Shimon
2nd December 2002, 12:14 AM
We must understand that the English word “church” is not a good translation of the Greek word ekklesia. While there exists an ongoing debate about the derivation of the English word “church,” the scholarly consensus is that it derives from the Greek word kuriokos meaning “of the Lord.” The first consistent use of the Greek word kuriokos to describe the meeting place of Christians is found in the 3rd Century CE Apostolic Constitutions. Its earlier use referred to things belonging to the Lord (e.g. the “Day of the Lord” or the “Table of the Lord”). From this the word was eventually applied to the 3rd and 4th Century CE “church” building as “belonging to the Lord” and thus a sacred place.
The apostles' use of the word ekklesia simply meant "a gathering,” or “an assembly of people for a common purpose.” In fact, since Rome recognized and gave exemptions from Roman worship (including veneration of the Emperor) to the synagogue but did not do so to any other “religion,” for the followers of Yeshua to emerge as a “new religion” would have met with stern and immediate reprisals by the prevailing government. That they did not, but gathered without fear of Roman invasion into their meetings, shows that as far as Rome was concerned, the people of “The Way” fell under the general heading of “Jewish” and thus were afforded the same exemptions given to the wider Jewish community.
While the word ekklesia is found twice in Matthew, it is entirely absent in all of the other gospels. Its absence is also notable in both the first and second epistle of Peter. While most of Christendom claims that Yeshua “founded the church” upon Peter, it is interesting that Peter never uses the word ekklesia in his epistles. In contrast, all but two of Paul’s epistles contain the word, and it is found 20 times in Revelation. Interestingly, James uses the word sunagoge for the Messianic congregation yet instructs those who are sick to call the elders of the ekklesia. Apparently the two words are used synonymously in the epistle of James.
The Septuagint had used ekklesia as well as sunagoge to translate the Hebrew word kahal which was often used to designate the “congregation” of Israel. A second Hebrew word, ‘eidah, also used to describe the “congregation,” is always translated by sunagoge or other Greek terms, but never by ekklesia. While kahal and ‘eidah are generally synonymous in meaning, often kahal refers to the more formal representation of the community. Conversely, ‘eidah refers to the group as an informal assembly.
According to Howard Clark Kee (“The Tranformation of the Synagogue After 70 CE: It’s Import for Early Christianity”, New Testament Studies 36 (1990), 6), there was a hesitancy in Jewish communities near Jerusalem to use the label proseuche (“a place of prayer”) as a designation for the synagogue because they did not want to detract from the centrality of the Temple. Since ‘eidah (“congregation”) of the Tanach denoted the community in general, and when speaking of the congregation was always translated by sunagoge, it was natural for groups that formed for study outside of the Temple to adopt the term. As the diaspora continued, however, the synagogue was no longer the informal assembly, but took upon itself the formal status previously ascribed only to the Temple. The greater importance the synagogue had in the diaspora and its ultimate importance after the destruction of the Temple caused the term sunagoge to eventually denote the building more than the assembly (Lee I. Levine, The Ancient Synagogue: the First Thousand Years (Yale, 2000), 186ff. ).
That Rabbinic Judaism very early formulated the synagogue as a reminder of the Temple (both in function and liturgy) may account for the use of ekklesia by the Messianics instead of sunagoge. If especially in the diaspora sunagoge represented formal, Rabbinic Judaism as an interim expression of the Temple, it may not have fit the Messianic congregations. For while there was a true desire and hope for the rebuilding of the Temple among the Messianics, the present reign of Yeshua at the right hand of the Father, as well as the dwelling of the Spirit in each believer, constituted the Messianic congregation as the people of God in a specific way.
The spiritual vigor of the 1st Century Temple, on the other hand, had diminished under the self-indulgence of the Sadducees, and thus failed to function as the place where God’s presence was manifest and revealed to the people. For the followers of Yeshua, there was not a strong need to duplicate the “sacred space” of the Temple that Yeshua Himself had dubbed a “den of robbers.” Like the congregation of Israel in the wilderness, the Messianics awaited the rebuilding of the Temple at the return of Yeshua, and therefore saw themselves as journeying toward that reality, but not yet there. As such, the word most often used for the “congregation of Israel” in the Torah, kahal, was attractive. And, since both ekklesia and sunagoge had been used throughout the Septuagint to translate kahal, “congregation,” ekklesia was a valid label for the emerging synagogue of “The Way.”
Shimon
The apostles' use of the word ekklesia simply meant "a gathering,” or “an assembly of people for a common purpose.” In fact, since Rome recognized and gave exemptions from Roman worship (including veneration of the Emperor) to the synagogue but did not do so to any other “religion,” for the followers of Yeshua to emerge as a “new religion” would have met with stern and immediate reprisals by the prevailing government. That they did not, but gathered without fear of Roman invasion into their meetings, shows that as far as Rome was concerned, the people of “The Way” fell under the general heading of “Jewish” and thus were afforded the same exemptions given to the wider Jewish community.
While the word ekklesia is found twice in Matthew, it is entirely absent in all of the other gospels. Its absence is also notable in both the first and second epistle of Peter. While most of Christendom claims that Yeshua “founded the church” upon Peter, it is interesting that Peter never uses the word ekklesia in his epistles. In contrast, all but two of Paul’s epistles contain the word, and it is found 20 times in Revelation. Interestingly, James uses the word sunagoge for the Messianic congregation yet instructs those who are sick to call the elders of the ekklesia. Apparently the two words are used synonymously in the epistle of James.
The Septuagint had used ekklesia as well as sunagoge to translate the Hebrew word kahal which was often used to designate the “congregation” of Israel. A second Hebrew word, ‘eidah, also used to describe the “congregation,” is always translated by sunagoge or other Greek terms, but never by ekklesia. While kahal and ‘eidah are generally synonymous in meaning, often kahal refers to the more formal representation of the community. Conversely, ‘eidah refers to the group as an informal assembly.
According to Howard Clark Kee (“The Tranformation of the Synagogue After 70 CE: It’s Import for Early Christianity”, New Testament Studies 36 (1990), 6), there was a hesitancy in Jewish communities near Jerusalem to use the label proseuche (“a place of prayer”) as a designation for the synagogue because they did not want to detract from the centrality of the Temple. Since ‘eidah (“congregation”) of the Tanach denoted the community in general, and when speaking of the congregation was always translated by sunagoge, it was natural for groups that formed for study outside of the Temple to adopt the term. As the diaspora continued, however, the synagogue was no longer the informal assembly, but took upon itself the formal status previously ascribed only to the Temple. The greater importance the synagogue had in the diaspora and its ultimate importance after the destruction of the Temple caused the term sunagoge to eventually denote the building more than the assembly (Lee I. Levine, The Ancient Synagogue: the First Thousand Years (Yale, 2000), 186ff. ).
That Rabbinic Judaism very early formulated the synagogue as a reminder of the Temple (both in function and liturgy) may account for the use of ekklesia by the Messianics instead of sunagoge. If especially in the diaspora sunagoge represented formal, Rabbinic Judaism as an interim expression of the Temple, it may not have fit the Messianic congregations. For while there was a true desire and hope for the rebuilding of the Temple among the Messianics, the present reign of Yeshua at the right hand of the Father, as well as the dwelling of the Spirit in each believer, constituted the Messianic congregation as the people of God in a specific way.
The spiritual vigor of the 1st Century Temple, on the other hand, had diminished under the self-indulgence of the Sadducees, and thus failed to function as the place where God’s presence was manifest and revealed to the people. For the followers of Yeshua, there was not a strong need to duplicate the “sacred space” of the Temple that Yeshua Himself had dubbed a “den of robbers.” Like the congregation of Israel in the wilderness, the Messianics awaited the rebuilding of the Temple at the return of Yeshua, and therefore saw themselves as journeying toward that reality, but not yet there. As such, the word most often used for the “congregation of Israel” in the Torah, kahal, was attractive. And, since both ekklesia and sunagoge had been used throughout the Septuagint to translate kahal, “congregation,” ekklesia was a valid label for the emerging synagogue of “The Way.”
Shimon