The Significance of έκκλησία in the New Testament

What is the meaning of the word ekklesia? What does it suggest as to disunion in the Church of God?

by Trevor Gervase Jalland

The normal word^F1 used to denote the Christian community in the New Testament is ĕkklēsia [church]^F2 As there is considerable probability that in adopting this term as a description of their society Christians were influenced in some measure by the frequency of its use in the Septuagint, it is relevant in the first place to inquire what light that usage can throw upon the present inquiry.

In (the) LXX it is found in roughly one hundred distinct contexts.^F3 In all these it serves to render q�h�l [church] in the Hebrew original, or else a term which is a direct derivative of q�h�l.^F4 In the earlier writings it is frequently used with some qualification, suggesting that to the mind of the translators the word by itself was felt to possess a general, non�religious significance.^F5 In the later books, however, it is often found used in an absolute sense without qualification,^F6 and by the time we reach the Hellenistic writers, such as Philo, examples occur of the use of the word in an ideal or supernatural sense.^F7

But in addition to ĕkklēsia as a rendering of q�h�l Yahweh [Church of God] we also find a few instances of sunagōgē [synagogue], which itself is also used to translate ��dh�h [congregation]. Although sunagōgē, like ĕkklēsia, originally must have been used to express the idea of a gathering or assembly,^F8 in later usage it is normally restricted to mean the building in which such a gathering would be held.^F9

It may therefore be supposed that these two terms lay ready to hand as a description of the primitive Christian community, ĕkklēsia and sunagōgē. Yet of these there must have been a strong bias in favor of ĕkklēsia, for, as we have seen, sunagōgē, by the beginning of the Christian era, if not for some time previously, had come to acquire a localized sense. But there were other reasons which naturally led to the choice of ĕkklēsia . It served to emphasize the extension in space of the Christian body and to exclude "congregationalist" notions, i.e. the view that each local Christian group constituted in itself the "people of God;" secondly, it served to stress the essential continuity between the New and the Old Israel, between the hagiŏi [saints] of the New Testament and the sh'ērīth [posterity or remnant] of the Old; last, and perhaps most significant of all, it helped to express the conviction that the Christian society had not come into being as a matter of human convenience or by man's disposition, but had in fact been formed by divine institution and appointment.

Until the latter half of the nineteenth century it was probably taken, for granted generally that in Christian usage the primary meaning of the word was the "totality of Christians," its use as a description of a local or individual community being treated as derived and secondary. During the latter half of the century, however, a change of view began to take place, and under the influence of the prevailing outlook it was widely held that Christian ideas and institutions were deeply indebted to the organization of the Greek urban communities.^F10 Separate existence, it was held, preceded federation. And even since that time views of this kind have continued to dominate the attitude of Protestant scholarship as a whole to this question, as may be seen from the fact that a number of lexicographers and compilers of "word-books" continued to assign to ĕkklēsia as its primary meaning "the local community."^F11 More recently, however, a marked reaction has been noticeable. Thus such modern authors as Zorell, Linton, and Schmidt all agree in giving "universal society" as the original sense of the word.^F12

It may perhaps seem that this is merely a philological question, possessing no more than a purely academic interest. But it should not be forgotten that "the practical importance of a right doctrine of the Church is very great. So long as scholars thought that independent communities combined to form the Church in the first instance, reversion to their original independence seemed justifiable." But if "the Church was one from the beginning, and by nature cannot be otherwise, disunion is clearly contrary to God's will."^F13

Let us pass on therefore to consider the light which the evidence provided by the use of the word in the New Testament can throw on the problem. We shall begin with the Acts of the Apostles. By this means we shall be able to follow the chronological order of development,^F14 and at the same time avoid having to beg the question of the authenticity of the relevant passages in the Gospels. Out of the one hundred or so instances of the word in the New Testament, no less than twenty-three appear in that book.^F15 Of these the word is used absolutely, i.e. without any qualification, in eight passages,^F16 in each of which the context makes it clear that the reference is to the primitive community at Jerusalem. In two further instances there is the same reference, but with the addition of ĕn Hiĕrŏlumitēs [in Jerusalem]; similarly, in two other cases^F18 the use of the phrase ĕn Antiŏchia [in Antioch] restricts the meaning to the local community. To these two others^F19 may be added, in which the word is used without qualification, but where the context makes it clear that the allusion is to the local churches of Antioch and Ephesus respectively. A single example of the expression kat΄ ĕkklēsian [in each individual church]^F20 occurs in connection with the local churches of South Galatia. In two passages, and no more, is the word found in the plural.^F21 Finally, there are two contexts^F22 in which there can be no reasonable doubt that it is used to denote the universal Christian society.

At first sight it would appear that a stronger case can be made for the view that the primary sense of the word in New Testament usage is the local community. But its strength is only superficial. As we have seen, it was natural that the word should be used in first instance of the original nucleus at Jerusalem,^F22 which at least for a short time roughly included the whole of the existing Christian society. But by an equally natural process of extension it came to be used first of Christian communities of Palestine,^F23 then of Syria,^F24 and finally of the province of Asia.^F25 In fact, these communities appear to be regarded in no way as separate entities, but simply as expansions of the original ĕkklēsia of Jerusalem.^F26

Similar evidence is provided by the Epistles of St. Paul. The earliest use of the word here clearly refers to the primitive community at Jerusalem (or perhaps of Judaea.^F27 On the other hand, the first Epistle to the Corinthians provides a number of examples of the word used in a universalist sense. Thus at the beginning of the letter the Apostle writes "the Church of God which is at Corinth,"^F28 which he then goes on to define as "them that are sanctified by Messiah Jesus, called as holy ones, with all that call upon the name of our Lord Messiah Jesus in every place."^F29 The same epistle offers a further example of an allusion to the primitive Palestinian community,^F30 while in saying "God hath set some in the Church, first apostles,..."^F31 there remains little room for doubt that the author is referring to the totality of Christians.

A contrast with the usage of the Acts is the frequent appearance in Pauline writings of the qualification "of God"^F32 or "of Messiah,^"F33 the former being found once only in the Acts, the latter not at all.^F34 Yet if there is one sign above all others that the conception of what constitutes membership of the Christian is the same for St. Luke and St. Paul alike, it is the fact that both equally assign primary; importance to the acceptance of the fact of the Dominical Resurrection. If St. Paul pays special attention to the primitive ĕkklēsia at Jerusalem, it must be because he regards it as the divinely called remnant of the ancient q�h�l, from which the new society derives its being.^F35

When we pass on to the later Epistles, a further difference is to be noted. Here attention is directed primarily to the universal society, while the thought of the local community is relegated to the background. Thus out of thirteen examples of the word in the Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians, not less than eleven are used with a universalist meaning.^F36 so too if in Colossians the Church is described as the "Body of Christ" of which Christ Himself is the "Head,"^F37 in Ephesians Christ and the Church are actually placed on the same level.^F38

Further, it is in Ephesians that we find a description of the ideal Church as "holy," and "blameless," expressions which elsewhere are applied to individual Christians.^F39 Some have attempted to draw a sharp contrast between the conception of the Church which appears in St. Paul's earlier writings and that which emerges from his later ones. But such contrast as there is can be explained if the changed conditions are taken into account. In contrast to the marked emphasis on the importance of the primitive ĕkklēsia at Jerusalem, to which even St. Paul himself appears to have been prone at one time,^F40 the Apostle felt bound to insist on the Church's supernatural origin^F41 and even on its identification with the Messiah Jesus Himself. If in the earlier writings he uses the metaphor "body" to describe the intimate relation of Christians as individuals to one another^F42 it was only to be expected that when the need arose to call attention to the divine institution of the whole Christian society that he should identify the "Body" with Christ.^F43

A further use of the word calling for mention at this point, the importance of which will be found to be discussed elsewhere, is with reference to places of Christian assembly, or what are sometimes called "house-churches."^F44

The evidence provided by the rest of the New Testament apart from the Gospels need not long detain us. All twenty instances of the word in the Revelation clearly refer to local communities. ^F45 The same appears also to be true of its use in the third Johannine Epistle and in the Epistle of James.^F46 On the other hand, in the deutero-Pauline Pastorals the phrase "God's house, that is the Church of God the Living One, the pillar and foundation of the truth,"^F47 can only mean the totality of Christians, and the same must hold good also of "a festal assembly and Church of the first-born, who have been enrolled in heaven," a phrase found in the Epistle to the Hebrews.^F48 Though the term itself is lacking in I Peter, there can be no doubt that the idea of a universal society underlies the words "an elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's own possession."^F49

We turn now to the Gospels. In spite of the fact that the word ĕkklēsia is found only in St. Matthew in contexts the authenticity of which as actual Dominical logia [sayings of Jesus] has been regarded by some as highly suspect, it cannot be denied that even "if the word is not elsewhere attested....the thing is there."^F50 Thus in St. Mark our Lord is represented on the eve of His Passion as deliberately applying the words of Zechariah to Himself and His disciples: "I will smite the shepherd and the sheep shall be scattered abroad."^F51 In connection with this and with the parallel quotation in St. Matthew,^F52 it should be remembered that the term rō'ēh (shepherd) is frequently used in the Old Testament as a description of the national ruler,^F53 just as şōn (sheep or flock) denotes the "people" or nation.^F54 It would seem, therefore, that the phrase just quoted was specifically chosen by our Lord because it served to describe His own relation to the new society as well as to stress the corporate unity of the disciples. The same metaphor is also found in an isolated logion preserved by St. Luke: "Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom."^F55 It occurs frequently in the Fourth Gospel^F56 and occasionally elsewhere in the New Testament.^F57 Besides this, we also find the metaphor of the Kingdom applied, apparently to the apostolic collegium: "Of a truth, I say unto you, that ye which have followed me, in the new creation, when the Son of Man shall sit upon the throne of His Glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel."^F58 In the face of evidence such as is afforded by sayings such as these it is impossible to deny that it was part of our Lord's deliberate intention to impress this fact upon the minds of His original disciples, namely, that He and they together constituted the new ĕkklēsia of God, not a fortuitously aggregated assembly, but the true corporate Israel of God.

In the face of what has just been said, it is plainly impossible to reject on purely a priori grounds any logion in which our Lord is represented as assigning a corporate character to the fellowship of His disciples. At the same time, we must judge each of the Matthaean passages on its merits.

At first sight it would appear that the ĕkklēsia in Matthew 18:15-18, is essentially the local community as distinct from the ĕkklēsia in Matthew 16:18, which seems to bear a transcendental significance. It is on account of this contrast that some who accept the authenticity of the latter have felt bound to reject the former.^F59 Yet it is possible that the contrast is more superficial than real. It is by no means improbable that Matthew 18:15-18, in common with other matter peculiar to the first Gospel, was derived ultimately from members of the original community at Jerusalem, who, as Streeter suggests, had fled to Antioch to escape from the misfortunes of their fellows following the martyrdom of James in 62. The possibility that this logion had acquired in their hands a certain change of emphasis favorable to the authority of the primitive Jerusalemite community should certainly be taken into account. Allowance may have to be made for the influence of an interpretation placed upon the to which our Lord referred, more restricted in its scope than the original Dominical concept. Moreover, if the hypothesis of an Antiochene origin for the first Gospel in its present form be accepted, it is remarkable that in a community in which presumably by the last decade but one of the first century the Gentile element formed a large proportion, the seemingly harsh expression ĕstō sŏi hōspĕr hŏ ĕthnikŏs kai hŏ tĕlōnēs [let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican] should have been accepted without modification. Yet even if we regard this phrase as a midrash, its almost na�ve exclusiveness seems to bear testimony to the genuineness of the remainder. Of the passage as a whole it may be said that, assuming that the logion formed part of the tradition derived from Jerusalem, there would be every reason for the "conservatives," who looked to James as their leader, to treasure a saying which appeared to assign identified in their view with the Jerusalemite Urkirche a decisive voice regarding matters in dispute between Christians.^F60

As to Matt. 16:16, the genuineness of which as a Dominical logion must be assumed here, the context appears to throw no light on our present inquiry, unless we may also assume the identification of the ĕkklēsia with the basilĕia, in which case it seems more probable that the former word bears a universalist sense.^F61

We could be more confident about this conclusion if it were possible to reach any certainty as to the Aramaic or Hebrew original, which is here represented by ĕkklēsia assuming the latter to underlie the word in question, we might be reasonably certain that q�h�l was the original, and thus include this passage along with the rest in which ĕkklēsia is used to denote the totality of Christians. Still assuming a Hebrew original, 'ēdhāh is also a possibility, though the meaning would not be affected to any appreciable extent. Besides these two terms the Rabbis made frequent use of sibbūr, signifying in the Old Testament a "heap" or "crowd," and used both of the whole Hebrew nation and of an individual community. Another Rabbinical term is kenēseth Israel; again the bias would be in favor of a general rather than a local meaning.

Many, however, prefer to believe that it is Aramaic rather than Hebrew which underlies the word in question. In this case three possibilities are suggested by the usage of the Targums, namely, q�h�la, sibbūra', and most commonly of all kenīshta'. It is remarkable that in those Syriac versions of the New Testament which have the closest linguistic affinity with the Palestinian Aramaic most probably used by our Lord and His disciples, ĕkklēsia or sunagōgē are represented by kenūshtā; there is thus a high degree of probability that this or a dialectically related word was actually used by them.

As to its meaning, the fact that kenīshta' or its cognate might be rendered either by ĕkklēsia or sunagōgē would naturally suggest that the truly primitive conception of the Christian society was simply that of a sect within the parent society of Judaism. No doubt at first official Judaism was content to regard it as such. On the other hand, it is reasonably probable that the Urkirche [Early Church], though in fact at first no more than a sunagōgē, held itself to be the only true Israel, sharply distinguished from the, apostate body now abandoned, thus making a claim not unlike that of similar communities belonging to an earlier date. Identification of the sect or local body with the whole community gives ground for holding in that both the passages considered from the kenīshta' is in fact no other than the ideal q'hal Yahweh, and therefore represents the universal society.

From the foregoing evidence only one conclusion seems possible, namely, that ĕkklēsia signifies in the first instance the totality of the Christian fellowship, and only secondarily serves to describe a community domiciled in a particular locality.

-------------------

^F1The only other term used to describe a Christian gathering is sunagōgē [synagogue], James 2:2.

^F2 Apart from its use to denote the Christian community, it is also found in the New Testament in the classical sense of a meeting of the dēmŏs [people], Acts 19:32, 19:39f. But it must be remembered that such constitutional meetings were endowed with a quasi-religious character. Cf. Aristophanes, Equites, 768ff.

^F3It is also found occasionally in the other Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion.

^F4Found in I Bas. 19:20 = I Samuel 19:20; Psal. 25:12 = Psalm 26:12; Psal 67:27 = Psalm 68:27.

^F5E.g. q'hāl Yahweh = ĕkklēsia Kuriŏs, [the LXX reads "the congregation of the Lord", however Jalland used huiston? for Kuriŏs] Deuteronomy 23:2ff.; I Chronicles 28:8, etc. Cf. qāhāl lāk [thy congregation] =  ĕkklēsia sŏu; [thy church] Lamentations 1:10; Ecclesiastes 24:2.

^F6E.g. in I and II Chronicles, the later Psalms and the Apocryphal writings.

^F7It is a common habit of Philo to assign to it the epithet thĕia , e.g. in Conf. Ling. 144. Such a usage is altogether foreign to the Old Testament and New Testament. Elsewhere he qualifies it as hiera e.g. Som. 2, 184, 187. Josephus, on the other hand, only uses the word in a secular sense, e.g. Ant. 16.32, 19.332.

^F8Numbers 20:4; 27:17; 31:16.

^F9Psal. 73:8 = Psalm 74:8. where it is used to render moēd. In the New Testament, as we have seen, it is used once only of a Christian gathering, James 2:2. Otherwise it denotes a Jewish place of worship (55 examples).

^F10E.g. Hatch 1881.

^F11So Preuschen-Bauer, Griechisch-Deutsches W�rterbuch zu den Schriften des N.T.³, 1937; Abbott-Smith, Manual Greek Lexicon of MT., 1922; K�sters, Lexikon f. Theologie and Kirche, 1933, s.v. Kirche (R.C.). For the opposite view see Gayford, S. G., Art. "Church", in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, an Robinson, J. A., Art. "Church," in Encyclopaedia Biblica. Moulton-Milligan` Vocabulary of the N.T.², 1915, appears to support the latter view.

^F12Zorell, F., Lexicon Graecitatis N.T.², 1931; Linton, O. Das Problem der Urkirche in der neueren Forschung, 1932; Schmidt, K.L., Art. έκκλησία, in Kittel, G., Theologisches W�terbuch zum N.T., 1936.

^F15Out of these only nineteen are actually relevant. Acts 7:38 describes the 'Church' of the O.T.; Acts 19:32, 19:39-40, the 'Assembly' in the city of Ephesus.

^F16Acts 5:11; 8:3; 12:1, 12:5; 14:27; 15:4, 15:22; 18:22. If with some authorities we read in 2:47 tē_i ĕkklēsia, a further example can be added, but there is better support for the reading ĕpi tŏ autŏ [together].

^F17Acts 8:1; 11:22.

^F18Acts 11:26; 13:1.

^F19Acts 15:3; 20:17.