Introduction

            In nearly two thousand years of church history, there have been an estimated 50 million martyrs. Many "loved not their lives unto death" because of their faithfulness to the local New Testament Church. There are many today in countries where true biblical Christianity is hated who continually endanger themselves week by week as they seek to "forsake not the assembling of themselves together" in a local assembly for worship as God has commanded.
            So why is there such a low esteem for the local church in present day Christendom? Many today in evangelical circles see no need to be committed to a local assembly. The doctrine of the local church has come to mean very little among professing Christians today. As a result many are guilty of despising the church of God.
            In this work we will to deal with this important subject. Our title -"Despise Ye the Church of God?" is taken from Paul's words in 1Cor. 11:22. The word "despise" in this verse has a different meaning today. To understand the reasons for a low regard for the local assembly, a summary of the meaning of this verb translated "despise" will shed some light on the force of Paul's statement. The word in Greek is a compound word that means to think down upon. It's a combination of two words that mean "to think" and "down". A verse that will help us is in Matt. 6:24 where our Lord says that no one can serve two masters for he will "hate the one and love the other; or else he will hold to one and despise the other". There is our word "despise".
             To get the full meaning notice how our Lord contrasts "hate and love" and then "hold to and despise". Just as "hate" and "love" are opposites here so are "hold to" and "despise". The word translated "hold to" is translated "support" in 1Thes. 5:14 where we are told to "support the weak". When Jesus used this word in contrast to the word "despise" he was saying that to have two masters is to give support to one and at the same time to look or think down with contempt to the other-to regard it with little significance. If you met two people you knew years ago and one was a very successful and famous person and the other was an insignificant person and you showed favor to the rich person and paid little regard to the other, this would be despising the latter.
            This is the meaning here in 1Cor. 11:22. Paul uses the word in  1Tim. 4:12 telling Timothy "let no man despise thy youth". Let no man look down upon your youth with little regard, or belittle it. The clearest meaning we can put on it is to have a low esteem of or refusing to support something or someone.
            One of the reasons for little regard for the local church is the false concept that all Christians are automatically upon conversion a member of some universal invisible church. Ask some of those that are freelance Christians why they are not a member of a specific church and the answer you may get is "I am a member of the true church" referring to this supposed universal invisible church.
            It is beyond the scope of this work to deal with the error and origin of the invisible church as it is abused today. The idea however, of an invisible church is quite common in evangelical Christianity even though Scripture never uses the term the way it is abused today. The late John Murray, who was a professor at Westminster Theological Seminary,and one of the ablest biblical scholars of this century said this regarding the idea of an invisible church:

"..there are those aspects pertaining to the church that may be characterized as invisible. But it is 'to the church' those aspects pertain, and 'the church' in the New Testament never appears as an invisible entity and therefore may never be defined in terms of invisibility. This is why....the advisability of the use of the term 'invisible' has been questioned. It is a term that is liable to be loaded with the misconceptions inherent in the concept 'invisible church', and tends to support the abuses incident thereto." Collected Writings pp.234

            Professor Murray came to the heart of the matter in this statement. Because of this nebulous concept of an invisible entity some have come to think that any gathering of a few freelance Christians constitutes a biblical New Testament Church. This is very convenient since there is no tangible way to support an invisible church as oppose to a specific assembly. If you press the concept of a specific assembly home to their conscience, you may be told "that is churchianity not Christinaity". The fact is that there is a true biblical churchianity.
            Does the scripture ever use the term church for a few freelance Christians gathered together outside of a specific assembly. The word "ekklesia" appears in the New Testament some 115 times. One hundred of those times it is a specific assembly or assemblies that are in mind. The other remaining times include a secular gathering in Acts 19 translated as "assembly" three times. The remaining 12 times the word is used have caused much debate. It is not the intention of this work to examine whether the remaining uses are speaking of the church as an institution generically or the church universal as all the New Testament churches collectively or eschatalogically as the sum total of God's elect. We will deal only with the the word at it refers to specific assemblies and the individual Christian's responsibility to be committed to one.
            Before proceeding the reader needs to ponder a few questions. Do you think little of the Church of God or do you support it? Do you support it with you attendance? with your commitment in membership? with your cheerful giving? with you gifts in the ministering to the saints? These are various ways that one can "despise" the church of God. Jesus said "he who is not with me is against me; and he who gathereth not with me scattereth  abroad." Matt. 12:30. What are you doing? Gathering into his church or scattering?
            There are many manifestations of this despising of the church of God today in addition to those that have not committed themselves to specific assemblies in church membership. Although this is one of the most serious of its manifestations, there are other ways that this attitude is manifested. There are four specific areas we will examine. As a foundation we will first look at the terms that the New Testament uses to describe the local assembly. Then we will look at the first manifestation of this despising of the church in the importance of the local church and the administration of the Lord's table; secondly, church discipline; thirdly, the local assembly and the worship of believer and their sanctification. All of these will be dealt with showing the importance of the local assembly in their function. In these three areas we will examine verses showing that a few freelance Christians are never in mind when the term "ekklesia" is used.

The Temple the Bride and the Body

            What terms are used for the local assembly and what is the significance of their use? God has chosen to use terms that emphasize important aspects of the local church. In observing the uses, we can see how important God views the local church. Are we being harsh when we ask if a professing Christian is despising the local church? The apostle Paul used stronger language in the the third chapter in the epistle to the Corinthians. He uses one of our three biblical pictures of the church-namely the temple. He said "if any man defile the temple of God him will God destroy". A look at that text will show that it was the local assembly that Paul was referring to. Was Paul referring to either the individual Christian or some invisible entity?

Let us look at the text:

16. Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and [that] the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? 17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which [temple] ye are.

Some say that Paul is not speaking of the church but the Corinthians as individuals as he does in 1Cor. 6:19. In this text we should note that the word "ye" is plural not singular referring to them as a corporate body. As we examine this third chapter we will see that he cannot mean some invisible entity.
            In the first three verses of the chapter Paul is pointing out that there is a party spirit among the people in Corinth. In verse 4 he tells them why he says they are acting like the unconverted. In the fifth verse he focuses on these preachers that have been the objects of this party Spirit:

5. Who then is Paul, and who [is] Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?

He points out that the faith that was brought about by the preaching of the Word came from God. He makes the statement in verse 6 that he planted and Apollos watered but it was God that caused the increase. What did Paul plant? The gospel in Corinth as we read in Acts 18. Then Apollos watered by building upon that which Paul planted. The context is the different work each preacher does in the planting of the gospel and the starting of a local church. In verse 8 he is still speaking of the ministers when he speaks of rewards received. The next verse begins with the subordinating conjuction "For":

9 For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, [ye are] God's building.

This must be looked at in the light of the previous verses. He says that the planter and the waterer are one (verse 8) BECAUSE we (us preachers) are laborers TOGETHER WITH God. Then he says that the Corinthians are God's field and God's building. The word for building is the word used in Eph. 2:21 "In whom all the BUILDING fitly framed together growth unto an holy temple in the Lord." conveying the concept of the local church pictured as a building.
            In the 10th verse Paul is speaking of his laying the foundation of a work of the gospel and another coming and watering upon that work:

10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.

The following verses, 11-15, have nothing to do with the individual's reward but it has to do with the rewards of the ministers of the gospel. His whole subject up to this point is the work of the ministry in the planting and the watering. That is why in verse 14 he says "if any man's WORK (singular not WORKS) is burned up....". There is only one work in this context and that is the work of the gospel. There are many references that show the singular is used for the work of the gospel. Acts 13:2, 14:26, 15:38; Rom. 14:28; 1Cor. 15:58, 16:10; Eph. 4:12; Phil. 2:30; 2Tim. 4:5. In all these instances the work is the gospel.

We should keep this in mind when looking at the next verse:

16. Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and [that] the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

Paul just got done speaking of how each man should be careful how he BUILDS THEREON in verse 10. Here in verse 17 look at the warning:

17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which [temple] ye are.

The whole context has been that of the work of the servants of God in the work of the gospel. Although elsewhere we do read that the body of a Christian is a temple that is not the context here as can plainly be seen. When Paul says that God will destroy the one that defiles the temple we can see the importance that is put on the local assembly.
            For those not convinced that the temple in these verses is the local church need only ask whether or not anyone can defile God's spiritual temple. Unless one is prepared to say that the physical temple is what is meant here the only other temple that can be defiled is the local assembly. This defiling of the temple of God can only be done by those that despise the church of God. This is done by having a low esteem as to the importance that God puts upon it.
            What is the implication of this term "the temple" for the church? What does it signify? The use of the term "temple" or "building" emphasizes the builder and chief cornerstone Christ himself. In addition it points to the chief occupant the Holy Spirit who resides in believers corporately as well as individually. This is being conveyed as existing in the New Testament assembly.
            Our second illustration that the Bible uses for the local church is the bride of Christ. We see from Eph. 5 that the sum total of God's elect is called the bride. But is a specific church ever called the bride of Christ? In 2Cor. 11:2 we read of the Corinthian church:

2 Corinthians 11
2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present [you as] a chaste virgin to Christ.

Paul has been vindicating himself against the false apostles and authenticating his apostleship in chapter 10. In verse 1 of chapter 11 he asks them to bear with him in this. Paul gives the reason in verse 2 of his godly jealousy over them. He uses the illustration of their being a chaste virgin espoused to Christ. This concept of the espoused virgin should be familiar to many. When a couple was espoused it was not like the modern day engagement because to break it off one needed to get a divorce. This was what Joseph was going to do to the Virgin Mary before the angel appeared to him as recorded in Matt. 1:19-20. Paul considered himself the spiritual father of this particular congregation as he states in 1Cor. 4:15. He was concerned for their purity as a father would be for his daughter who was betrothed. But this is said to that specific local assembly as a corporate body. He does not say they are part of the bride. That is true but each local church is treated as a betrothed bride in microcosm. Each local church is to be a reflection of the bride of Christ as it will be gathered in glory at the marriage supper of the lamb. The term bride shows the bond that exists between Christ and His corporate people and their divorce from the world. A local church should be a reflection of that in its purity and commitment to Christ.
            The third area is that of the term "the body of Christ". We read in Eph. 1:22-23 that Christ is head over "all things to the church which is his body." But in 1Cor.12 we have an example of a body of specific believers in a specific assembly referred to as a body of Christ. We read in verse 27 that these Corinthians are literally "a body of Christ" not "the body of Christ. The word "body" here does not have the definite article "the" so therefore it is more accurately "a body". The context of this passage cannot be speaking of the body of Christ as the sum total of all of the elect. In verse 26 we read "and whether one member suffer all the members suffer with it.." When a member of the universal body of Christ is suffering on the other side of the world do all the members suffer? Obviously not. The context is that specific assembly.
            But an obvious question that arises is does Christ have more than one body? Of course not but each local church is a representative body, a concrete expression of the universal body of Christ as it will be joined together in glory. The use of the term "body" is to emphasizes the unity of the members together as that of an actual human body. In addition it shows the importance of the Holy Spirit as the life giving principle and the headship of Christ himself.
            In these three aspects, the temple, the bride and the body we see how important Christ deems the local church in the fulfilling of his purposes. Any professing Christian serious about biblical truth should begin to see the seriousness of despising the church of God and the importance of supporting it.
            There is one final aspect of the church to examine before proceeding further in our study of the local church. One passage that Roman Catholics like to quote is the verse that says the church is the pillar and ground of the truth. They ask if a local church be the pillar and ground of the truth.

Lets look at that passage:

1 Timothy 3
14. These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly: 15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

To undeerstand the passage we need to examine the context. He says that he is writing this letter so: "thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God,". If he was talking about some universal institutional organization like that of the Church of Rome or some universal invisible nebulous entity that would be quite strange. If Paul was speaking of those to whom apostolic succession would reside then the instruction should be to the forerunners of the papacy and how they should act. The same is true if it is to some invisible entity the instruction would then correspond to that in giving instruction on how freelance Christians should act. Lets again ask "what saith the Scripture?" What in fact did Paul deal with in this letter?

            These deal with conduct in a local assembly showing how to conduct ourselves in the house of God. A local church is a pillar and ground of the truth as long as it upholds that truth which is the Word of God. When a church resorts to man made tradition, then it is no longer a pillar and ground of the truth, Be that the pagan tradition of Rome or the tradition that cannot be backed by Scripture.
            Why were theses examples addressed? Is it necessary to see these various pictures of the church? In these illustrations, we see the importance that God puts on the local church. If God chooses to use the same examples to describe the local church that he uses to describe the church in at the consummation of the age, it will help us to see the importance of a commitment to the local church.
            A biblical example showing the two usages of a word in the New Testament will help us to understand this concept. In two portions of the New Testament the noun 'episunagoge' is used. This is a noun which has its root in the verb form which is used elsewhere. The two uses are 2Thes. 2:1 "gathering together" and Heb. 10:25 "assembling...together". This word is from two Greek words "assemble"-'suagoge' (where we get synagoge) and "to"-'epi'. The interesting thing in this word's usage is that in Hebrews the word is referring to the coming together in the local assembly, but the usage in 2 Thess. is referring to the day when Christ comes and gathers all his elect of all the ages to himself. Just as each Lord's day God's people come together out of the world to meet him in a special place for worship, so will all of his elect do that at the consummation of the ages. That is the reason that the Holy Ghost chose to use terms for the local church that are used for the sum total of the elect of God. So each Lord's day morning when a child of God leaves his home and heads out to gather in the local assembly it is a picture of the day when that trumpet sounds and all of the elect of all the ages will be summoned home to gather to the "church of the Firstborn..." in glory. Would you dear reader, despise that day?
            This concept will help us answer those that defend the idea of the invisible church saying that Jesus is said to have died for the church Eph. 5:25. Doesn't this mean that all of his elect are part of the church? Yes it does but as we have shown this is speaking eschatalogically in the sense that all for whom Christ died were included in that church. Even those of the elect that are not yet saved are part of that church. That will be realized in glory where we will all be gathered together.

The Local Assembly and the Lord's Table

        Now we come to the Lord's table and the local assembly as Paul dealt with it in 1Cor.11. Here Paul is rebuking these Corinthians for their abuse of the Lord's table. Since we know that the term "church", Greek "ekklesia", never means the building as we use it today this passage will clear up any notion that any group of Christians at any time constitute a church. This is important in our text because if Paul was not referring to a building when he asks this question to the Corinthians then what did he mean?

1 Corinthians 11
17. Now in this that I declare [unto you] I praise [you] not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. 18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.

We see here that Paul uses the phrase "come together in the church". What is Paul meaning when he says "in the church"? He is stating that there is a problem in this specific assembly when they come together as a corporate body. He shows that coming together for a specific purpose as God designates constitutes a church.

He then goes on to expound on it:

19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. 20 When ye come together therefore into one place, [this] is not to eat the Lord's supper. 21 For in eating every one taketh before [other] his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.

Here he mentions the abuse of the Lord's table. Some were making gluttons of themselves and some were over indulging in the wine. They were not coming as they gathered as a church to take the Lord's Supper for the purpose designated . They were actually using it as a time to get a free meal and some were even getting drunk. It is in this setting that Paul makes this statement:

22 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.

This is a very important distinction that needs to be made here. He first asks the question "have ye not houses to eat and to drink in?" and this is contrasted with "or despise ye the church of God?" He has shown a clear distinction between these same Christians gathering together in someone's house as opposed to gathering as a church. Since the building was not what was meant what did he mean?
            A modern illustration may help us to understand. Suppose there are 12 men and women on a jury. While sitting in the jury room where they are suppose to be discussing the case they instead discuss something other than the evidence to determine if the person is guilty or innocent. Instead the bailiff hears them talking about insignificant facts of the case but not with the intent of determining the defendants guilt or innocence. Upon entering the room the bailiff says "you have a lunch hour where you can gather together and discuss theses other matters. Do you have such little regard for the jury?" What would he be saying? He would be telling these 12 jurors that if they gather together for some other reason they may be members of that jury but they would not be obligated to be doing the specific function they are called to do as a jury. What Paul was telling these Corinthians was that if they as individual Christians wanted to have a meal together and feast do not do it when gathering as a church. He is clearly implying that these same people gathered elsewhere would not constitute a church. A church gathers for a specific purpose.
            Before leaving this passage let us take note of a practical observation from this portion of Scripture. We learn from this text that the Lord's table was a church ordinance and not something that individuals could take by themselves. If that were the case Paul's question is bled of its force. The whole idea was that they were gathering for a specific purpose something they would not do in their own houses as he states in the beginning of verse 22. This very church may have even been meeting in someone's house which was the case during the early church. The place they met was not what constituted a church but the purpose for which they met. Dear reader how do you treat the Lord's table? If a church dare practice either closed or restricted communion, limiting the taking of the elements to church members be it that particular assembly or sister churches as well, how would you react? If you are not a member of a local assembly would you take exception to this biblical practice? If you are a member would you take exception if a friend or relative who was not a member of a local assembly was denied the taking of the elements? This is a manifestation of despising the church of God. If this is in fact a church ordinance shouldn't it be for those who are members in good standing of local New Testament church?

The Local Assembly and Church Discipline

            The next area to examine is church discipline as Jesus spoke of in Matt. 18. A verse from this section is used by many to try to prove that a few Christians together at any time constitute a church. They say "doesn't the Bible say 'where two or more are gathered in my name there I am in the midst of them'?" Some will quote this verse unaware of its context. Just ask the person to quote the previous verse and chances are they won't know it. If they had they would not have quoted this text to try to prove freelance Christianity. A careful look at this passage and what it means by "in my name" will show that a couple of individual Christians do not constitute a church.
            Here we read that if a brother who sins against us we are to go to him and tell him his fault. If he doesn't listen we are to take another brother or two to rebuke him. Then if he doesn't listen to them "tell it unto the church". What we have here is possibly four Christians (the original two and the two additional ones brought to rebuke the sinning brother) which do not constitute a church else why say "if he neglect to hear them tell it unto to the church"? He did not say "tell it to the rest of the church." Jesus is clearing showing that the church is something other than just four Christians together. In addition to that Jesus tells us that if they won't hear the church we are to treat them as a "heathen and a publican". So to be outside of the church is to be as the unsaved.
            This is important to note because in verse 20 where Jesus says "For where two or more are gathered in my name..." he is saying that in the context of excommunicating the sinning brother. If you only read the context and you will see that this is where Jesus gives the church the authority to exercise discipline with the express purpose of bringing the person to repentance. We see the outworking of this in the 1Cor. 5 passage with the person caught in immorality. Does this mean that being in a church save us? NO! We do not have the power to cast someone out of salvation no more than we can literally deliver someone unto to Satan 1Cor. 5:5. But to be outside of the local church is to be AS the unsaved.
            The idea of church discipline is an important church function and another area of church truth that many despise. There are many professing Christians who although members of a specific assembly, nonetheless look with disdain upon the idea of church discipline. This as well is despising the church of God. Christ has set up the institution of the local assembly for a specific purpose and this was one of them. Since He is head of His Church He must dictate church polity.
            We see from this text that Jesus assumes a brother in Christ will be under the authority of a local church else why say "tell it unto the church"? Many professing Christians today do not see the need to be accountable to anyone. This is just a manifestation of a rebellious spirit. This is not only a duty but a privilege and a blessing. Many don't see that it is a help in dealing with our remaining sin. The church is there to help build us up in the faith "Till we all come in the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ" Eph. 4:13.
            Dear reader how do you look at the biblical doctrine of Church discipline? Would you take exception to the rebuke of a brother? Would you rather find a church with either no discipline or very little exercise of it? Would you find it impossible to excommunicate a sinning professing Christian? If so you despise the church of God?

            The third and final area we will look at is a combination of both the worship of the believer and his or her sanctification. The passage we want to look at is in Hebrews 10 starting at verse 19.
            What we have here is a three- fold extortion to believers in verses 22-24 all beginning with "let us". "let us draw near ... let us hold fast....let us consider one another". These three duties are sandwiched between the believers privileges in Christ and the sphere in which these duties are to be carried out. It is this second one, the sphere, that will show how this relates to the local assembly.
            The writer to the Hebrews states in verse 25 that we are not to "forsake the assembling together of ourselves". To understand the significance of this and how the three exhortations relate to the local church we need to examine another portion of Scripture.
            Since the first privilege of the believer is related to entering into the holiest with Christ we need to look at what the New Testament counterpart to the Old Testament Holiest of Holies is. We are told that we now have boldness to enter the holiest of all which only the high priest in the Old Covenant was able to. Since Christ made a once for all sacrifice we now can enter the holiest. This word "boldness" has a few meanings one of which means to speaking plainly. In John 10:24 it is translated "plainly". Here it means if thou art the Christ tell us PUBLICLY. We have this public non-concealing access into the holiest.
            It is this aspect of the believers privilege that we will look into. To do this we need to examine what happened on Pentecost and how it relates to the Old Testament.

Acts 2
1. And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

There are various interpretations to this passage and it is beyond the scope of this work to deal with all of them. To get a clear understanding of this passage it must be examined in the light of similar Old Testament passages.
            Many believe that this was the birthday of the church but the church was fully functioning prior to Pentecost. What did they have prior to Pentecost that constituted a church? They had the ordinance of baptism instituted at the start of the gospel in Mark 1. John's baptism was significant because we read that in Acts 1:21-22 Peter stating that in choosing someone to replace Judas the man had to be among them "beginning from the baptism of John, unto the same day that He was taken up." There is significance that at the "beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ" in Mark 1:1 we have Johns baptism. They had the institution of the Lord's Supper Luke 22:14-23 where we see the Lord instituting this ordinance. They had church discipline as stated in Matt. 18. They had a prayer meeting Acts 1:14. They had a distinct membership. In Acts 1:15 "the number of the names" is denoting that this was a specific number. The word for names specifies specific people. They had a business meeting Acts 1:16-26.
            Now all this shows that the church, represented by the original 12 and by the time of Acts 1 there were 120, we have a fully functioning local assembly.
            In the light of this, what do we have on this day of Pentecost? We have the Holy Spirit coming to a unified body (a unified anticipating congregation), in ONE place, at ONE time to meet for ONE purpose.
            At Pentecost what we have is not the birthday of the church but God empowering the New Testament church to be the institution of the spread of the gospel. It is the local church where God's peculiar presence is. The reason we have the tongues, foreign languages, is to further credential that the gospel is to go to "the uttermost parts of the earth". This is the reason we have a few incidents in the book of Acts of this experience although we never see the Acts 2 incident repeated as it happened there. But we do see two other incidents of the Spirit coming and tongues following, Acts 10 and Acts 19. All this is to further credential the Church as it goes to "Samaria and the uttermost part of the earth".
            An examination and comparison of some Old Testament scriptures will shed further light on what happened on Pentecost. These passages were known by the Jews at the time of Acts 2 so they knew what it meant.
            The first one is that which followed the building of the tabernacle in the wilderness.

Exodus 40
34. Then a cloud covered the tent of the congregation, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle.
35 And Moses was not able to enter into the tent of the congregation, because the cloud abode thereon, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle.
36 And when the cloud was taken up from over the tabernacle, the children of Israel went onward in all their journeys:
37 But if the cloud were not taken up, then they journeyed not till the day that it was taken up.
38 For the cloud of the LORD [was] upon the tabernacle by day, and fire was on it by night, in the sight of all the house of Israel, throughout all their journeys.

Here that God's glory fills the tabernacle to show His peculiar presence in that tabernacle. The tabernacle was fully functioning prior to this event just as the church was fully functioning prior to Pentecost. God is credentialing the tabernacle as the special place of His presence at that time, so at Pentecost God is credentialing the Church as his New Testament institution for the work of the gospel. Lets go a little further and look at the temple.

2 Chronicles 7
1. Now when Solomon had made an end of praying, the fire came down from heaven, and consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices; and the glory of the LORD filled the house.
2 And the priests could not enter into the house of the LORD, because the glory of the LORD had filled the LORD'S house.
3 And when all the children of Israel saw how the fire came down, and the glory of the LORD upon the house, they bowed themselves with their faces to the ground upon the pavement, and worshipped, and praised the LORD, [saying], For [he is] good; for his mercy [endureth] for ever.

Here is the credentialing of the temple as God's ordained place of His peculiar presence at this point in Israel's history. In this incident we see something similar to that of what we have on Pentecost. Although God was everywhere he chose to have a place where his peculiar presence was. First it was the tabernacle in the wilderness, then Solomon's temple. In both of these they were fully functioning prior to this manifestation of God's presence. At Pentecost we have the same thing happening. As we will see in the New Testament it is the local assembly of the church. Just as fire came from heaven after Solomon prayed and consumed the offering God sent fire on Pentecost upon Christ's ascension showing His satisfaction for that offering.
            In the light of this we can now see what the counterpart to the Old Testament Holiest of Holies is -it is the special presence of God in the gathering together of His saints "where two or more are gather in my name there I am in the midst of them". As we saw previously this gathering in His name was in the church. In the Old Testament only the high priest was privileged to enter the holiest but now all New Covenant believers can enter this holiest. What does this mean to the Christian today? Can someone be saved and take the institution of the local church lightly? What saith the Scripture? Lets look at that passage in Hebrews.

Hebrews 10
19. Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;

Here the writer starts a new division in the book of Hebrews. Having finished his teaching on what Christ has accomplished he now gives us practical application. He starts in verse 19 by showing that since Christ has entered the sanctuary in heaven we now have this boldness or public access to enter into the inner sanctuary through his blood. No more is it just a select few of the tribe of Levi that can enter.

21 And [having] an high priest over the house of God;

This verse is significant because the house of God we are told elsewhere, 1Tim. 3:15, is the local church. Here the writer is telling us that we now have a high priest over this peculiar place of God's presence, the local assembly. In the light of that he says:

22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.
23 Let us hold fast the profession of [our] faith without wavering; (for he [is] faithful that promised;)
24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:

In these 3 verses we have three exhortations each beginning with "let us". Since we have a high priest over the local assembly, he tells us now we can draw near with full assurance. In addition we are exhorted to hold fast our profession standing fast in the faith and finally we are to provoke one and other to love and good works. The next verse is significant because it states the sphere in which these are to find their expression.

25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some [is]; but exhorting [one another]: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

It is in the local assembly that we are to draw near to God as well as have our faith strengthened to hold fast our profession. It is the local assembly that we are to provoke one and other to love and good works. Some will object and say that they can meet God anywhere, even in private prayer. That is true just as any believer in the Old Testament was able to meet God in private prayer but there was a peculiar place of God's presence that only the High Priest could go. Since Christ entered the true tabernacle for us in the heavenlies, we have entered with him. But this in actual experience is only received by faith since we have not physically seen Christ enter the heavenly sanctuary. The local assembly is an earthly expression of that reality as was shown by God on the day of Pentecost. The peculiar place of God's presence for all New Covenant priests is the local assembly. In fact God considers this of such importance that the next verses carry a very sober warning.

26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance [belongeth] unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
31 [It is] a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Although membership in a church does not save you is it not significant that the 26th verse begins with "For"? After warning us against the neglect of the local assembly he gives us this stern warning. We need to ask ourselves if we take the local church as serious as God does. It is when one abandons the local assembly that he is on the high road to apostasy. One of the reasons is because of the duty of the third exhortation. We are told there that we are to "consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works". It is this that God has ordained as one of the means of the sanctification of the believer. Since without holiness no man shall see the Lord we can see how important it is for the believer to use all the means that God has given for that purpose.
            These three exhortations given cannot be separated. It is not until we draw near to God that we can have a full assurance of our faith. When the Christian neglects drawing near to God in public worship he is neglecting one of the means God has given in strengthening his assurance. It is then difficult to hold fast our profession if we are disregarding the means. We cannot exhort one another with confidence if we have a weak assurance due to neglecting the first duty of drawing near in public worship. So these three exhortations are intertwined in such a way that one leads to the and compliments the other.
            To take the gathering with God's people in His special presence lightly would be tantamount to an average Israelite looking with disdain upon the privilege of the High priest. Could one imagine how God would have treated the Israelites had He given them the privilege of entering into the Holiest instead of the High Priest and they took it lightly?
            Another way we can despise the Church of God in worship is to bring in carnal means of entertainment to please the flesh. Many argue that the Israelites used drums and tambourines etc. in worship. But did the High Priest ever enter the Holiest doing that? The worship of the nation of Israel was not the counterpart to the New Testament assembly, the High Priest entering the Holiest of Holies was.
In the light of these things the reader is exhorted to examine his or her own heart whether or not you are truly in a state of grace if you take lightly the church of God. Can you really take these exhortations seriously if you are not committed to Christ's local assembly? Can you truly say that you desire holiness above all else if you are neglecting God's appointed means to that end? The writer will leave the question to be answered in the theater of the reader's own conscience.