For instance, when an ekklesia wasn't assembled, no one wrote that an ekklesia might not be an assembly because the people who did assemble were not assembled seven days a week and twenty-four hours a day. An ekklesia must assemble because it was an assembly. If it didn't assemble, it wouldn't be an assembly. When it assembled, it was an assembly. Men who didn't assemble were not an assembly.
If someone wrote he ekklesia, or "the assembly," no one would be confused about the singular noun. They wouldn't assume the use of the singular, "the assembly," meant there was just one, or that there was one invisible assembly, and then there were the visible assemblies, which were merely visible manifestations of the invisible one, except as Plato might have talked about any visible thing. However, Plato would have understood "the assembly" as the idea of assembly that would find its reality in an actual assembly (if he ever even did refer to ekklesia in a "Platonic" sense). The idea would, however, be an idea of an actual assembly that found its reality in a visible assembly of people. The idea and the real thing would not have been different in nature.
Plato uses ekklesia (ecclesia) in his Dialogues. When not referring to a particular assembly, and yet still an assembly, he uses "the assembly" (he ecclesia). We read this very usage in his Dialogues (click on link):
And I say that if a rhetorician and a physician were to go to any city, and had to argue in the Ecclesia or any other assembly as to which of them should be elected state-physician...
Notice that Plato uses the generic use of the singular noun, "the assembly" (the ecclesia). It is still an assembly. Notice that he says, "or any other assembly." "The Ecclesia" distinguished one kind of assembly from another. But both are still an assembly. This is actually quite simple. No one would think of turning even Plato's usage into something universal, invisible, and mystical.
When Jesus used ekklesia in Matthew 16:18, it's first recorded biblical usage, people hearing it in that day would have still understood it as an assembly. However, Jesus differentiated His assembly from other assemblies by saying, "my assembly." Despite saying "my" and using ekklesia in the singular number, an ekklesia was still an assembly. Jesus' further usage of ekklesia would support that point.
Hebrews 12:23 uses the Greek word ekklesia: "To the general assembly and church (ekklesia) of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect." People would have no contextual reason to think of this as anything but an assembly of people in a particular location. There is the assembly of God at Corinth. This is the assembly in heaven. "Firstborn" are those who inherit heaven, saved people. As saved people, their names are recorded at one point in time in heaven with the results of that recording permanent (perfect passive participle). That sounds like the book of life.
Does the church in the New Testament include Old Testament saints? No. Are Old Testament saints included in the firstborn? Are Old Testament saints in the book of life? If the church is New Testament, then the assembly of all of the firstborn of both the Old and New Testaments could not be New Testament. "Firstborn" itself is an Old Testament concept, very familiar to the Jewish audience of Hebrews. It is not intended to communicate something universal and mystical. An incentive for the audience of the book of Hebrews, in part unsaved Jews, was to be saved, to be converted, so to be in that assembly with all of the firstborn, both Old and New Testaments. Will Old Testament saints also inherit His eternal kingdom? Yes. Are the Old Testament saints in "the church"? If not, because Israel and the church are not the same, then how could "the firstborn" be the church of the New Testament? That ekklesia is merely an assembly in heaven, again as an incentive to unsaved Jews to get saved, so they can join the rest of the firstborn in their inheritance with the rest of the congregants in heaven, a congregation of Old and New Testament saints.
To be added to a New Testament church, someone must be baptized (Acts 2:41). Salvation is not the only requirement. Were Old Testament saints baptized? No. They were not baptized. Baptism is not a prerequisite for being firstborn. We inherit eternal life, the kingdom of God, by faith alone. But Old Testament saints will be in the assembly in heaven.
All saints can assemble in heaven. However, just because they are assembled doesn't mean that they are an ekklesia in the same sense as most of the usages of ekklesia, which are Jesus' assemblies on earth. His assembly on earth is an organized congregation of baptized believers, having New Testament officers, practicing New Testament ordinances, and is actively engaged in carrying out the Great Commission. The assembly in heaven isn't functioning like that. However, what it has in common with that earthly assembly is that it is local and it is an assembly. Not every use of ekklesia is an assembly in the sense of the church at Corinth or the churches of Galatia (cf. Acts 19:32, 39, 41), but every usage is still an assembly, because ekklesia means "assembly."
"Church" ("assembly") is a local and visible concept, which is why that word. Some ask, is there anything more than local in the New Testament? Yes. You have the kingdom of God and the family of God -- those are two universal concepts. They are both soteriological. Church, which is ecclesiological, is not universal. It is the opposite of universal. It is mutually exclusive from universal. If you are looking for something more than local, you've got it. You have kingdom of God and family of God. If you want universal, you don't need "church." "Church" is "assembly."
When you refer to an assembly, you are referring to something that a certain people do. They assemble together. They are an assembly because they assemble together. If they do not assemble together, then are not an assembly. They are not assembly until they assemble. If they are an assembly, they will continue to assemble. An assembly in heaven has never assembled. It will not be an assembly until people assemble in heaven. It is an assembly in prospect, but it should not be confused with what is the assembly on earth. That one is assembling now and it is made up of more than just saved people, but saved, baptized people, who gather to fulfill the purpose of the earthly assembly. They have to be in a particular locale, because an assembly only occurs in a particular locale.
Seems pretty simple. Will people give up their doctrine in order to receive the historical/grammatical teaching of the Scriptures? That is the question.
ReplyDeleteHi Kent,
ReplyDeleteNo problem on the secular Greek definition, that's pretty clear. The New Testament, however, uses the term in a different way. Because of that, your church exists this morning, even though it isn't assembled. So while ekklesia means assembly in 1st century secular Greek, church means something more in the New Testament.
I responded to your comment over on my site, but I thought I'd put this part of the response over here. There is something I'd like to see you address: why is the idea of local church only so important? Or, to put it another way, why is the idea of the universal church dangerous? I’d really like to read what you think about all that.
For me, the way I understand the term is the way I see the language being used in the NT. I think that is true of you also. So one (or both) of us is incorrect in our understanding.
But beyond the very important point of wanting to be biblical in our understanding, are there other reasons you see that make you so strong on your point of view?
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Hi Don,
ReplyDeleteYour US government officials assemble together in a body called Congress (congress definition: a formal meeting of the representatives). Even when they aren't all meeting together at one time, people will still complain about "those idiots in Congress" in reference to everyone who is a part of that assembly.
No one wails that "Congress has been dissolved and doesn't exist!" every time they walk out of the building and go back to their homes, or shouts "the Congress now exists!" as they assemble back together to make laws.
I think this refutes your idea that the NT usage of eccelsia is somehow unique or special because the church continues to exist when everyone goes home on Sunday night.
People, like Plato, spoke of "The Ecclesia" even when it wasn't specifically assembled at the time. It's a common feature of formal assemblies that they are called as such even when not in session. They only cease to be called as such when the assembly is permanently dissolved or participants will be permanently unable to assemble. The Biblical usage of the word fits that like a glove.
Do you have any other reasons or evidence why the NT usage of the word ecclesia is different to the common usage?
Interesting attempt. In your example, Congress = Church, and is used in the same way. Congress isn't the word assembly.
ReplyDeleteIf you could cite the reference where Plato spoke of "the assembly" when it wasn't specifically assembled, that would be helpful. I'd at least be able to give a more informed comment about it.
Would still like to hear from Kent as to why the idea of local-church only is so important.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
By the way, I should add that I went to the link in Plato that Kent supplied, but don't see it as referring to an assembly that continues to exist even when not assembled. He refers to "the Ekklesia" as a specific assembly (sounds like a council or legislative body) or "any other assembly" as a meeting that could be called. But he doesn't speak of "the Ekklesia" as being in existence as apart from the actual meeting. It is just a particular regular meeting that was held. That's the way I take it anyway, and it is, I think, a reasonable way to read how the term is being used there.
ReplyDeleteThe best you can say, I think, for your side, would be that the Plato reference is inconclusive. Certainly doesn't seem parallel to the NT usage of ekklesia to me.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Don,
ReplyDeleteI'm really running today and will have a hard time answering in detail, but I'll probably write a separate post, because it's a worthwhile thought to consider.
What would be necessary for you to be persuaded that the ecclesia was an ecclesia even when it wasn't gathered, but that it must gather in order to be an ecclesia? I believe that historians have spoken of ecclesia or ekklesia (they transliterate it both ways) as an ecclesia even when the citizens were not meeting. Is that the point you are making? That it ceased being an ekklesia when it wasn't meeting?
That is the point I am making, but I am saying that usage is unique to the New Testament and not present in secular Greek usage.
ReplyDeleteNow I should note that I am not speaking from any kind of personal research in the Greek writers, just repeating what I read from others (who I of course think are credible).
I figured when I asked that I was asking for a whole blog post. When you get the time for it, I would find it very interesting.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Hi Don,
ReplyDeleteI was just pointing out that it's pretty common to find formal assemblies referred to as though they exist even when they are out of session. Congress is a classic example, because it's an assembly, as is Senate. If you look at the definitions of both words you'll see they are assemblies.
There just isn't anything super special about the NT assembly continuing to exist even when it's not specifically meeting right now. You can be a member of Congress even when it's not assembled at this instant. You can be a member of the local town ecclesia even when it's not assembled at this instant. You can be a member of a local church assembly, even when it's not assembled instant. That's pretty bog standard for formal assemblies, ancient and modern. Nothing mystical or universal required.
I'm sure you have other reasons why you think the NT usage of the word Ecclesia is a special case that defies the grammatical and historical usage, but the existence of the NT ecclesia outside of specific meeting hours doesn't seem to be a strong case to stand on.
Jeremy, you are confusing the issue. We understand about words like Congress, they work the same as the English word Church.
ReplyDeleteThe question is what did the Greek word ekklesia mean at various points in history? We translate the word ekklesia with the English word assembly. The Gk word meant simply a meeting, an assembly, it didn't refer to the people who made up the assembly prior to the NT. (According to Ryrie and others and what limited study I have made.)
The fact that we have different uses in English from a vastly different culture and time is totally irrelevant. Doesn't matter.
What we have to understand is what ekklesia meant then, not what English assembly means now.
Does that make sense?
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
How does John's use of 'logos' jive with historical usage?
ReplyDeleteHi Don,
ReplyDeleteI do understand what you're saying. You wish to discuss just the Greek word ecclesia using examples from that time period only to avoid clouding the issue.
What I'm understanding from what you are writing is this. Let me know which points are off base:
1. You believe the secular usage of ecclesia is only used to refer to an assembly when it is assembled, never when they are out of session - somewhat like how we would talk about a mob. Mobs either are assembled and exist, or are not assembled and are thus no longer a mob.
2. You believe the NT talks about the ecclesia even when it is currently out of session.
3. Thus, you believe the NT usage of ecclesia can't be restricted to the secular usage as they're clearly different.
Is that correct?
Hi Josh
ReplyDeleteI'd say it's basically that. Words have ways of developing, meanings change and when we are studying New Testament words we have to study them in a New Testament context, i.e., in the time in which they were written.
However, I should note that your word "mob" works as an illustration of this in a North American context, but I think British slang has given it a bit of a twist - "blokes" will talk about "my mob", when they are referring to their group. And when we say "the mob" we mean a definite group that doesn't have to be gathered!
Anyway, I think you get the idea.
The point of contention in this case is that ekklesia in the NT refers to a group whether assembled or not. I guess it doesn't matter if we can find that meaning in Greek culture, except that it is interesting that the "assembled or not" idea is something added to the meaning by the NT. All of that is, of course, if I am correct in my understanding of this.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3