I thank you for the above post brother.
Looking in my library I found this also and feel it is worth sharing with one and all. Hope you don't mind brother, it is, I believe, an interesting read.
From: Eternal Israel by Barry E Horner - The meaning of Church
The Meaning of “Church,” Ἐκκλησία, Ekklēsia, in the New Testament (HCSB)
So often in considering the relationship between Israel and the church, the meaning of church is assumed. We believe this is a fundamental error that needs to be addressed. Since this is such a misunderstood theological concept and term due to centuries of accumulated meaning, all 113 instances of ἐκκλησία, ekklēsia, “church,” in the New Testament should be consulted. In the ecclesiastical environment of Christendom today, it becomes obvious that the word church often proves to be inadequate in conveying the original meaning—that is, the apostolic meaning that pervaded the early assembling of Christians.
Basic Meaning
In establishing the meaning of a New Testament word, it is of vital importance that it is derived from its first-century setting and not the accumulation of meaning that gradually becomes attached over subsequent centuries. Indeed, we also have to be careful that we do not import meaning from the preceding classical era, as illuminating—and perhaps illustrative—as this may appear to be. The proper meaning of ἐκκλησία, ekklēsia, is a case in point. The English word church comes from the Greek kuriakon concerning a building belonging to a kurios, or “master,” “lord.” Similarly, there is the German Kirche as well as the Scotch kirk, and the Dutch kerk. The Oxford American Dictionary and Thesaurus lists six distinctive English meanings:
1. A building for public (usually Christian) worship
2. A meeting for public worship in such a building
3. (Church) the body of all Christians
4. (Church) the clergy or clerical profession
5. (Church) an organized Christian group or society of any time, country, or distinct principles of worship
6. Institutionalized religion as a political or social force
Yet most of these, especially the primary, as distinct from the tertiary reference, unsatisfactorily represent the essential and simple meaning of ἐκκλησία, ekklēsia, in the New Testament.
In the first-century New Testament period. Here, ἐκκλησία, ekklēsia, simply meant “assembly,” “congregation,” or “gathering” in a secular sense, even without the necessary intimation of being summoned or any inherent religious or spiritual meaning. It was common for it to refer to a secular sporting, social, or political meeting (
Acts 19:32,
41). So in
Matt 16:18, the Lord Jesus uses this secular expression, except he qualifies it: “I also say to you that you are Peter [πέτρος, petros, ‘masculine’], and on this rock [πέτρα, petra, ‘neuter’] I will build My [emphatic position, universal] congregation/assembly [μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, mou tēn ekklēsian], and the forces of Hades [being pent up and ready for conflict] will not overpower it.” Consider the similar reference: “All the churches/congregations of Christ greet you” (
Rom 16:16). However, to employ church today in
Matt 16:18 is to obscure the original meaning, which focuses on Christ and certainly not church according to modern parlance. As distinct from consideration of the more popular identification of Jesus, such as being likened to John the Baptist or Elijah or Jeremiah, Peter affirms that Jesus is the divine Jewish Messiah, ὁ Χριστὸς, ho Christos, the anointed Son of the living Father—a designation and confession that so delighted Jesus. Christ emphatically distinguishes his congregation from all others. Hence he happily anticipates Peter’s involvement in the inauguration of his congregation, which will be established on the rock of Peter’s confession and inaugural church role (
Matt 16:19).
So in the New Testament, ἐκκλησία, ekklēsia, as a secular term, is distinguished as being Christian by either qualifiers (
Acts 5:11;
7:38;
11:22;
20:28;
Rom 16:4;
1 Cor 14:33;
Gal 1:2,
22;
Col 4:16;
2 Thess 1:4;
1 Tim 3:15;
Eph 5:29;
Phlm 1:2;
Heb 12:23;
Rev 1:11) or the definite article (
Acts 8:3;
12:1;
15:3), and both of these categories are often more clearly identified by the broader context (
Acts 9:31). Hence in discussion concerning Israel and the Church, as is so often the commonly nominated expression for study, we would suggest that a far more clarifying title should be Israel and Christ’s Congregation. Once this less tarnished expression is grasped, refreshing clarity results, including new possibilities in terms of comprehending the eschatological kingdom of God.
Added Meaning
Unfortunately, over many centuries subsequent to the early church, additional meanings have attached to ἐκκλησία, ekklēsia, like barnacles accumulating on the hull of a newly launched ship, which increasingly impede its progress. To appreciate this, simply substitute the term assembly or congregation for church in any of the New Testament references. It will become obvious that intimations of institutionalism, authoritarianism, sacerdotalism, and sacralism simply disappear. To speak of the sacred Roman universal assembly/gathering/congregation is to denude the more historic title, the Holy Roman Catholic Church, of its accumulated aura of ecclesiastical and authoritarian might, which the New Testament language concerning church, especially regarding
Matt 16:18, never faintly represents.
Therefore, in the sixteenth century, William Tyndale translated ekklēsia in the first English New Testament as “congregacion”—that is, “congregation”—rightly moving the focus from a building and a religious institution to the people, those especially belonging to Christ. Actually, he translated ekklēsia as “congregacion” in 112 references; one other reference he translated as “company” (
Rom 16:5). However, dire consequences followed this monumental work—that is, the first translation of the New Testament from the Greek text of Erasmus into English—whose 1534 edition became foundational for the King James version of 1611. Humanist Sir Thomas More strenuously opposed Tyndale’s magnum opus; his criticism was derisive, most likely because of antipathy to Tyndale’s sympathies with Luther, especially concerning the gospel.
F. F. Bruce provides a highly significant explanation here:
When More’s charges are examined, they amount to nothing more than a complaint that Tyndale translated certain ecclesiastical terms by English words which lacked ecclesiastical associations.
Thus he used “congregation” and not “church,” “senior” (in later editions “elder”) and not “priest” (where the Greek had presbyteros), “repentance” and not “penance,” “love” and not “charity,” and so forth. But no fault can be found with Tyndale in this regard from the standpoint of pure scholarship... In short, it was not the translation but the translator that More objected to. In his eyes, Tyndale was a Lutheran, a heretic, and his translation could not be right.
How tragic yet glorious is the conclusion to this historic saga. Tyndale’s New Testament rapidly spread despite ecclesiastical opposition that included book burnings. Having earlier fled from England to Europe, he was later kidnapped and incarcerated in a fortress north of Brussels. In August 1536, a church court found him guilty of heresy and condemned him to death. His lang-grcsterial office being degraded, he was then tied to a stake and strangled (by civil authorities), after which fire consumed him. His closing cry from the stake was “Lord, open the King of England’s eyes.”
Here is proof enough of the change in meaning that congregation or assembly could bring about in their replacement of church. Christian institutionalism—in this case, the Roman Catholic Church—found its stature and authority challenged and plainly it did not like it. However, the same institutionalism was evident in the Church of England. Upon the Puritan call for a new translation in 1604—that is, the authorized version—King James I became an overseeing force behind the new translation. Six companies of translators met at Westminster, Cambridge, and Oxford, where translation guidelines were provided by the king, including the requirement that “the old ecclesiastical words [were] to be kept, viz. the word Church [was] not to be translated Congregation.” Here the clinging to ecclesiastical power trumped commitment to truth. Even Luther, in his 1535 German translation of the Bible, “did not use the word ‘kirche,’ the German equivalent of ‘church,’ for ekklesia. Instead, he appropriately translated ekklesia as ‘gemeinde,’ i.e. community.”
Thus today when there is discussion concerning Israel and the church, there is a tendency to comprehend these two entities as more citadel, institutional-type communities, especially concerning the primacy of the church. Hence when we more correctly substitute the terminology, Israel and Christ’s Congregation, a new perspective confronts us. Stripped of authoritarian and institutional concepts, “My [Christ’s] congregation” (
Matt 16:18), in its incorporation of both believing Jews and Gentiles, is in no way meant to describe a homogenous society composed of clone-like believers. So the body of Christ, as a representation of this congregation, has unity and yet the diversity of differently gifted members—unity and yet diversity as in marital union—so that there is unity and yet diversity in Jewish and Gentile Christian relations. This is especially made clear in the institution of the new covenant, which is principally made with “the house of Israel and the house of Judah” (
Jer 31:31), not directly with the church. So with the inclusion of Gentiles as “wild olive branches” (
Rom 11:17), Paul sees them not as dominant but rather as needful of humility in terms of their gracious inclusion, knowing that “you [Gentiles] do not sustain the [Abrahamic] root, but the root sustains you” (
Rom 11:18).
Eternal Israel by Barry E Horner
