Restoration
Quarterly Home

Archives

1950s

1960s

1970s

1980s

1990s

2000s

Issues
in Stock

Articles
Online

Comments

Current
Contents

Submission

erratum

Subscribe

Search
Restoration Quarterly:

Vol. 2 No. 4 (1958): 164-79

Ekklesia: A Word Study

Roy Bowen Ward

INTRODUCTION

Following the earthly ministry of Jesus, there arose an
institution1 in response to his person and his mission. This
institution was a community of persons who sustained a certain
relationship to Jesus Christ, and it existed by virtue of that
relationship. The most common term used to describe this institution was
ekklesia, which we translate, church.

To determine why this particular Greek word came to be chosen and how
it was used is the purpose of this article. We shall attempt to see the
history of the ekklesia and what it meant to the mind of Greeks and
Jews across the Mediterranean world of the first cent., A.D., when this
term was first applied to the new institution of Jesus Christ. We shall
attempt to see the significance of this term and parallel expressions as
they are used in the N.T. And we shall attempt to follow some developments
in the understanding of this term in the history of the primitive
church.2

GREEK BACKGROUND.

The most common classical usage of ekklesia and its cognates was
as a political term, meaning an assembly of citizens. In the Greek
city-state the citizens were called forth by the trumpet of the kerux
(herald) summoning them to the ekklesia (assembly). The
ekklesia was the ultimate power in the constitutional government of
the Greek city-state, whether it was a monarchy, oligarchy, or democracy.
Of the general assembly of the citizens in or before the time of Dracon
(codified laws in 621 B.C.) nothing is really known-though the people must
have had some power. Later Aristotle applied ekklesiai to the
Homeric assemblies of the people.3 Most of our references to
the use of this word concern the ekklesiai of
Athens.4

The ekklesia in Athens enjoyed a long life from 508 B.C. until
the early fourth century, A.D., in the time of Diocletian. But only from
508 to 322 B.C. was it a strictly democratic institution. In this time it
was the general meeting of the people--all Athenian citizens could attend,
excluding only aliens, females, and those disenfranchised (atimoi).
What portion of the citizens actually attended we do not know, though
Gomme suggests that 6,000 was perhaps one-seventh of the total in
431.5 A specially appointed council, the Boule,summoned
the ekklesia and prepared its agenda. By law the ekklesia
had to be summoned at least four times each 36 or 37 days, that is, forty
times each year. One of each foul' meetings was more impor tant than the
others, this one being called the ekklesia kuria. The
president of the ekklesia was a particular member of the
Boule who [165] could serve as president at only one
ekklesia in his lifetime. Any citizen might speak in debate and
initiate amendments or administrative motions. Voting was normally by show
of hands, a simple majority deciding most issues.6

It should be noted that in ordinary usage, ekklesia meant the
assembly, and not the body of people involved. The Boule existed
even when it was not actually in session, but there was a new
ekklesia every time they assembled.7 The demos
(people) assembled in an ekklesia, but when they acted, it was said
to be the action of the demos, not the
ekklesia.8

Further, it should be noted that the principal meaning of
ekklesia is simply, "assembly." Lexicographers give as the primary
meaning, "assembly duly summoned."9 But it is doubtful that in
usage "duly summoned" was remembered. At Athens the extraordinary
assemblies were called sugkletoi, in distinction to the ordinary
ekklesiai which met on fixed days.10

Finally, it should be noted that in classical usage ekklesia
was, among Greek words for assembly, the most inclusive word in
existence.11 Ekklesia, being derived from the verb
ek-kaleo, "to call out or forth," has often been interpreted as an
exclusive term, connecting its etymological meaning with the Biblical
doctrine that Christians are those "called out of the world by
God."12 However, F. J. A. Hort, in his classic work, The
Christian Ecclesia, reminds us that in usage this exclusive meaning—a
caIling out from a larger group does—not have support.

There is no foundation for the widely spread notion that
ekklesia means a people or a number of individual men called out
of the world or mankind, . . . . the compound verb ekkaleo is
never so used, and ekklesia never occurs in a context which
suggests this supposed sense to have been present in the writer's
mind.13

In usage ek-kaleo meant only, "to call forth," and not, as this
interpretation would require, "to call out from a larger group."
Ekklesia, in turn, meant only "that which is called forth, an
assembly." As Campbell comments, "as so often, etymology proves to be here
misleading rather than helpful."14

In the Hellenistic period ekklesia retained its usual, classical
meaning of an assembly of citizens. The ekklesia continued to be
held in Athens, though not as the democratic institution it had once been,
and the term is found in other settings with the same
meaning.15

There are indications that in this period the term may have developed a
certain quasi-technical significance, though this does not rule out
widespread non-technical usage as simply an assembly. Deissman has pointed
out that the Latin-speaking people of the West borrowed the term
ekklesia, rather than translate it. This was not due to a scarcity
of Latin words for assembly—contio and comitia were often
translated into Greek by ekklesia. As examples Deissman cites [166]
the letter of Pliny the Younger (61/62-113 A.D.) to Trajan in which the
Latinized term, ecclesin, is used,16 and the bilingual
inscription of the year 103/104 A.D. at Ephesus where ekklesia in
the Greek half becomes ecclesin in the Latin half.17 Deissman
concludes, "There must have been some special reason for borrowing the
Greek word, and it lay doubtless in the subtle feeling that Latin
possessed no word exactly equivalent to the Greek
ekklesia."l8 The reason may have been that a certain
dignity had attached itself to this word due to its political context.

Finally we must note that ekklesia was never used in the
Greek world as the title of a religious group. About the beginning of the
first century, B.C., it is found used in connection with a society of
Tyrian merchants and shipowners in. Delos which worshipped
Heracles.19 But here it is used only in its classical sense:
the assembly or meeting of the society. It was fitting that the term
should be used since these societies were modelled on that of the
city-state.

JEWISH BACKGROUND.

Ekklesia occurs 80 times in the canonical books of the
Septuagint translation (LXX) of the Old Testament, and where the Hebrew
original is available for comparison,20 it always translates
qahal or words from the same root.21

Two important Hebrew words were used in the Old Testament to denote a
gathering or assembly: qahal and 'edhah. But when applied to
Israel, 'edhah came to indicate the society itself, whether
assembled or not. In particular, 'edhah is used of the children of
Israel, whether assembled or not, during its journeying from Egypt to
Canaan.22 Thus 'edhah assumes quasi-technical status as
the People of God, but qahal continues to denote only the actual
assembly or meeting.

Though ekklesia is nearly always a translation of qahal,
on the other hand, qahal is also translated by other Greek words,
especially by sunagoge. In 35 passages sunagoge stands for
qahal, 19 of these passages being in the first foul" books where
ekklesia is never used. But though sunagoge does translate
qahal in certain passages, it is usually the LXX translation of
'edhah.

It is often asserted that the LXX added to the word ekklesia a
religious connotation, the People of God, because of the association with
the qahal, and especially with the qehal YHWH (the assembly of the
LORD). Thus Johnson writes, "Knowledge of the LXX is vital for
understanding its New Testament meaning. . . ." It signifies the people
met for religious ends, especially worship. . . ."23 Schmidt
states,

That the ekklesia is the People of God, the
Congregation of God, becomes clear first through the addition of kuriou:
ekklesia kuriou = qehal YHMH . . . In the rest
ekklesia without the addition is the Congregation of God. . . it
must be regarded as a technical term.24

J. Y. Campbell has taken exception to this idea: "It might therefore be
expected that in the Septuagint ekklesia would acquire a [167]
specifically religious connotation, but of this there is, in fact, no
evidence whatever."25

The critical point concerns the meaning of qehal YHWH, and the
consequent acceptance of the position that qahal used alone stands
for this full phrase. There are only five O.T. passages where qehal
YHWH is used. The first two cases—Num. 16:3 and 20:4—may be discussed
because the LXX translates these by sunagoge. In Deut. 23 :2-4, 9,
qehal YHWH is repeated five times, each time being translated by
ekklesia kuriou. But here the context indicates that the phrase
refers to an actual meeting, the assembly, not to the people
itself.26 In1 Chron. 28:8 the qehal YHWH refers to an
actual assembly at Jerusalem. In Hebrew this phrase is in apposition to
"all Israel," but the reading in the LXX omits "Israel" and reads: "Now
therefore before all the assembly of the LORD and in the hearing of God."
In Micah 2:5 again there is no indication that it is more than the actual
assembly to which the phrase refers; the expression en ekklesiai is
quite classical.27

If the Hebrew reading in 1 Chron. 28:8 is correct so that qehal YHWH is
in apposition to Israel, then there may be a development in its meaning
toward the People of God; yet the LXX does not understand it this way,
omitting Israel and leaving ekklesia in its classical usage: the
actual assembly. The scarcity of this phrase, qehal YHWH, the fact that it
is not used of such significant assemblies as that which gathered at Sinai
as described in Exodus, and the fact that where it is used an actual
assembly can be pointed to diminishes the probable technical significance
commonly alleged to it. Thus, even if the word, qahal, stood for
the full phrase, it would still not add anything new to our understanding
of the word nor its LXX counterpart, ekklesia. Furthermore, if
ekklesia had come to mean, People of God, or Israel of God, through
the Hebrew qahal, it is difficult to understand why N.T. writers do
not use it as evidence when trying to prove that Christians are the People
of God; Paul does not use it in Rom. 1-15, nor does Peter in 1 Pet. 2
:4-10. There is no good evidence in the O.T. to show that qahal or
ekklesia ever meant anything other than the actual assembly, be it
a religious assembly (as in most cases), the assembly gathered when David
slew Goliath, an assembly of prophets, etc.28

In the non-canonical LXX books the usage of ekklesia is
generally the same. An exception can be noted in certain of the twelve
passages in Ecclesiasticus where ekklesia is used.29
Campbell comments:

But in Ben Sira's book there is at least a suggestion that
successive meetings of the same group of people are really the same
ekklesia, not ekklesiai. . . . But if ekklesia is
on the way to signify a regular meeting of a religious kind, there is
still nothing to suggest that it has come to mean (as sunagoge
did) the body of people who meet regularly in one particular
place.30

Philo (fl. A.D. 39) uses ekklesia 30 times: five as in classical
Greek, and 25 in LXX quotations, especially from Deut. 23. He [168]
sometimes qualifies ckklesia by an adjective: theia31 or
hiera;32 and he also uses it with the genitives
theou33 and kuriou.34 In these
passages there is still no evidence that the word alone (without
descriptive adjectives or genitives) has a distinct religious connotation.
On occasions he uses sullogos interchangeably with ekklesia,
and he modifies this word by hieros.35 There is one
passage where Philo might have used ekklesia in a technical sense.
"For when the whole multitude came together with harmonious oneness to
give thanks for their migration, He no longer called them a multitude or a
nation or a people but a 'congregation'."36 Aucher's Latin
translation has Ecclesiam.37 But unfortunately all this
is based on an Armenian version, and there is no real clue as to whether
Philo used ekklesia or sunagoge or another
word.38 Philo's usage must be seen in the light of his own
conception of the ideal state,39 and therefore it is
questionable as to whether he can be of major importance in the
understanding of the common usage.

Josephus (37-c. 100 A.D.) uses ekklesia 48 times, all according
to strict classical usage. 18 of these passages may represent LXX
allusions, and in nine cases he substitutes ekklesia for
sunagoge. Hort reminds us, "Josephus's ostentatious classicalism
deprives us of the information which a better Jew in his position might
have afforded US."40

Conclusion. In the light of this study of the existing evidence
concerning the pre-Christian history of ekklesia, the following may
be noted: (1) Ekklesia meant an assembly. (2) It was familiar both
to Gentiles by political usage and to Greek-speaking Jews through the LXX.
(3) Its Greek history associated with it a certain dignity, with possible
ideals of freedom and equal-membership playing a part. (4) It could be
used of a religious assembly--Pagan or Jewish--but it did not become the
title of any religious group, Pagan or Jewish. (5) Negatively, no evidence
is found that in usage it meant "the called out"—despite etymology—nor
that it came to mean "the People of God," nor that, in general, it was
applied to any other than an individual assembly (though Ecclesiasticus
shows a new trend: several assemblies being called the same
ekklesia).

NEW TESTAMENT USAGE.

Ekklesia occurs 114 times in the New Testament,41
being found in Matt., Acts, Rom., 1 Cor., 2 Cor., Gal, Eph., Phil, Col., 1
Thess., 2 Thess., 1 Tim., Phile., Heb., James, 3 John, and
Rev.42

Its use, however, is somewhat different from that which we have seen
generally in the pre-Christian history. Although ekklesia sometimes
denotes merely an actual assembly, for the most part there is a real sense
in which the ekklesia exists whether assembled or not. This is not
a development which can be detected prior to Christian history, and the
charge is probably to be explained strictly as a Christian phenomenon.

The hypothesis of J. Y. Campbell may well be true: "The probability is
that at first they used it [ekklesia] as an obvious name for those
simple 'meetings' which were the most conspicuous distinctive feature in
the life of the early Church. . . ."43 The next step was the
application of the term to the body of people habitually meeting together.
Early Christians could have used sunagoge; James 2:2 seems to
indicate that some did. Even Ignatius and Hermas later used it to denote
the gathering of the church,44 and Epiphanius states that the
Ebionite Christians used sunagoge instead of
ekklesia45 But sunagoge had by the first century,
A.D., assumed too much of a technical status, denoting the religious
assemblies of the Jews, these Jews themselves, and the places where they
assembled. But ekklesia was not tied down to any group, much less
to a religious group. Though used in the LXX, it was not distinctively
Jewish; it was a term meaningful to Jew and Gentile alike. And, if
Campbell's hypothesis is correct, then the primary use of ekklesia
was local, its universal usage being secondary.

Acts. Ekklesia is used 23 times by the author of Acts. In two
instances (19:32,40) it refers to the mob of people at Ephesus. In this
passage it is also used to refer to the assembly which met regularly
(ennomoi) at Ephesus (19:39). Once ekklesia is used in the
speech of Stephen (7 :38) to designate the children of Israel gathered at
Sinai, echoing perhaps Deut. 9: 10 where the LXX has ekklesia.

In the remaining passages ekklesia refers in some sense to the
institution of Jesus Christ. It comes closest to its classical usage in
14:27 where the assembly is actually gathered at Antioch to hear Paul and
Barnabas. In the rest, ekklesia means more than the actual
assembly; it is also the people who assemble. Thus "great fear came upon
the whole church" in Jerusalem (5: 11) ; there is a "great persecution of
the church in Jerusalem" (8:1) and "Saul was laying waste the church,
entering in house to house" (8:3).

In every case, with one possible exception, ekklesia. is
explicitly or implicitly used in a local sense: it is the assembly
(assembled or not) at Jerusalem (11:22; 12:1, 5; 15:4, 22), at Antioch
(11:26; 13:1; 14:27; 15:3), at Caesarea (18:22), and at Ephesus
(20:17,28). This local use is emphasized by the use of the plural,
ekklesiai, when referring to churches in a larger area: in Syria
and Cilicia (15 :41) and in areas of Asia Minor (16:4). The one possible
exception to the local use is the statement in 9 :31: "So then the Church
throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace, having been
strengthened." But even here there is good textual evidence for the
plural, rather than the singular.46

In this possible exception (and a textual variant of 15 :41 which has
the singular) there is the beginning of another development in the meaning
of ekklesia: the universal usage. If the singular reading [170] is
correct, and ekklesia is used in a universal sense, then we have
the local and universal usage here side by side (as also in Paul). But
Schmidt rightly points out that there is no indication that the
ekklesia is divided into ekklesiai, or vice versa. "It is
rather that if the ekklesia is found in a certain place, even
through the mention of ekklesiai by the side of it, it can not be
affected by this."47 Thus, in this development, ekklesia
can mean any portion of Christians: from a local group to those in a
larger geographical area, and, by extension, to those throughout the
world.

Pauline Epistles. Ekklesia is used 62 times in the Pauline
epistles.

In Paul's first letter to Corinth he uses ekklesia several times
according to common usage; denoting an actual assembly: "For first when
you have come together in an assembly, I hear there are divisions among
you" (11:18; see also 14:19, 28, 35). But in most cases the reference is
to the institution, assembled or not; ekklesia has become a
technical term.

The ekklesia is often local: the church at Cenchreae (Rom. 16:1)
I at Corinth (1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1), at Laodicea (Col. 4:16), and at
Thessalonica (1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:1) . When speaking of a larger
geographical area Paul uses the plural: the churches of Asia (1 Cor.
16:19), of Galatia (1 Cor. 16:1; Gal. 1:1), of Macedonia (2 Cor. 8:1), of
Judea (Gal. 1:22; 1 Thess. 2:14). Paul also uses ekklesia of
smaller groups, such as the household church of Prisea and Aquila in Rome
(Rom. 16:5), that of the same couple in Ephesus (1 Cor. 16:19), that of
Nympha in Laodicea (Col. 4:15) and that of Philemon in Colosse (Phile. 2).
These can evidently be called ekklesia, even while calling the
total group in the city ekklesia.

Only once did the author of Acts add a descriptive genitive to
ekklesia, and that (in reference to the church at Ephesus) was a
quotation from the Psalms: "the church of the Lord" (Acts 20:28). But Paul
often adds a descriptive genitive, usually tou theou (of God) .
Twice he adds tou Christou (of Christ), once ton ethnon (of
the Gentiles), and once ton hagion (of the saints). The salutations
of the Thessalonian correspondence are particularly descriptive: "to the
church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and in our Lord Jesus
Christ." Even when Paul does not use a descriptive genitive. it is usually
to be understood, in accordance with Paul's doctrine of the
ekklesia (see infra). It should be noted that tou
theou is used with the singular, ekklesia, in reference to a
local church. Paul addresses "the church of God which is at Corinth" (1
Cor. 1:2). Paul does not mean that the church of God is limited to
Corinth, nor does he say, "the church of God, that part of which is at
Corinth." As Schmidt rightly points out, "the Church is not primarily an
accumulation of individual congregations of the whole community, but every
congregation of the whole community, however small, represents the
Church."48

It is in Paul's letters to the Ephesians and Colossians that
ekklesia receives its fullest doctrinal expression, and at the same
time is removed the furtherest from the classical usage. Already
ekklesia has been used to designate the people, whether assembled
or not. But in most cases the use was still local; these people could and
were actually assembling. But in Eph. and Col. ekklesia is used of
the people without respect to the possibility of actually assembling.

Ekklesia was already a technical term for the institution of
Jesus Christ. But the term itself was rather neutral--not particularly
expressive of the doctrine concerning that institution. Especially here in
Eph. and Co!. ekklesia is grounded into the doctrine of the
institution and made to carry in itself the doctrinal implications. Paul's
device for accomplishing this is the use of two important parallel terms,
some (body) and gune (wife). By these terms Paul clearly shows the
intrinsic connection of Jesus Christ and his institution
(ekklesia)-it is like head and body (Eph. 1:22; Col. 1:24), like
husband and wife (Eph. 5 :21-33). In these terms Christ and the
ekklesia become almost identified. Christ is the head of the body,
but the body is not just a rump-it is "the fullness (ple?'o/)w) of him who
fills all in all" (Eph. 1 :22). Christ and ekklesia are like
husband and wife, but he adds, "the two shall become one flesh" (Eph.
5:31).

Here one does not need to add tou Christou to ekklesia, for in
the term itself must now be included Christ as an essential connotation.
Again the comments of Schmidt are well stated:

... the ekklesia as the soma Christou is not a
mere association of men. . . Definitive is the communion with Christ. To
sharpen tills point one could say: A single man can and must be the
ekklesia, if he has communion with Christ.49

This being so, the classical meaning of "assembly," "gathering" has
been superseded by the more dynamic, Pauline definition: ekklesia =
body of Christ, or even, Christ himself!

This usage of ekklesia in Eph. and Col., although non-local and
related emphatically to Jesus Christ, does not remove it from reality.
There is no "invisible" ekklesia here, as distinguished from the
"visible" one. That Paul calls this institution "holy," etc. (Eph. 5 :27),
does not remove it from reality; those who compose the ekklesia are
exhorted to be "holy" (Rom. 12:1; etc.) and are, indeed, called "holy"
(hagioi: saints--Rom. 1:7; etc.). In Eph. 3:10 mention is made of
the mission of the ekklesia, but this is a real and earthly
mission.

Other N T. Books. In the other N.T. books, excluding the gospels,
ekklesia is used 26 times. It is found 20 times in the Revelation,
always in the local sense, referring to the seven churches of Asia. James
and III John also use it in a local sense (Jas. 5:14; III John 6, 9,10.).
Once in Hebrews (2:12) it is used in a quotation from Psa. 22 :22 where
ekklesia simply stands for qahal. The only passage where
ekklesia stands for a heavenly institution is in Heb. [172] 12:23.
But here it is probably not used according to its N.T. technical usage,
but simply in its common meaning: an actual assembly. It is here coupled
with paneguris, which the RSV translates, "festal gathering."

Gospels. Ekklesia by name is found in only one of the four
gospels, Matthew, and in only two passages in that gospel (16:18; 18: 17).
This argument from statistics is often the first argument put forward in
attempts to disassociate Jesus from the ekklesia. However, this
question involves not only the word ekklesia but also the thing
itself. Recent scholarship50 has shown the ekklesia
(without name) to be an integral part of the teaching of
Jesus.51 The question remains as to why ekklesia by name
is scarcely used in the gospels. This term seems to be generally reserved
for the time after the resurrection-ascension of Jesus as the Christ.
Note, for instance, that in Luke-Acts ekklesia never occurs until
after the events of Pentecost. There is an understanding that
ekklesia is, strictly speaking, a post-resurrection institution.

Matt. 18: 17. The two occasions of ekklesia in this passage must
be understood in its common usage: an actual assembly (so translated in
RSV). And that assembly is, no doubt, present rather than future, Jewish
rather than Christian. Hort states, "The actual precept is hardly
intelligible if the ekklesia meant is not the Jewish community,
apparently the Jewish local community, to which the injured person and the
offender both belonged."52 But Hort also says, "The principle
holds good in a manner for all time,"53 and thus this passage
found application in the church.54

Matt. 16:18. Although many problems have been raised concerning this
passage,55 the scope of this study limits us to the question of
the usage of ekklesia as it here stands, and to the question of
what precisely did it mean. The problem is a perplexing one, if our survey
of the pre-Chlistian history of ekklesia is correct. If
ekklesia meant only an actual assembly up until Christian usage
converted it into a technical, religious term, then the statement here:
"Upon this rock I will build my 'meeting' (ekklesia)" does not make
much sense.

(1) There are several possibilities that Jesus spoke Greek, using this
Greek word, (ekklesia), and that it did have a significant meaning.

(a) It is possible that ekklesia had attained a religious
connotation prior to this time in some may not traceable in the sources we
have. This word might have been capable of meaning assembly in a more
universal sense with religious overtones: the People of God. If such is
true, ekklesia fits well the context: "I will build my People of
God, i.e., the new Israel."

This view is, of course, the prevalent concensus of most commentators:
that ekklesia had a religious connotation. But they seek [173]
evidence for this view from the LXX, where a closer investigation reveals
no such evidence. The development, if true, must lie elsewhere.

But it is difficult to support even this hypothesis in the face of the
failure of N.T. writers to employ this term in proving that this new
institution is the People of God, the new Israel. If it had developed this
connotation in a Jewish milieu, surely Paul and Peter would have used it
(Rom. 1-15; 1 Pet. 2:4-10). Usage in Acts and elsewhere also stands
against this view.

(b) A second possibility is that Jesus himself gave to the term
ekklesia its new significance, either on this occasion, or
elsewhere in his ministry. A definition of ekklesia in Messianic
terms would give it the depth of meaning expected in this passage. The
juxtaposition of ekklesia and basileia in the following verse might
suggest that such a definition was made by Jesus. However, this hypothesis
is weak in that this definition is nowhere to be found, either here or in
any passage in the gospels. Would such an important definition be omitted?
Usage in Acts and elsewhere oppose this view also.

(c) A third possibility is that in using ekklesia, Jesus used a
synonym for sunagoge, using it in antithesis to this Jewish
institution of his day, and borrowing by association the connotations of
sunagoge. Sunagoge would fit this passage well, since it was
a technical term denoting the Congregation of God. It even referred to the
building where the Congregation met,' and the figure of "building" would
be quite aptly associated with sunagoge. But Jesus could not use
sunagoge because of its Jewish limitations. 56 Then he
used a synonym in the way that he might have used sunagoge, and the
connotations would thus be transferred to ekklesia, This hypothesis
is possible, but probably is a bit too clever to be true!

(2) If we dismiss these hypotheses, we are left with one other
possibility which seems, indeed, more convincing. This possibility is that
Jesus did not say, "ekklesia," but rather the equivalent in the
Aramaic language.57

The possible Aramaic equivalents include: qehala',
'edhta', ciburra', and kenishta'. With all four of
these words is associated the idea of the People of God. 'edhata'
may be ruled out since it does not occur in the Targums. Of the other
three, the most common term was kenishta': gathering, assembly, place of
meeting (synagogue); this term was also applied to the Great
Synagogue.58 Furthermore, the Sinaitic Syriac version (3rd
century, A.D.) uses kenushta' regularly for ekklesia and
sunagoge (though Matt. 16:18 is not extant in this version), and
the Palestinian Syriac version (Evangeliarium Hierosolymitanum--no
precise date) also uses kenushta for both Greek words. Of this
latter version Schmidt, following E. Nestle, states, "The dialect of
Evangeliarium Hierosolymitanum differs considerably from the
ordinary Syriac, and it possibly stands relatively close to the language
of Jesus and his disciples."59 Schmidt, McNeil,60
etc., therefore prefer kenishta' as the original.

[174] Whether it was kenishta' or one of the other available
words, it would be meaningful here in this passage. Each would convey the
idea of the People of God, an idea fully in keeping with the figure of
"building,"61 and each would be a term with Messianic
overtones, in keeping with the basileia in the following verse. When
Matthew later recorded his gospel in Greek, ekklesia would be the
natural and only possible translation of the Aramaic. Sunagoge
would have been eliminated as being a limited, Jewish term. But by
Matthew's time ekklesia was the technical, religious term in usage
to designate what Jesus earlier promised to build. For Matthew's readers
ekklesia was natural and meaningful.

APOSTOLIC FATHERS.

Ekklesia in Matt. 16:18, in Paul's doctrinal expositions, etc.,
is used in a general or universal sense. . Elsewhere the majority of
instances are of local usage. This local usage continues in the literature
of the Apostolic Fathers. I Clement is a letter from the ekklesia
of God sojourning at Rome to the ekklesia of God sojourning at
Corinth. Ignatius begins his letters in a similar way, as also Polycarp,
and the Martyrdom of Polycarp from the church in Smyrna.
Didache62 and the Shepherd of Hermas63 also know
this local use.

There is, however, an increasing tendency to use ekklesia in
referring to the church universal. This is explicit when Ignatius adds to
ekklesia the adjective, katholike64 (general or
universal65), which later becomes a technical term: the
Catholic Church. The universal idea is even more emphatic in the Martyrdom
of Polycarp where the universal ekklesia is in the oikoumene
(the whole habitable world, i.e., ecumenica]).66

The ekklesia appears in the visions of the Shepherd of
Hermas as a holy, ancient Lady,67 and as a
Tower.68 This Church is cleansed and purified, and after the
wicked are cast out, she is one body, one understanding, one mind, one
faith, one love. This unity of the church is found in Ignatius where God,
Christ, and Church form a single entity,69 which is in
connection with the church officers: "without these [deacons, bishop,
presbyters] it is not called a church."70

II Clement, so-called, describes the ekklesia as pre-existent,
the "ekklesia of life," spiritual, but made flesh--as the
Logos.71 Though the words have a Pauline sound, the tendency
here is better described as a Gnostic development72 or the
Semitic belief of the pre-existence of certain things, such as the
tabernacle.73

SUMMARY.

The pre-Christian history of the ekklesia74 presented
the new institution of Jesus Christ with an easily adaptable word to
describe that institution. At first it was a neutral term, devoid of any
special doctrinal significance. But this word which meant "assembly" now
included the people who assembled, whether actually in an [175] assembly
or not. This assembly was something real; thus the first and most common
usage was of a local church, i.e., where there was actually an assembling
of the people. This usage is typical of Acts, of much of the Pauline
epistles, of the general epistles, of the Revelation to John, and of many
of the passages in the Apostolic Fathers. It had become in most of these
passages the technical term to designate this new institution.

Alongside of this usage there developed a wider, non-local use. The
church, after spreading out from Jerusalem, was still in all these places
that one and the same institution of Jesus Christ. But the Greek word
ekklesia did not readily lend itself to this non-local usage. Thus
we often have the plural, ekklesiai, when speaking of a larger
geographic area. But, perhaps in order to emphasize the oneness of these
ekklesiai, the singular, ekklesia, came to be used. In this
usage the idea of assembly was no longer prominent. In Eph. and Col. we
have this non-local usage. The difference of usage by Paul in Eph. and
Col. as contrasted with his other letters must be explained as a grounding
of this term ekklesia (which had become the technical term for the
institution) in the basic doctrines of the Faith (especially in
Christology), which were already integral parts of the concept of the
church.

The concept of the church began with Jesus Christ, though he may not
have used the Greek word, ekklesia. When ekklesia was used,
it became what it was because of Jesus Christ; for it became the technical
term of that institution which assembled in his name, and which was
composed of people who sustained a certain relationship to him, i.e.,
people "in Christ."

APPENDIX: ETYMOLOGY OF "CHURCH."

Most scholars are agreed that "church" is derived from the Greek
kuriakon, an adjective (of the Lord). This adjective is used in the
N.T. with deipnon (Lord's Supper--1 Cor. 11:20) and hemera
(Lord's Day--Rev. 1:10). It was also used with doma (the Lord's
house) in the early church, and from the third century, at least, it began
to be used substantively as the place of worship.75 From
this usage it passed into the Gothic languages through the barbaric
invasions, probably as kirika. From this comes the English
church, the Scottish , the German Kirche, and
other modern language derivations, including Slavonic forms.76
Ekklesia lies behind such modern terms for church as the French
eglise, the Spanish iglesia, the Portuguese igreja,
etc. English words from this root include Ecclesiastes,
ecclesiastical, etc.

1 This term is used advisedly, though criticized by Emil
Brunner, The Misunderstanding of the Church (Translation by H.
Knight, London: Luttenvorth Press, 1952), p. 10, etc.

2 For an important bibliography see O. Linton, Das
Problem der Urkirche in der neueren Forshung (Uppsala Universitets
Arsskrift, 1932) ; for more recent additions to this bibliography see W.
Arndt [176] and F. Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1957).

3 Politics 1285a 11. 174 175

4 See references in Thuc., Herod., Aristoph., Plato.,
Arist., and in inscriptions and other non-literary sources.

5 A. W. Gomme, "Ecclesia," The Oxford Classical
Dictionary, p. 304.

6 For further discussions see short article by Gomme, op.
cit., pp. 303, 304; and fuller presentations in C. G. Brandis,
"Ekklesia," Pauly's Real-Encyclopaedie der classischen
altertumswissenschaft, revised by Wissowa, (1905), vol. 5, cols.
2163-2200; R. Whiston and W. Wayte, "Ecclesia," A Dictionary of Greek
and Roman Antiquity, vol. 1, pp. 697-703.

7 See Thuc. 3.46: en tei proterai ekklesiai (in the
earlier assembly); inscription in Dittenberger, Sylloge Inscriptionum
Graecarum, vol. 3, p. 101: en tei deuterai ton ekklesion (in
the second of the assemblies).

8 See the prescription of an Athenian assembly in
Dittenberger, op. cit., vol. 3, p. 512: prosetaxen ho demos. . .
(the people commanded) ; vol. 1, p. 731: psephisma tou demos (the
vote of the people).

9 Liddell and Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon
(Jones-McKenzie edition), S.v.

10 See Aristotle, Politics, 1275b 8.

11 See E. L. Hicks, "On Some Political Terms Employed in the
NewTestament," Classical Review, 1 (1887), p. 43. Moulton and
Milligan cite as a non-literary example of the "inclusive" use of
ekklesia the assembly at Apamea: agomenes pandemou ekklesias
(being gathered in the assembly of all the people). The Vocabulary of
the Greek New Testament, S.v.

12 This doctrine is substantiated apart from etymology by
such passages as: John 15:19; 17:6; etc., and by those passages dealing
with "calling," "election," etc.

13 F. J. A. Hort, The Christian Ecclesia (London:
Macmillan and Co., 1898), p. 5.

14 J. Y. Campbell, "The Origin and Meaning of the Christian
Use of theWord EKKLESIA," Journal of Theological Studies, 49
(1948), p. 131.

15 The historian Polybius (c. 202-120 B.C.) tells of an
ekklesia in Sparta, which was the gathering of the people to hear
Machatas. History, iv. 34.6. Plutarch (c.46-c.120 A.D.) uses this
term to describe the assemblies before which Tiberias stood. Tiberias
Gracchus, 14-16. Lucian (c.115-200 A.D.), in his parody, Parliament
of the Gods, calls this meeting a sumposium and a
sunedrion. But when the official motion is presented, the meeting
is then called an ekklesias ennomu and the decree follows the
formula of fourth cent. Athens. 1, 3, 14.

16 Epistle x. 111. bule et ecclesia consentiente.

17 hina tithentai kat' ekklesian en to theatro epi ton
baseon /ita ut [om]n[i e]cclesia supra bases ponerentur.

18 A. Deissmann, Light From the Ancient East (New
York: George H. Doran Co., 1927), p. 113.

19 Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum, 2271. See
discussion in F. Poland, Geschichte des griechischen Vereinwesens
(Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1909), p. 332.

20 1 Sam. 19:20 - lahaqah: Neh. 5:7 - qehilah;
Psa. 26:12 - rnaqhelim; Psa. 67:26 - maqhiloth. "In the case of
lahaqah it is the same radicles in another sequence; either here it
is supposed to be a derived word from qahal, or else it is possibly
a case of dittography, occurring here so close to laqahath." K. L.
Schmidt, "Kaleo . . ." Theologisches Woerterbuch zum Neuen
Testarnent, vol. 3, pp. 530, 531. See English translation by J. R.
Coates in Bible Key Words (New York: Harper and Bros., 1951).

21 In three instances no Hebrew word stands behind the use
of ekklesia in the LXX: Deut. 4:10; I Chr. 28:2; II Chr. 10:3.

22 Five-sixths of the total occurrences of 'edhah in
the O.T. are in the four books of Ex:, Lev., Num., and Jos.--more than
one-half are in the book of Num. alone.

23 G. Johnston, The Doctrine of the Church in the New
Testament (Cambridge: University Press, 1943), pp. 36, 37.

24 Schmidt, op. cit., vol. 3, p. 531.

25 Campbell, op. cit., pp. 132, 133.

26 In Neh. 13: 1 the phrase qehal ' elohim occurs, but this
is a reference to the assembly in Deut. 23.

27 Lam. 1:10 may be a further reference, ekklesia sou
here prob ably referring to the assembly in Deut. 23.

28 The most recent discussion of the qehal YHWH is to
be found in Johan D. W. Kritzinger, Qehal Jahwe. Wat dit is en wie
daaraan rna.q behoort (Acad. Proefschrift, Kampen: Kok, 1957), and in
the review of this work by L. Rost in Theologische
Literaturzeitung, (1958), pp. 266, 267.

The summary of Kritzinger's work is written in English. In summarizing
chapter 1, paragraph 3: The use and meaning of qehal (YHWH) in the
O.T., he states: "Qahal primarily means 'gathering' or 'assembly.'
This general meaning is found throughout the O.T." (p. 152) He cites one
text where qahal is used as a technical term for the cult-assembly,
but this text—Num. 15:15—is one that is translated by sunagoge, not
ekklesia.

29 Ecclesiasticus 15:15; 21:17; 23:24; 24:2; 26:5; 31:11;
33:19; 38:33; 39:10; 44:15; 50:13; 20.

30 Campbell, op. cit., pp. 137, 138.

31 De Confusione Linguarum, 144.

32 Quod Deusimmutabilis sit, 111; De Migratione
Abrahami, 69; De Somniis, ii, 184, 187.

33 Legum Allegoria, iii, 8.

34 De Ebrietate, 213.

35 Legum Allegoria, iii, 81; De Somniis, ii,
184; De Specialibus Legibus, i, 325.

36 Quaestiones et Solutiones in Exodum, 1.10,
translated by Ralph Marcus in the Loeb Classical Library, supplement to
Philo series, vol. 2, pp. 19, 20.

37 Philo Judaeus, Paralipomena Armena (Armenian text
and Latin translation by P. Aucher, 1826), p. 456.

38 The word in question is zhoghov. Although the
Armenian language has a word derived from
ekklesin—ekeghetsi—here this word is related to
zhoghvoort, the usual translation of sunagoge! Aucher's
Latin translation is here misleading as far as indicating what Greek word
stood originally in the text. See M. Bedrossian, New
Dictionary--Armenian-English (Venice: S. Lazarus Armenian Academy,
1875-79), s.v.

39 See H. A. Wolfson, Philo (Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 1947), vol. 2, chap. 13, especial1y pp.
374-395.

40 Hort, op. cit., p. 7.

41 Acts 2:47 may be another example of the use of
ekklesia, but [178] textual evidence is not strong for it. K. Lake
and H. Cadbury, in The Beginnings of Christianity (London:
Macmillan and Co., 1933), vol. 4., p. 30, argue for epi to auto, to
which the Western text added en tei ekklesiai. The Antiochian text
then dropped en, moved epi to auto to the next sentence, and
read, "added to the church. . . ." Whether ekklesia is present in
name or not, the thing itself is--the corporation of the saved.
Ekklesia is supported by D. Pesh, P, S, 462. Epi to auto is
supported by B, Aleph, A, C, 81, Vg, Sah, etc.

42 The ten books in which ekklesia is not found do
not present great problems. Schmidt's comment is sound: "That it is
missing in 1 J and 2 J should not be very surprising since, indeed, it
appears in 3 J. Likewise it is not in 2 Tm and Tt, while it appears in 1
Tm. When so small a letter as Jd does not have the word, we must here
reckon it with the accident of statistics. On the other hand the
non-appearance of the word in 1 Pt and 2 Pt is extra-ordinary. But since
in 1 Pt, in a special, emphatic way, the essence and meaning of the O.T.
community is spoken of directly, with the use of O.T. expressions, thus
the question emerges whether it is the thing or the word that is missing."
op. cit., vol. 31, p. 505. This last comment is true also of Mark, Luke
and John.

43 Campbell, op. cit., pp. 141, 142.

44 To Polycarp 4:2 - puknoteron sunagogai
ginesthosan. (Let the "gatherings" be more frequent); Mandate 11
:9,13,14 - ets sunagogen andron dikaion (into the "assembly" of the
righteous men).

45 Against Heresies xxx. 18 - sunagogen de outoi
kalousi ten heauton ekklesian, kai ouchi ekkesian (and these call
their church a synagogue, and not an ekklesia).

46 The support for ekklesiai is to be found in the
Antiochian text, which may preserve the Western text which is somewhat
defective here. The plural is supported by H, L, P, S.

47 Schmidt, op. cit., vol. 3, p. 506.

48 Ibid., vol. 3. p. 508.

49 Ibid., vol. 3, p. 515.

50 See R. Newton Flew, Jesus and His Church (New
York: The Abingdon Press, 1938); Schmidt, op. cit.; Johnston, op. cit.;
Anders Nygren, Christ and His Church (translation by Carlsten,
Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1956); and various works connected
with the ecumenical movement.

51 Such indications are to be found in his teaching
concerning discipleship, which is certainly a preparation for the founding
of the ekklesia. There are synonyms, such as poimne (flock)
in Matt. 26:31 and John 10:1 (cf. I Cor. 9:7); poimnion (little
flock) in Luke 12:32 (cf. Acts 20:28; I Pet. 5:2f.); etc. The Gospel
according to John, though never using ekklesia by name, obviously
speaks of the church; especially note the similarity of the vine and the
branches in John 15:1 with the Pauline doctrine of the ekklesia.
See C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John (New York: The
Macmillan Co., 1955), p. 393, etc.; also see O. Cullmann, Early
Christian Worship (translation by Todd and Torrance, London: SCM
Press, 1953), pp. 37ff.

And certainly Jesus taught about and preached the Kingdom of God. When
the modern antithesis between Kingdom and church is removed, the
ekklesia is seen as a realization of this teaching. This is not to
say that ekklesia exhausts the meaning of basileia tou theou
(the sovereignty or reign of God). Flew states: "The Basileia creates a
community, and uses a community as" an instrument. Those who enter the
Basileia are in the Ecclesia; the Ecclesia lives beneath the Kingly Rule
of God, acknowledges it, proclaims it, and looks for its final
manifestation; but the Ecclesia is not itself the Hasileia." op. cit., p.
126.

52 Hort, op. cit., p. 10. There are Jewish pala1lels to this
passage, such as that in the recently discovered Manual of Discipline
(vi.l) from Qumran.

53 Idem.

54 Didache 15 (2nd cent. A.D.) seems to a1lude to this
passage; the Apostolic Constitution, 38 (4th cent. A.D.) quotes it in
direct application to the church.

55 Questions are raised as to the genuineness of this
statement as coming from Jesus, the possibility of a different context
other than the Caesarea Philippi scene, the relationship of the church and
Peter, the possibility of successors toPeter and this promise, etc. See
Cullmann, Peter (translation by F. V. Filson, Philadelphia: The
Westminster Press, 1953) and other references.

56 Other possible words (laos - people;
sunedrion - council; etc.) were likewise limited in genera] by
Jewish usage.

57 That Jesus himself spoke Aramaic is suggested by the
fact. that this was the common language of Palestinian Jews of his day.
Metzger states, "In common with his Palestinian contemporaries Jesus
undoubtedly spoke Aramaicas his mother tongue, but being a Galilean he
very likely was able to use Greek as well. One would expect that most of
his teaching to the common people ofPalestine would be given in Aramaic."
"The Language of the New Testament," The Interpreter's Bible, vol.
7, p. 52. This is substantiated by the Aramaic words preserved in our
Greek gospels: talitha cumi (Mark 5:41), ephphata (Mark
7:34) abba (Mark 14:36), and Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani
(Mark 15 :34; cf. Matt. 27 :(6). Metzger further points to the fact that
several sayings of Jesus, when translated into Aramaic, involve puns—an
unlikely circumstance unless the punswere original. One such pun is to be
found in this passage—the play on "rock." See the discussion by Metzger,
ibid., p. 53.

58 See references in Jastrow, Dictionary of the
Talmud, s. v.

59Schmidt, op. cit., vol. 3, p. 529.

60 A. H. McNeil, The Gospel According to St. Matthew
(London: Macmillan and Co., 1915), ad loc. Note the discussion in
Johnston, op. cit., pp. 37ff, 48ff.

61 See Cullman, Peter, p. 188, and references.

62 9.4.

63 Vision ii.2.6; ii.4.3; iii.9.7.

64 To the Smyrneans, 8.1.

65 Schmidt takes this to mean "one and only" here, rather
than "universal," op. cit., vol. 3, p. 536.

66 8.1 - pases tes kata ten oikoumenen katholikes
ekklesias (all the universal church throughout the whole world); also
19.2.

67 Vision i.1.6; ii.4.1; iv.1.3; etc.

68 Vision iii.3.3; Sim. ix.1.2; ix.13.1; etc.

69 To the Philadelphians, 3.2.

70 To the Trallians, 3.1 - choris touton ekklesia
ou kaleitai.

71 14.1ff.

72 See Schmidt, op. cit., vol. 3, p. 537.

73 See Wolfson, op. cit., vol. 1, pp. 182f.

74 See supra, p.10.

75 Cf. Apostolic Constitutions II. 59; an edict of
Maximmus (303-313 A.D.) in Eusebius, Eccl. Hist, ix. 10; canon 15
of the Council of Ancyra (314); canon 5 of the Council of Neo-Caesarea
(314-323); canon 28 of the council of Laodicea.

76 See article "Church," A New English Dictionary on
Historical Principles (edited by J. H. Murray, Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1893), vol. 2, pp. 402,
406.

Last Update: August
23,
2006
http://www.acu.edu/sponsored/restoration_quarterly/archives/1950s/vol_2_no_4_contents/ward.html
Questions
to Carolyn Thompson ([email-masked])