reason, I don't call our church's building the "church." I call it the meetinghouse or the church house. But when I go to gather with God's people on the Lord's Day, I joyously exclaim with the Psalmist, "I was glad when they said unto me, Let us go into the house of the LORD."

Jesus, where'er thy people meet,
There they behold thy mercy-seat;
Where'er they seek thee, thou art found,
And ev'ry place is hallowed ground.​

​

 

[Deleted member 7239]

So would you say that when David said he was going into the House of God, he was speaking of an actual building?

And if that building doesn't exist today we can't really say that we are going into the house of God since the church the house of God as you say?

Also, would this mean that the Temple was a OT type that the NT church has fulfilled or has the church always been the House of God?

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

Of course David was referring to the actual tabernacle in Jerusalem. But as the Scriptures of the New Testament make clear, the tabernacle/temple was a type of the Church. So of course the language of the Psalms can and should be employed by the church, as it has in every age.

 

[Deleted member 7239]

Thanks for the replies.

The continuity of the church throughout all time as the household of God, or stones that build the church, is really a seperate issue to me than the idea that a physical church building becomes the House of God when multiple Christians inhabit it.

I don't think it's an Air Force One situation like when the president boards any aircraft it becomes Air Force One.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

No, there's no earthly real estate comparable to the Tabernacle/Temple location of the OT.

No analogy is perfect, but the AF1 seems serviceable to me. What don't you like about it?

 

[Deleted member 7239]

This whole stream of questioning came from wondering why we own church buildings at all and why they are so important. It seems like a huge expense for a few hours a week of use. I have heard preachers say that if we want to know our true priorities to look at our checkbook and I wonder if this applies to church budgets also.

I am trying to arrive at a biblical justification of church buildings. When a church budget consists mostly of building expenses and a relatively small amount goes to furthering the gospel and planting new churches it makes me wonder if the building has achieved a higher status that the Apostles would agree with and is counterproductive to the Great Commission.

Maybe owning a church building just comes with the territory. Maybe it is beneficial in more ways than its detrimental. One thing I do know is that the building itself isn't God's House, as if we are paying God's rent or something. The language of giving to God and giving back to God some of the money that he gives us has always not set right with me when I know that most of it goes to a building.

How am I thinking right or wrong about this?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I appreciate the clarification. For what it's worth, this thread was begun in the Covenant Theology forum, and I think maybe its more of a "practical theology" inquiry. Where you post can influence how the question comes across.

In spite of that presumed connection, I think you can still get some theological mileage out of the observations above. They should help your reflections on the whole.

There may be some criticism due to this or that church, a particular congregation or even denomination, over their choice of building and related expenses or other budgetary items. However, those criticisms are not applicable in a general way, as if (for example) any church with its own building is first under suspicion for its abuse of discretion.

Today, there's quite a bit of this virtue-policing going on in almost every area of life. It's rampant in politics; it's common in education; it's ubiquitous in the media; it's getting into the church. Lots of folks think they know how big the biggest family should be, or how small everyone's car should be. "Everyone's opinion should pretty much be what I, and my posse, have determined is the best." Yea, and if you're melanin-challenged, suspicion is due that you're racist, until proved* otherwise... and on it goes. (*to the appropriate authority)​

A building is a pretty convenient thing to have. And in many cases, it's not just a convenience, but a necessity. A place you never have to ask permission to access. A place you can have worship, Christian ed., Bible study, prayer meeting, weddings, a study, a library, funerals, get-togethers, communal meals, storage. The church is made up of individuals and families of various means and incomes. On whom do these demands fall, when there's no building? Someone gives it up. Someone bears an associated cost.

The building is a means to the end of all the above, for the life of the members. It can even supply the lives of future members, whose resources can be put to other ends, for the fact they already have a building and it only requires maintenance. A building may attract new members (and potential donors) because they think this outfit has a future. "These people are thinking long-term."

If there is no building, we still have to get facilities to meet, to prepare food, to store the hymnals, etc. Banks are a modern invention. Apostle Paul had to devote resources and planning to collecting a fund, 1Cor.16:3; 2Cor.8:11,20. At some point, you have either to pay for keeping such a gift in a safe, or the church must have its own. You need to appreciate that the church is an organization that is found in the world, and our circumstances and our decisions about what to do and how to get along while we're here, while maintaining our institutional identity, lead us into choices about how best to do these things.

There are Christian groups that adopt a philosophical approach that is "minimalist," or some such. They are fine, I don't oppose them or resent them in principle. I don't think they ought to judge another group up the road, who have a nice-looking building and a well-kept lawn, as if they were (obviously) less spiritually minded. The fact that it does happen just proves that its not only those putting wealth on display who are pretentious.

The Jews had synagogues (meeting in buildings) for centuries, before Christians basically formed a new synagogue. The same "biblical" and practical justifications for the former are still with us. We aren't in heaven yet.

The wrong priorities, misallocation of funds, investing holiness in some pile of brick, making people feel guilty for not giving more--these are just some of the abuses of financial and spiritual responsibility by which churches can err. But, I don't think one can criticize accurately the problems in any particular instance, until he's got some experience in handling similar responsibility.

In the meantime, you should make as wise a determination of where you devote your own limited contributions, based on the spiritual wisdom, trustworthiness, and maturity (as best you can determine it) of those who will be distributing what has been collected. God bless your decisions.

 

[Deleted member 7239]

I appreciate your efforts Bruce. It's a hard question to get to the center of. I considered it a covenant theology topic because the tithe and temple (House of God) are old testament concepts. How these translate into the new testament is tricky for me. Giving to God via the temple/Levitical priesthood makes sense, but giving to God via the new testament church isn't as clear cut since we don't have a clear definition of how that money should be spent like we do in the OT system.

Sometimes its hard to know the intent behind questions and I'm sure this is a topic that could hide an incorrect motive.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

The continuity of the church throughout all time as the household of God, or stones that build the church, is really a seperate issue to me than the idea that a physical church building becomes the House of God when multiple Christians inhabit it.

It seems like you are debating someone not in this discussion thread. No one here (unless I missed it) is arguing that the physical building in which a church meets is "the house of God." I certainly am not. We would all affirm the proposition that "Neither prayer nor any other part of religious worship, is now under the gospel, tied unto, or made more acceptable by any place in which it is performed" (BCF 22.6; WCF 21.6).

A gospel church is made up of visible saints. Not a building. Buildings may be very useful to a church, but they are in no way essential to the church. And I don't believe anyone here would disagree with that sentiment. Much of your line of questioning and discussion appears almost to project the opposite view upon those with whom you are interacting. But I may be misunderstanding things.

 

[Deleted member 7239]

I really am not trying to debate anyone. I just wanted to see what some of you thought on the topic of the idea of the church building being the house of God.

It seems like we all agree that the church is the House of God.

Not everything has to be a debate. Some things can just be a discussion to clarify a topic. Thanks for all of your help.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

I only said that it "seems" like you are. If that was the impression others took of my own line of questioning and discussion, I might reflect upon whether such a statement was fair and equitable. Our intentions are not always in agreement with our words and actions—at least in the judgment of others.

 

[Deleted member 7239]

I only said that it "seems" like you are. If that was the impression others took of my own line of questioning and discussion, I might reflect upon whether such a statement was fair and equitable. Our intentions are not always in agreement with our words and actions—at least in the judgment of others.

I'm sorry if it seemed like I was debating. i know the internet isn't always a great place for reading people's intentions. By posting the question I was hoping that you guys could help me think it through, as you have.

I think I have some missing pieces in my understanding of covenant theology that come with a lot of implications. I still honestly don't understand how we are using the term "House of God" as something we "go to" when we are the house itself. And how the OT church also was the House of God in the same sense.

I'll do some more reading on the topic.

 

[Deleted member 7239]

Also, for what it's worth, when you referenced the verse about those who attempt to cause division In the church I thought you were saying that the question I posed was divisive or I was trying to cause division by posing the question.

So all of us are open to misinterpretation.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

Also, for what it's worth, when you referenced the verse about those who attempt to cause division In the church I thought you were saying that the question I posed was divisive or I was trying to cause division by posing the question.

So all of us are open to misinterpretation.

I cited the verse because it had an immediate bearing on the question at hand. And my comments were limited to our present discussion. I never said anything about you being divisive. Nor do I think you are being divisive.

I still honestly don't understand how we are using the term "House of God" as something we "go to" when we are the house itself. And how the OT church also was the House of God in the same sense.

We say we are "going to" it, because every local church gathers in a definite geographical location to which its members must "go."

We do not believe the NT is the House of God "in the same sense" as the OT tabernacle/temple. If someone you know makes that claim, you should address it to them. No one here is making that claim. As said before, the OT tabernacle/temple was a type of the NT church (1 Cor. 3:16, 17; Eph. 2:19-22; Heb. 3:6; 1 Pet. 2:5).