ekklesia = visible assembly?

CharlieJ · #1 (**permalink**) 06-12-2009, 11:11 PM

A pastor I know wrote this on another board.

Quote:

the Jerusalem church did gather publicly in one place--at the temple. Exegetically, the local church is defined by the Greek word, ekklesia. It refers to “an assembly of people”—and is used to describe secular as well as sacred gatherings (Acts 19:32, 39, 40). Although the Scriptural definition of a church moves beyond that most simple definition (the church is a covenant community that proclaims the gospel, administers the ordinances, and practices church discipline) a church cannot be a church unless it is a real assembly or group of believing people. In other words, a church is, in its most simple meaning, a visible gathering or assembly of baptized Christians.

Now, I will not disagree that Jerusalem Christians gathered regularly in houses ... but when they did so, they were not meeting as a church ... they did so for fellowship (see Acts 2:46).

The point is this: a church is a single gathering of believers in a single place. Multiple congregations means multiple churches exegetically. It's not that church members can't or shouldn't meet together at other times or places (other than the primary worship gathering of the church); it's that when they are meeting at McD's or Arby's or in someone's home, they are not meeting as the church ... they are meeting as individuals who are part of a church.

Also, I would caution all to not build an entire theology of the church or of what constitutes a church on the book of Acts. Remember, it's a transitional book. The epistles, on the other hand, easily fit into the "single gathering" definition of an ekklesia. I'm not saying Acts doesn't support this single ekklesia view ... just that Acts is not the only book that speaks to the nature or structure of the church ... and that the epistles should not be overlooked.

What exegetical arguments are there that εκκλησια could be something other than what is suggested here?

CharlieJ · #2 (**permalink**) 06-13-2009, 11:06 AM

bump

Leslie · #3 (**permalink**) 06-13-2009, 12:09 PM

What are the implications of the question? What difference will it make if this is answered one way or the other?

rbcbob · #4 (**permalink**) 06-13-2009, 02:25 PM

My understanding is that The Church is most often (but not always) referring to a local gathered assembly meeting as a church. Now suppose that the church had 17 members. If those 17 persons happened to find themselves shopping at a store at the same time they would not in that situation be The Church. But if those same 17 persons had met at that store because they had rented the facilities for worship then they would in that circumstance be "the Church" because they were gathered as such.

NKJ 1 Corinthians 11:18 For first of all, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it.

BYZ 1 Corinthians 11:18 prw/ton me.n ga.r sunercome,nwn u`mw/n evn evkklhsi,a| avkou,w sci,smata evn u`mi/n u`pa,rcein kai. me,roj ti pisteu,w

as a church.doc

CharlieJ · #5 (**permalink**) 06-14-2009, 11:32 AM

Thanks, Bob. I'll think about that reference.

The question is really, is it legitimate to refer to a sub-set of the universal church, other than a local church, as "church" - εκκλησια.

For example, take the Jerusalem church. Is it one local assembly, or a group of people perhaps comprising several assemblies?

Is it legitimate for a denomination to refer to itself as "the Presbyterian Church of America," or for me to refer to all the true churches in Greenville as "the church in Greenville"?

If so, where is the term used that way in Scripture?

rbcbob · #6 (**permalink**) 06-14-2009, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CharlieJ

Thanks, Bob. I'll think about that reference.

The question is really, is it legitimate to refer to a sub-set of the universal church, other than a local church, as "church" - εκκλησια.

For example, take the Jerusalem church. Is it one local assembly, or a group of people perhaps comprising several assemblies?

Is it legitimate for a denomination to refer to itself as "the Presbyterian Church of America," or for me to refer to all the true churches in Greenville as "the church in Greenville"?

If so, where is the term used that way in Scripture?

Charlie,
All true churches in Greenville are, each of them individually, churches. They are not collectively The Church in Greenville.

1 Corinthians 16:1 Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given orders to the churches of Galatia, so you must do also:

2 Corinthians 8:1 Moreover, brethren, we make known to you the grace of God bestowed on the churches of Macedonia:

Galatians 1:2 and all the brethren who are with me, To the churches of Galatia:

CharlieJ · #7 (**permalink**) 06-14-2009, 03:41 PM

Thanks, Bob. The verses you listed are quite helpful. They are very straightforward. I posted this looking for people who disagree to show where the term is used in a different way. Those responses may or may not be forthcoming.

***Contra_Mundum*** · #8 (**permalink**) 06-14-2009, 03:47 PM

1Cor.15:9 "For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God."
Gal.1:13 "For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:"

Was this a specific "church" reference? Because not only did Paul waste the Jerusalem church, but certainly outside of it, as far as heading to Damascus. He actually attacked physical people in physical, discrete places. But to him, it was all one attack on Christ and his church, singular.

I think Paul is speaking of the whole, universal church. It is a "body", and he may have been bloodying the nose, but the whole "church" even unto Damascus was being attacked.

I think it is artificial to say all faithful churches in a city can't be known as "the church" of that place, in some sense at least. For Presbyterians, it's even simpler because all our congregations in one Presbytery (perhaps it is in a city or region) constitute the church of that place. We are one body. But we can happily refer to them individually as particular manifestations of the church (i.e. "churches") too.

The "church which is at Corinth" referred to at the beginning of both letters. Was there only one church-congregation in the whole city? The Romans had this thing about large, unauthorized gatherings of people... it made them nervous. And there was this persecution too.

1Co 16:19 "The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house." Was their church the only church in Ephesus? Paul had a major-ministry there, even starting a "seminary" of sorts. And yet a letter is sent to the Ephesian church, and John still wrote to that church in Rev.2:1, implying something about its prominence and stength. Why wouldn't this letter be shared among many meeting-places of the church in Ephesus?

Php.4:15 Now ye Philippians know also, that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church communicated with me as concerning giving and receiving, but ye only. Is there only one church-congregation in Philippi?

The "church of the Thessalonians" referred to at the beginning of both letters. Is there only one church-congregation in Thessalonica? These were very early letters, so maybe so.

Col 4:15 "Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house." Was there only one church-congregation in Laodicea? Again, it was a lesser metropolis than Ephesus, but a significant town on a main route. But Paul tells them to share their letter with the Laodiciean church (4:16) and their letter with the Colossian church (which was a smaller city).

Phm.1:2 "And to our beloved Apphia, and Archippus our fellowsoldier, and to the church in thy house:" Paul was treating two churches (of Colosse and Laodicea) as one body in some sense. They may have been served by the one minister, Epaphras, and in his absence, Archippus. But why the repeated references to homes with churches, if there was only one of these homes in a city? They are never referred to at the beginning of the letter, only the city.

In Rev.2&3, there are seven references to "the church" in seven cities--some of which had been growing strong for decades. There must have been thousands of Christians in the "church in Ephesus." Where were they going to meet all at once, as "the church"? Were the city fathers going to offer them the public arena once a week?

This is the unbelievable thing about the original article, ref. Jerusalem. The church thousands all got together at the Temple--the first mega-church was in Jerusalem! Only in 20th/21st century America could this be believed.

A.J. · #9 (**permalink**) 06-14-2009, 09:04 PM

Thanks for that. The church is indeed both one and the many. The arguments put forth by Rev. Buchanan are discussed in greater detail in The Divine Right of Church Government. Click the link for a pdf copy of the book.