Etymology of Ekkleisia
The Etymology of Ekkleisia If we truly want to know what the Bible says about the Church we must understand what the word meant in the original Greek when Christ spoke it. Etymology is the study of the origin and history of a word… But it’s not so simple. Being honest with the study of the use of a word and its connotation in a context can be a lot of work. Few people have the patience and ability to do a true etymological study of a first century Greek word and in spite of one’s best efforts; he is still limited by the resources available. Without using all of the resources available and having the expertise to understand the complexities of Early Greek, a person cannot say he has performed an honest word study.
Let me address a few of the problems we face in doing an etymological study. The most common problem is what is called reverse etymology. Reverse etymology happens when a person imposes his pre-conceived connotation of a word onto that word. This happens commonly in theology. A theologian is so loyal to his theological system that he has been taught that he will interpret all new information through those filters. If the new information will not pass through his theological filters he will reject it as heresy.
This phenomenon is well demonstrated by the multiplicity of theological interpretations within Christianity. Many of the theological differences are studied, supported, and defended by brilliant, well-educated men. All of them seem to sincerely desire to follow God and be honest with the truth yet they differ significantly from the beliefs of their equally earnest peers. How can the Bible be absolute yet have so many different interpretations?
The answer is simple. Differing theologians are operating with a differing set of definitions. Some times these men will be proclaiming the same message with different words. Their only difference is semantics. Most times these men will truly have a completely different idea for the same verse. This happens when a person assumes his definition of key words. If his definition is wrong or tainted then his understanding of the passage will be skewed.
So do we need to go back to the source and define our words in order to be sure our understanding of the Bible is correct? That would take an inordinate amount of time! Yes it will. Serious Bible study is not for the lazy or faint of heart. Some ask, “But why should we do so much work? Isn’t the work handed down to us from the Church Fathers and the sages of Christianity sufficient?” The answer is no. So much new information has surfaced in recent years that it is necessary to start fresh with our work while the works we do possess have been tainted through the ages. As ancient manuscripts are uncovered new sources for word studies are supplied. The growth of information from archaeology is on an exponential curve. Since archaeology is interpreted in light of history and other archaeological finds, we now have a larger base than ever to understand the original meaning of words.
Another problem we face in doing an etymological study is imposed etymology. This happens when a person uses the context in which a word is used in a narrow sense (or what I call a contextually driven definition) and imposes that connotation on a differing context. Words are simply a few letters that represent concepts and ideas. Each word has only one basic meaning. That meaning may be reflected with many different words in differing contexts. The translator must examine all uses of the word and get the one common idea that is reflected in many different contexts.
Since all languages are limited to their society’s experiences, it is impossible to completely reflect the concept of a word with one word. The job of the translator is to find the one word that best describes the idea of the original word in its context with a contemporary word. There is no such thing as a perfect translation. New translations are continually necessary because the word that translators chose, let’s say 100 years ago, may have a completely different connotation today. Many times even a good translation is not enough to reflect the original text. This is why I feel it is vital that all ministers and theologians master ancient Greek and Hebrew. Although it is so vital, very few ministers even study ancient Greek and even fewer study ancient Hebrew. Of those who do take any classes in either, only a small percentage of those take enough that they are able to use it. Of those I know who are able to use their ancient language skills, even fewer do use them! I question the seriousness of those who lead the Church. It is far more convenient to let our teachers give us our theology than to directly study God’s Word for ourselves.
A third problem I want to address in etymological studies is lack of source material. Most translators limit their study to one or a few lexical sources then choose one definition that they like best for that context. This is not an etymological study. This is imposing one’s preference on a text. The problem of limited source material comes when the word is used very little in similar contexts (within the Bible) or even in secular literature. Since the base of available ancient literature is continually expanding, the ability to do accurate word studies is continually increasing as well.
One of the most important words for the Church to understand is the Greek word ekklhsia which is normally translated “church” in the New Testament. How we understand “church” today is based on our experiences and modern definitions. I have been involved in church work most of my life and I have seen the church make significant paradigm shifts in its practice and theology which had been litmus tests of doctrinal purity in the past. Since those base standards have changed within churches over the past 40 years I am guessing they were not as defining as we were led to believe. We must set aside our understanding and experiences of church in order to accurately understand the Church of the New Testament.
Let’s begin looking at the Greek word ekklhsia. In its essence it is not a religious word. Over 218 secular references of the word have been catalogued. Polybius uses the word to refer to the group of people who came together to meet an embassy that went to ancient Rhodes. The crowd proved to be very troubled (also translated “turbulent”). The “crowd” is the Greek word ekklhsia. It is translated in English as assembly, which differs from our normal understanding of a crowd in that it is a group of people that are called together for a specific purpose. Ekklhsia is a noun form of the Greek verb kalew, which means to call, and the Greek preposition ek, which means out. The assembly was a group of people that were called out for a specific purpose.
Hyperides used ekklhsia in the sense of being impeached from the assembly. This is a reference to a political body. The word is used of assemblies of medical professionals, political groups, and sometimes the general consensus of the people. It is used in its truest sense as group of people who are gathered for a specific purpose.
We next must turn to the Septuagint use of the Greek word ekklhsia. The Septuagint (abbreviated LXX) is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. Its name comes from the Latin word meaning seventy. Tradition says that the first five books of Moses were translated into Greek by seventy two Jewish scholars in the third century B.C. Ptolemy II sponsored the translation, which was used by the Alexandrian Jews who were fluent in Greek. This work became part of the famous Library at Alexandria. It is important to note that the LXX was not the only Greek translation of the Old Testament. There were at least seven others but today only fragments of those remain.
The LXX was very well accepted among the Jews of Christ’s day. It appears that of the 300 times the Old Testament is quoted in the New Testament 200 of the quotes are from the LXX.1 I say it appears so because we cannot be dogmatic that the writers were speaking Greek at the time of the writing and their translation of the Hebrew may have differed from ours today. In spite of these mitigating facts, it still strongly appears that Jesus and the New Testament writers quoted the LXX. Jerome offers a few examples he believes are quotes from the Hebrew text rather than the LXX. He suggests that Mathew 2:15, 23; John 7:38; 19:7; and I Corinthians 2:9 are examples of Quotes straight from the Hebrew text.2 Still the LXX was well received by Jesus and the Apostles.
Regardless of how one views the authority of the LXX, he is compelled to give its use of Greek words for Hebrew concepts great weight. It is a contemporary source of word usage in similar contexts. The LXX uses the Greek word ekklhsia 103 times. In comparison, the New Testament uses it 114 times. Of those 114 times it is used in the New Testament, it is used by Christ only 3 times. It is significant that the LXX uses the Greek word almost as much as the New Testament.
1 Septuagint Quotes in the New Testament. Orthodox Outlet for Dogmatic Inquiries www.oodegr.co/english article published in English 11/23/2010. viewed 7/3/2015 2 St. Jerome, Apology. Book II
Although ekklhsia is not a religious word in its essence, it is normally used in a religious sense in the contexts of the New Testament and LXX. In its earlier usages ekklhsia was qualified by genitives that would render phrases like “the assembly of Israel”, “the assembly of Jehovah”, “the assembly of the people”, or “the assembly of Judah.” When the genitive is not attached the connotation is clear from the context. The LXX translators chose to use ekklhsia for the Hebrew word lhq. Ekklhsia is almost always a rendering of lhq. 3 The other word used for lhq is sunagwgh (synagogue). The context in which the Hebrew word was used was the most influential factor in choosing which Greek word the LXX translators used. It is interesting to note the connection in the Old Testament between the ideas of ekklhsia and sunagwgh.
The most authoritative source I know for etymological studies of New Testament Greek words is the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. It examines every way the word was used in the Bible and outside the Bible. The TDNT says that ekklhsia is not the root word for our English word “Church” or even the German “kirche.” Kuriokoj (of the Lord) is most likely the root word for church.4 It was not just an ekklhsia (assembly) that constituted this special group of followers of Christ but it was the ekklhsia kuriakoj (assembly of the Lord), which constituted the body of Christ.
The LXX had been in use among believers in God for more than 200 years before the New Testament was written. Christ quoted from this Greek version of the Old Testament. Kittle states “In the very earliest period all Christians, both Jews and Gentile, used both expressions eekklhsia and sunagwgh.” 5 The fact is the word ekklhsia was a normal part of the vocabulary of the world in Christ’s day. The concept associated with ekklhsia had already been formed before Christ spoke of it in Matthew 16:18. Kittle says, ”Constitutive for the Christian ekklhsia within Greek usage is the line from the Septuagint to the NT. Only on this line does the word take on its particular significance.
”6 To press a definition on a word outside of its context forces one to interpret a text through his own preconceived ideas. This is the basis of eisegesis and improper theology. The question is what was the understanding of word ekklhsia to the audience when Christ spoke it in Matthew 16:18. There is no basis to argue that it was a new concept to the disciples and they would come to understand it later. The most common theological explanation of Christ’s usage of ekklhsia in Matthew 16:18 and Matthew 17:18 is that He was referring to the Church in embryonic form.
3 Kittle, Gerhard ed., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 1966), Vol. III. p. 529. 4 Kittle, p. 515. 5 Kittle, p. 518. 6 Kittle, p. 514.
Although I have never seen this term defined, the idea seems clear. The common theological explanation is that although the Church had not been birthed, Christ proleptically taught about it. The problem with this explanation is that it defies every rule of normal hermeneutics. I do not know of anywhere else the Bible is interpreted in such a fashion. This is different than prophecy. Prophecy is clearly marked by the context. If one did argue that Matthew 16 is prophetic, he could not argue that Matthew 18:17 is prophetic.
Furthermore, if Christ were speaking of a concept unknown at that time, how would the disciples know the difference between that concept and their contemporary idea of ekklhsia? The word and idea had been commonly used for over 200 years at that point. Kittle says, “It is certain that lhq underlies (Matthew) 16:18.
”7 Sunagwgh and ekklhsia were both used in reference to the Church. Sometimes the two Greek words were used interchangeably. Where there is a distinction it seems sunagwgh refers to the building where the church met while ekklhsia refers to the people of the church. The context determines whether ekklhsia refers to the body of Christ as a whole as in Matthew 16:18 or to a local assembly as in Matthew 18:17.
I realize all modern theology places great emphasis on the conception of the church. I propose that we must properly define the Church by the context of the Bible before we can accurately determine the conception of the Church. Most modern theological systems place the beginning of the Church at the death of Christ or at Pentecost. When Christ died on the cross the veil of the Temple was torn in two from top to bottom signifying that God had made a change in His worship system. On the day of Pentecost following Christ’s crucifixion, the miracle of tongues took place and about 3,000 souls were saved, baptized, and added to the Church in one day. Certainly both of these events were significant in the Church. The Day of Pentecost could not be the beginning of the Church because the text says about 3,000 souls were added to the Church. If the Church did not exist then how could it be added to? If the Church were conceived at the rock of pronunciation in Matthew 16 then how would the disciples have understood what Christ was talking about?
There is no plausible answer for the question of when the Church began; not with our traditional definition of the Church. All of our modern theological systems define the Church as a new institution distinct from the believers in the Old Testament. All of our traditional theological definitions are made in light of a distinction between Jewish believers and Gentile believers. Even Replacement theology holds that the Church replaces Israel.
I realize that even Kittle holds to a definition of the Church that is distinct from Israel. His research is thorough but his conclusion of his research is inconsistent with his research. He holds that the Church began with the institution of the Lord’s Supper.
7 Kittle, p. 519.
8 The term “Lord’s Supper” is a Catholic term coined around the time of Constantine and Eusebius. It is certainly defined by the time of the Council of Laodicea. It is clearly a Catholic Church sacrament. What Christ observed with His disciples the night before His crucifixion was the Seder meal, which God commanded for His children to observe every year on the eve of Nisan 14.
9 In his conclusion to his etymological study of ekklhsia, Kittle says, “Where, when, and how does Catholicism begin as distinct form early Christianity? The transition is nowhere so palpably clear as in the conception of the Church.”10 Kittle makes a distinction between early Christianity and the Catholic Church. He is correct. There is an enormous difference between early Christianity and the Catholic Church. The ekklhsia of Christ is greatly different than the Church of Constantine and Eusebius. When the Catholic Church instituted its sacrament they call the Lord’s Supper, they ploughed a chasm between the Jewish believers and the Gentile believers thus forming a new institution, which they call the Church.
Is it possible that the ekklhsia began before Pentecost or Christ’s death? If we are hermeneutically honest with the texts and etymologically honest with the Greek word ekklhsia, we have to admit the Church began in the Old Testament. The ekklhsia of God has always been the assembly or gathering of believers in God. I feel Acts 7:38 is clear and easy to understand. When Stephen preached the amazing sermon, which angered the unbelievers so much, that they stoned him, he preached about Moses. He says that this same Moses was in the ekklhsia in the wilderness with the Angel who spoke with him on the top of Mount Sinai. Christ and Moses were both in the Church in the wilderness. Let’s not perform hermeneutical gymnastics to try to explain away the text. Let’s just take God’s Word at face value and form our theology from God’s Word rather than the “Church Fathers” or the “Theologians” of our favorite denomination.
Once we grasp the reality of the Church then we are ready to embrace the amazing truth and power of the Church, which the first century believers knew. Every theological system I know says they have the truth yet they ignore the clear teachings of God’s Word in favor of a complicated system that requires complex explanations of passages that do not fit their system.
8 Kittle, p. 521.
9 Exodus 12 10
Kittle, p. 534.
© Copyright Dr. Steven L. Smith 2015
Let me address a few of the problems we face in doing an etymological study. The most common problem is what is called reverse etymology. Reverse etymology happens when a person imposes his pre-conceived connotation of a word onto that word. This happens commonly in theology. A theologian is so loyal to his theological system that he has been taught that he will interpret all new information through those filters. If the new information will not pass through his theological filters he will reject it as heresy.
This phenomenon is well demonstrated by the multiplicity of theological interpretations within Christianity. Many of the theological differences are studied, supported, and defended by brilliant, well-educated men. All of them seem to sincerely desire to follow God and be honest with the truth yet they differ significantly from the beliefs of their equally earnest peers. How can the Bible be absolute yet have so many different interpretations?
The answer is simple. Differing theologians are operating with a differing set of definitions. Some times these men will be proclaiming the same message with different words. Their only difference is semantics. Most times these men will truly have a completely different idea for the same verse. This happens when a person assumes his definition of key words. If his definition is wrong or tainted then his understanding of the passage will be skewed.
So do we need to go back to the source and define our words in order to be sure our understanding of the Bible is correct? That would take an inordinate amount of time! Yes it will. Serious Bible study is not for the lazy or faint of heart. Some ask, “But why should we do so much work? Isn’t the work handed down to us from the Church Fathers and the sages of Christianity sufficient?” The answer is no. So much new information has surfaced in recent years that it is necessary to start fresh with our work while the works we do possess have been tainted through the ages. As ancient manuscripts are uncovered new sources for word studies are supplied. The growth of information from archaeology is on an exponential curve. Since archaeology is interpreted in light of history and other archaeological finds, we now have a larger base than ever to understand the original meaning of words.
Another problem we face in doing an etymological study is imposed etymology. This happens when a person uses the context in which a word is used in a narrow sense (or what I call a contextually driven definition) and imposes that connotation on a differing context. Words are simply a few letters that represent concepts and ideas. Each word has only one basic meaning. That meaning may be reflected with many different words in differing contexts. The translator must examine all uses of the word and get the one common idea that is reflected in many different contexts.
Since all languages are limited to their society’s experiences, it is impossible to completely reflect the concept of a word with one word. The job of the translator is to find the one word that best describes the idea of the original word in its context with a contemporary word. There is no such thing as a perfect translation. New translations are continually necessary because the word that translators chose, let’s say 100 years ago, may have a completely different connotation today. Many times even a good translation is not enough to reflect the original text. This is why I feel it is vital that all ministers and theologians master ancient Greek and Hebrew. Although it is so vital, very few ministers even study ancient Greek and even fewer study ancient Hebrew. Of those who do take any classes in either, only a small percentage of those take enough that they are able to use it. Of those I know who are able to use their ancient language skills, even fewer do use them! I question the seriousness of those who lead the Church. It is far more convenient to let our teachers give us our theology than to directly study God’s Word for ourselves.
A third problem I want to address in etymological studies is lack of source material. Most translators limit their study to one or a few lexical sources then choose one definition that they like best for that context. This is not an etymological study. This is imposing one’s preference on a text. The problem of limited source material comes when the word is used very little in similar contexts (within the Bible) or even in secular literature. Since the base of available ancient literature is continually expanding, the ability to do accurate word studies is continually increasing as well.
One of the most important words for the Church to understand is the Greek word ekklhsia which is normally translated “church” in the New Testament. How we understand “church” today is based on our experiences and modern definitions. I have been involved in church work most of my life and I have seen the church make significant paradigm shifts in its practice and theology which had been litmus tests of doctrinal purity in the past. Since those base standards have changed within churches over the past 40 years I am guessing they were not as defining as we were led to believe. We must set aside our understanding and experiences of church in order to accurately understand the Church of the New Testament.
Let’s begin looking at the Greek word ekklhsia. In its essence it is not a religious word. Over 218 secular references of the word have been catalogued. Polybius uses the word to refer to the group of people who came together to meet an embassy that went to ancient Rhodes. The crowd proved to be very troubled (also translated “turbulent”). The “crowd” is the Greek word ekklhsia. It is translated in English as assembly, which differs from our normal understanding of a crowd in that it is a group of people that are called together for a specific purpose. Ekklhsia is a noun form of the Greek verb kalew, which means to call, and the Greek preposition ek, which means out. The assembly was a group of people that were called out for a specific purpose.
Hyperides used ekklhsia in the sense of being impeached from the assembly. This is a reference to a political body. The word is used of assemblies of medical professionals, political groups, and sometimes the general consensus of the people. It is used in its truest sense as group of people who are gathered for a specific purpose.
We next must turn to the Septuagint use of the Greek word ekklhsia. The Septuagint (abbreviated LXX) is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. Its name comes from the Latin word meaning seventy. Tradition says that the first five books of Moses were translated into Greek by seventy two Jewish scholars in the third century B.C. Ptolemy II sponsored the translation, which was used by the Alexandrian Jews who were fluent in Greek. This work became part of the famous Library at Alexandria. It is important to note that the LXX was not the only Greek translation of the Old Testament. There were at least seven others but today only fragments of those remain.
The LXX was very well accepted among the Jews of Christ’s day. It appears that of the 300 times the Old Testament is quoted in the New Testament 200 of the quotes are from the LXX.1 I say it appears so because we cannot be dogmatic that the writers were speaking Greek at the time of the writing and their translation of the Hebrew may have differed from ours today. In spite of these mitigating facts, it still strongly appears that Jesus and the New Testament writers quoted the LXX. Jerome offers a few examples he believes are quotes from the Hebrew text rather than the LXX. He suggests that Mathew 2:15, 23; John 7:38; 19:7; and I Corinthians 2:9 are examples of Quotes straight from the Hebrew text.2 Still the LXX was well received by Jesus and the Apostles.
Regardless of how one views the authority of the LXX, he is compelled to give its use of Greek words for Hebrew concepts great weight. It is a contemporary source of word usage in similar contexts. The LXX uses the Greek word ekklhsia 103 times. In comparison, the New Testament uses it 114 times. Of those 114 times it is used in the New Testament, it is used by Christ only 3 times. It is significant that the LXX uses the Greek word almost as much as the New Testament.
1 Septuagint Quotes in the New Testament. Orthodox Outlet for Dogmatic Inquiries www.oodegr.co/english article published in English 11/23/2010. viewed 7/3/2015 2 St. Jerome, Apology. Book II
Although ekklhsia is not a religious word in its essence, it is normally used in a religious sense in the contexts of the New Testament and LXX. In its earlier usages ekklhsia was qualified by genitives that would render phrases like “the assembly of Israel”, “the assembly of Jehovah”, “the assembly of the people”, or “the assembly of Judah.” When the genitive is not attached the connotation is clear from the context. The LXX translators chose to use ekklhsia for the Hebrew word lhq. Ekklhsia is almost always a rendering of lhq. 3 The other word used for lhq is sunagwgh (synagogue). The context in which the Hebrew word was used was the most influential factor in choosing which Greek word the LXX translators used. It is interesting to note the connection in the Old Testament between the ideas of ekklhsia and sunagwgh.
The most authoritative source I know for etymological studies of New Testament Greek words is the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. It examines every way the word was used in the Bible and outside the Bible. The TDNT says that ekklhsia is not the root word for our English word “Church” or even the German “kirche.” Kuriokoj (of the Lord) is most likely the root word for church.4 It was not just an ekklhsia (assembly) that constituted this special group of followers of Christ but it was the ekklhsia kuriakoj (assembly of the Lord), which constituted the body of Christ.
The LXX had been in use among believers in God for more than 200 years before the New Testament was written. Christ quoted from this Greek version of the Old Testament. Kittle states “In the very earliest period all Christians, both Jews and Gentile, used both expressions eekklhsia and sunagwgh.” 5 The fact is the word ekklhsia was a normal part of the vocabulary of the world in Christ’s day. The concept associated with ekklhsia had already been formed before Christ spoke of it in Matthew 16:18. Kittle says, ”Constitutive for the Christian ekklhsia within Greek usage is the line from the Septuagint to the NT. Only on this line does the word take on its particular significance.
”6 To press a definition on a word outside of its context forces one to interpret a text through his own preconceived ideas. This is the basis of eisegesis and improper theology. The question is what was the understanding of word ekklhsia to the audience when Christ spoke it in Matthew 16:18. There is no basis to argue that it was a new concept to the disciples and they would come to understand it later. The most common theological explanation of Christ’s usage of ekklhsia in Matthew 16:18 and Matthew 17:18 is that He was referring to the Church in embryonic form.
3 Kittle, Gerhard ed., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 1966), Vol. III. p. 529. 4 Kittle, p. 515. 5 Kittle, p. 518. 6 Kittle, p. 514.
Although I have never seen this term defined, the idea seems clear. The common theological explanation is that although the Church had not been birthed, Christ proleptically taught about it. The problem with this explanation is that it defies every rule of normal hermeneutics. I do not know of anywhere else the Bible is interpreted in such a fashion. This is different than prophecy. Prophecy is clearly marked by the context. If one did argue that Matthew 16 is prophetic, he could not argue that Matthew 18:17 is prophetic.
Furthermore, if Christ were speaking of a concept unknown at that time, how would the disciples know the difference between that concept and their contemporary idea of ekklhsia? The word and idea had been commonly used for over 200 years at that point. Kittle says, “It is certain that lhq underlies (Matthew) 16:18.
”7 Sunagwgh and ekklhsia were both used in reference to the Church. Sometimes the two Greek words were used interchangeably. Where there is a distinction it seems sunagwgh refers to the building where the church met while ekklhsia refers to the people of the church. The context determines whether ekklhsia refers to the body of Christ as a whole as in Matthew 16:18 or to a local assembly as in Matthew 18:17.
I realize all modern theology places great emphasis on the conception of the church. I propose that we must properly define the Church by the context of the Bible before we can accurately determine the conception of the Church. Most modern theological systems place the beginning of the Church at the death of Christ or at Pentecost. When Christ died on the cross the veil of the Temple was torn in two from top to bottom signifying that God had made a change in His worship system. On the day of Pentecost following Christ’s crucifixion, the miracle of tongues took place and about 3,000 souls were saved, baptized, and added to the Church in one day. Certainly both of these events were significant in the Church. The Day of Pentecost could not be the beginning of the Church because the text says about 3,000 souls were added to the Church. If the Church did not exist then how could it be added to? If the Church were conceived at the rock of pronunciation in Matthew 16 then how would the disciples have understood what Christ was talking about?
There is no plausible answer for the question of when the Church began; not with our traditional definition of the Church. All of our modern theological systems define the Church as a new institution distinct from the believers in the Old Testament. All of our traditional theological definitions are made in light of a distinction between Jewish believers and Gentile believers. Even Replacement theology holds that the Church replaces Israel.
I realize that even Kittle holds to a definition of the Church that is distinct from Israel. His research is thorough but his conclusion of his research is inconsistent with his research. He holds that the Church began with the institution of the Lord’s Supper.
7 Kittle, p. 519.
8 The term “Lord’s Supper” is a Catholic term coined around the time of Constantine and Eusebius. It is certainly defined by the time of the Council of Laodicea. It is clearly a Catholic Church sacrament. What Christ observed with His disciples the night before His crucifixion was the Seder meal, which God commanded for His children to observe every year on the eve of Nisan 14.
9 In his conclusion to his etymological study of ekklhsia, Kittle says, “Where, when, and how does Catholicism begin as distinct form early Christianity? The transition is nowhere so palpably clear as in the conception of the Church.”10 Kittle makes a distinction between early Christianity and the Catholic Church. He is correct. There is an enormous difference between early Christianity and the Catholic Church. The ekklhsia of Christ is greatly different than the Church of Constantine and Eusebius. When the Catholic Church instituted its sacrament they call the Lord’s Supper, they ploughed a chasm between the Jewish believers and the Gentile believers thus forming a new institution, which they call the Church.
Is it possible that the ekklhsia began before Pentecost or Christ’s death? If we are hermeneutically honest with the texts and etymologically honest with the Greek word ekklhsia, we have to admit the Church began in the Old Testament. The ekklhsia of God has always been the assembly or gathering of believers in God. I feel Acts 7:38 is clear and easy to understand. When Stephen preached the amazing sermon, which angered the unbelievers so much, that they stoned him, he preached about Moses. He says that this same Moses was in the ekklhsia in the wilderness with the Angel who spoke with him on the top of Mount Sinai. Christ and Moses were both in the Church in the wilderness. Let’s not perform hermeneutical gymnastics to try to explain away the text. Let’s just take God’s Word at face value and form our theology from God’s Word rather than the “Church Fathers” or the “Theologians” of our favorite denomination.
Once we grasp the reality of the Church then we are ready to embrace the amazing truth and power of the Church, which the first century believers knew. Every theological system I know says they have the truth yet they ignore the clear teachings of God’s Word in favor of a complicated system that requires complex explanations of passages that do not fit their system.
8 Kittle, p. 521.
9 Exodus 12 10
Kittle, p. 534.
© Copyright Dr. Steven L. Smith 2015