The Word "Church" Is Not In the Bible

Do you have questions about the nature, work, purpose, or pattern for the church? This is the place to share your thoughts and questions with others.

Moderator: grand_puba

Post Reply
sid
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 10:04 pm
Location: Granite City, IL

The Word "Church" Is Not In the Bible

Post by sid » Fri Oct 28, 2005 4:13 pm

To the Forum:

1) Many writers in the past, and many writers in the present, schooled in New Testament Greek, have declared that the word "church" is not in the Bible.
Presently, the web has many sites publishing this information.

2) EKKLHSIA is properly translated "Called-out" or "Called-from."
EK is the Greek preposition for "from" or "out of."
EKKLHSIA: Strong's #1577 - translated "assembly" - 2 Xs; and "church" - 114 Xs; is not a faithful translation.
KLHSIA: Strong's #1577, is a form of KLHSIS (#2821; "calling" - 10 Xs; derived from KALEW (#2564; "call" - 119 Xs).
THE CALL: "Come unto Me all you who labor and are heavy-laden, and I will give you rest."
Webster's Dictionary identified "church" as coming from "the Lord" (Kyrios); but this is not a legitimate translation.

3) EKKLHSIA (Called-out) is not mentioned in the Bible during the New Testament Era. Rev 3.6 was before the Resurrection of Israel (Rev 4 & 5 & 7); and Rev 22.16 was after the angel announced to John,
"These words are faithful and true"; thereby closing up the prophecy.

So then, the "Called-out" was in the "Hello salutation of Revelation"; and it was in the "Good-bye salutation of Revelation"; but it was not in the New Testament prophecy.

4) The priesthood was:
A) a "generation of Jews in Peter's lifetime"; see: 1Pet 2.5-10.
B) this generation was raised up to Third Heaven; see: Rev 1.6, 5.10.
C) The First Resurrection was added to this "priesthood" in AD 1775; see: Rev 20.4-6.

5) THE CONCLUSION:
A) The "Called-out" (or, "Church") does not relate to anyone on earth today.
"New Jerusalem" is the "Holy City" of God today.
The "Kingdom of God" is "New Jerusalem."
We do not have to invent any "fake" words; or corrupt the interpretation of the Bible in order to confirm these conclusions.
B) The word "preacher" is not in the Bible; having five different proper definitions of five separate Greek words. [Why did they translate 5 words to read "preach"?]
C) The word "doctor" is not in the Bible; being properly translated "teacher of the law."
D) Seminaries and Bible Colleges are condemned by Paul's letter to Timothy:
"And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" - 2Ti 2.2.
So then, the teachers of the Body are trained in the congregation, and not from outside the congregation.
E) Seminaries and Bible Colleges are condemned by John's letter;
"Therefore the anointing which you have received from Him remains in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will remain in It (Spirit is neuter)" - 1Jn 2.27.

OTHER WORDS NOT IN THE BIBLE.
"Christ" (Anointed), and "baptize" (dip), and "Jesus" (Iesous), and "wind" (breath; PNEW), and "angels" (sometimes "earthly messengers"), and "barbarian" (son of tribute [taxes]), and "mansions" (others), and "unequally yoked" (other yoked), and "Spirit; He" (It - neuter); and many others.
But then, the wise son "will not believe every word but look well to his going" (Prov 14.15).

All this submitted in love and hope,

sid
The New Covenant Is In Revelation

M130
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 8:11 am

Post by M130 » Sun Oct 30, 2005 10:35 am

I would like to address a couple if items on your article. That is good research. I would like to add this. The Greek Ecclesia is the called out. Those (in the flesh and spirit) are called out. The word Church is used in our language and has the same connotation that Ecclesia does. I know that it does well apply to us on earth today. If we read Acts as well as many other passages that you will see that Paul set up elders in every church or the ecclesia or called out. You see if we are called out by the Gospel and we heed to that then God adds us to the church which is his body with Christ being the head of it. Now of course it is a spiritual body but it is a place of gathered believers. 'Come ye out from among them and be ye separate'. The books in the New Testament we written to whom? The Church at Ephesus, Galatia, Rome, etc. The first few verses most always tell who the writer is sending the letter to. Acts 5:11 Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events, Matthew 16:18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. Matthew 16:17-19, Matthew 18:17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. So we see that it is very applicable to us today as it was then. Thanks for the interesting thoughts. We can talk about some other words that you mentioned. I wouldn’t get too hung up on secular Greek scholars since they are most of the time non-believers anyway. They are smart but the Bible is all that we have. I am not a scholar by no means but do know the Church is for us today. Thanks again,
Marty

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

fundamental misunderstanding of translation and etymology

Post by m273p15c » Sun Nov 20, 2005 11:18 pm

Truly, the word most often translated "church", is the Greek word ekklesia. It's etymology most literally suggests, "called-out". However, you are incorrect in assuming that this always refers to a spiritual calling.

Strong does indicate that is mostly translated "church", but that is not its only meaning:
Strong wrote:1577 evkklhsi,a ekklesia {ek-klay-see'-ah}
Meaning: 1) a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly 1a) an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the council for the purpose of deliberating 1b) the assembly of the Israelites 1c) any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance, tumultuously 1d) in a Christian sense 1d1) an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting 1d2) a company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order's sake 1d3) those who anywhere, in a city, village, constitute such a company and are united into one body 1d4) the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth 1d5) the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received into heaven
Origin: from a compound of 1537 and a derivative of 2564; TDNT - 3:501,394; n f
Usage: AV - church 115, assembly 3; 118
Friberg's AGNT Lexicon says of the Greek word, ekklesia:
Friberg wrote:evkklhsi,an noun acc fem sing

[Fri] evkklhsi,a( aj( h` (1) in a gener. sense, as a gathering of citizens assembly, meeting (AC 19.32); (2) as the assembled people of Israel congregation (HE 2.12); (3) as the assembled Christian community church, congregation, meeting (RO 16.5); (4) as the totality of Christians living in one place church (AC 8.1); (5) as the universal body of believers church (EP 1.22).
Both of these authorities indicate that its generic meaning is any gathering, assembly, or meeting of people. The souce of the "calling" is not inherent in the word. One must examine the context to glean the identity of the caller and his call.

However, we have better authorities than these (Strong and Friberg), who indicate this very word can be used with a mundane, non-spiritual connotation:
Luke by inspiration wrote:So the whole city was filled with confusion, and rushed into the theater with one accord, having seized Gaius and Aristarchus, Macedonians, Paul's travel companions. And when Paul wanted to go in to the people, the disciples would not allow him. Then some of the officials of Asia, who were his friends, sent to him pleading that he would not venture into the theater.

Some therefore cried one thing and some another, for the assembly was confused, and most of them did not know why they had come together.

And they drew Alexander out of the multitude, the Jews putting him forward. And Alexander motioned with his hand, and wanted to make his defense to the people. But when they found out that he was a Jew, all with one voice cried out for about two hours, "Great is Diana of the Ephesians!"

And when the city clerk had quieted the crowd, he said: "Men of Ephesus, what man is there who does not know that the city of the Ephesians is temple guardian of the great goddess Diana, and of the image which fell down from Zeus? Therefore, since these things cannot be denied, you ought to be quiet and do nothing rashly. For you have brought these men here who are neither robbers of temples nor blasphemers of your goddess. Therefore, if Demetrius and his fellow craftsmen have a case against anyone, the courts are open and there are proconsuls. Let them bring charges against one another. But if you have any other inquiry to make, it shall be determined in the lawful assembly. For we are in danger of being called in question for today's uproar, there being no reason which we may give to account for this disorderly gathering." And when he had said these things, he dismissed the assembly. (Acts 19:29-41)
Does that sound like a "church"? Not at all. This mob was brought together in a riot, provoked by a jealous idol-worshipper. However, the word ekklesia is the Greek word translated as "assembly" all 3 times in this inspired context. Moreover, it speaks of at least two assemblies: 1) the mob gathered together in the arena and 2) the "lawful assembly", where they were permitted to bring forward their complaints in an orderly manner.

Were these assemblies, or ekklesia's, churches of God? Absolutely not! Therefore, we should not press for the uniform translation of ekklesia to a word with a spiritual context, since in the original, it sometime referred to generic assemblies, even pagan!

I believe the problem is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of words and translations; otherwise, this issue would not be a matter of concern or pursuasive discussion:

Although interesting, the root form of a word does not provide a definition. The definition of a word in any living language is subject to change over time. Therefore, the original, static root of a word, conjured thousands of years before its modern usage, is no authority on the current, dynamic meaning. For example, in our English language, the word, "prevent", means "to prohibit". However, its origin is Latin, and it originally meant in old English, "to go before". Long after it was brought into English, its meaning changed. This is part of the reason the old KVJ rendering of I Thessalonians 4:15 makes less sense to us today, compared to newer versions, such as the NKJ or NAS. Even in our own language, the definition of the word "prevent" has evolved, making it an unsuitable translation for today, even though it may have been accurate 200 years ago.

Therefore, breaking ekklesia into its root words is not good practice. Although it may make for good preaching, illustration, and springboarding, it is no authority for translation or any other use.

The final misunderstanding concerns translations. As was demonstrated previously, definitions change over time. Therefore, we should not be too picky about the exact choice of words in translation ("church" versus "assembly" versus transliterated "ecclesia"). Our choice in attaching a modern word is not nearly important as the definition we associate with the ancient word. Said another way, I have no problems with using "assembly", "church", or any other word being used to translate ekklesia, as long as its common usage corresponds with the ancient definition. What you mean when you say, "church" is more important than its pronunciation. What you think when you read "church" is more important than the representative combination of letters and glyphs.

It is interesting to me that both Jesus and His apostles freely quoted from the Septuagint, the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. Yet, in so doing they never made a big deal about "cleaning it up". They seemed content to use it as it was.

That does not mean we should blindly accept any and all translations; however, the Bible is its own best commentary on the usages of its own words, just as we have done here today. Therefore, a broad retension of Scripture is more important than a detailed understanding of Greek lexicography, for God is a greater scholar in writing and language than us all.

Finally, I believe Paul warned us about spending too much time picking over words:
Paul by the Holy Spirit wrote:Remind them of these things, charging them before the Lord not to strive about words to no profit, to the ruin of the hearers. (II Timothy 2:14)
Let us be careful that we are not guilty of the same.

JSM17
Posts: 275
Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 5:16 pm
Location: Hoffman Estates, Illinois

Post by JSM17 » Mon Jun 19, 2006 9:42 pm

2 Tim 2:14-17

Remind them of these things, charging them before the Lord not to strive about words to no profit, to the ruin of the hearers.15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.16 But shun profane and idle babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness.
NKJV

This passage and its application does not say that we should not dig into a word and understand it to its fullest extent, instead that is exactly what God wants us to do. To be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. So when we take a word and study it to all endes and talk about it debate about, learn about it, we then are showing ourselves approved, by rightly dividing the word as to not misapply a text.

In fact Paul was talking about profane words and talk and idle babblings, he was not telling them not to dig into a word in the N.T.

I commend anyone who seeks to better understand any word rather than misapply a passage to correct someone.

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

straining at gnats and swallowing camels...

Post by m273p15c » Mon Jun 19, 2006 10:48 pm

JSM17 wrote:I commend anyone who seeks to better understand any word rather than misapply a passage to correct someone.
Jeff, I appreciate your earnestness in correction, but I believe you have misjudged both my intention and the import of the quoted passage. Rather than simply react to your concerns, please allow me to ask a few questions:
  1. Since you believe that it is important to "take a word and study it to all endes and talk about it debate about, learn about it", please provide a concise definition for the Greek word translated "to strive about words" (λογομαχεω). Please provide at least two references, which would be nice; three would be preferable.
  2. Beside my final point, with what other doctrinal conclusions from my post did you disagree?
  3. Beside sid's concern for the best translation of the word, did you agree with his other doctrines?
Many thanks!

JSM17
Posts: 275
Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 5:16 pm
Location: Hoffman Estates, Illinois

Spending to much time or fighting over words?

Post by JSM17 » Tue Jun 20, 2006 5:53 am

I do not agree with "Sid's" concepts about the word "church", but however because of your study of the word , I have realized things about the word "church that I knew not. So it goes to show if Sid would have studied the word intensly he would have seen that it has more than just a spiritual meaning. The context of what Paul writes is for the purpose of them being diligent, you showed that in the deep study and correction of ones thoughts about a certain word used in a contexts. Just as I thought I was doing, without anger or malice, just hoping to show the context of the verse you used with the concept of how you articulated the point of understanding by digging in deep with the word.

The word "strive about words" is used only once in the N.T although it is a compound word and those words are used many times, but the compound form of the word is only used once and it means to fight over words not: "spending too much time picking over words", which helps use better under stand the context and the message.

I am sorry for any interuption I may have caused the conversation.

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

let's look at the passage and lexicons again

Post by m273p15c » Wed Jun 21, 2006 12:25 am

JSM17 wrote:I am sorry for any interuption I may have caused the conversation.
Don't worry about the interruption. Considering that the last post was over 7 months old, I don't think you were interrupting anything. ;)
JSM17 wrote:The context of what Paul writes is for the purpose of them being diligent, you showed that in the deep study and correction of ones thoughts about a certain word used in a contexts. Just as I thought I was doing, without anger or malice, just hoping to show the context of the verse you used with the concept of how you articulated the point of understanding by digging in deep with the word.
Considering that I spent the bulk of my original post on closely examining the meaning of the word translated church, I believe it unreasonable to consider that I would then undo it all the very end by saying one need not be diligent to understand words. However, I am less concerned about whether you correctly understood my sentiment and meaning in the original post...
JSM17 wrote:The word "strive about words" is used only once in the N.T although it is a compound word and those words are used many times, but the compound form of the word is only used once and it means to fight over words not: "spending too much time picking over words", which helps use better under stand the context and the message.
For reference, here's the full passage in context, which we are considering:
Paul by inspiration wrote:Remind them of these things, charging them before the Lord not to strive about words to no profit, to the ruin of the hearers. Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. But shun profane and idle babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness. (I Timothy 2:14-16)
The Greek word λογομαχεω (logomaceo) is defined as follows:
  • Friberg - argue, quarrel about words, wrangle over the meaning of terms (2T 2.14).
  • UBS Dictionary - fight or quarrel about words
  • Louw-Nida - argue about words 33.454
  • Liddell-Scott - to war about words, N.T.
Does this not mean "picking over words"? The arguments that Paul condemns are clearly regarding the words themselves. It is "about words" and "over words". Therefore, I am not saying that we should not try to understand words. I am not saying that we should not diligently investigate the meaning of words, even the underlying and original Greek words. I have done that twice now. Neither, am I saying that we should not have disagreements over the meanings. Again, I have done that twice now. So, what am I saying? More importantly, we should ask, "What was Paul saying?"...

Paul clearly condemns arguing over the meanings of words themselves; however, his condemnation is not categorical. It has limitations. It only applies when the argument is "to no profit" and "to the ruin of the hearers". This is the "vain" part of "profane and vain babblings". Therefore, it is acceptable to "pick over words", just "not too much".

Obviously, I thought some profit was to be found in such a discussion; otherwise, I would not have picked over Sid's definition. However, I think Sid went too far, when he said that no other words are acceptable. However, it does not matter whether we pronounce a word as "church", "assembly", or even "ekklesia". The important thing is what we mean. Justification?

God originally used a very common word to describe his people (assembly - ekklesia); however, he also used many other common words: house, family, body, saved, temple, etc. Therefore, God does not care about the exact word. Many different words can be used. None of them are "magic". They were all very common household words that held no special significance, except when found in their divinely placed and spiritually related context. Therefore, I conclude that the important thing is not the word itself, but the meanings conveyed by the word, especially in their context. Consequently, I judged that Sid's admonition to use a special word was an argument "to no profit", which necessarily promotes strife and envy. Certainly, this would be to the ruin of the hearers, even if it was never Sid's intention.

Furthermore, when did Jesus ever say, "Well, the Septuagint could have been translated a little better here..."? How did He answer questions? Did He ever say, "You do greatly err not knowing Hebrew nor the power of God"? Granted, you cannot know the Scriptures without knowing something about words, language, and grammar, but I think the more powerful tool comes in a broad knowledge of Scripture, including the ability to put any passage in a far greater context and test for global consistency. Too many times, I have seen people misuse Greek as an effort to intimidate, snow, and blind the hearer, when their conclusion flatly contradicted some other clear passage. Admittedly, some misuse does not imply all, but I do think it is interesting that Jesus used the Septuatgint to justify His points without ever having to focus on the translation's accuracy, just by considering Scriptures as a whole. Again, I am not saying that is not needed sometime, but I do believe that Jesus' example suggests that deep analysis of words is not necessary. In fact, it may even be detrimental to edification in some situations...

As further illustration, if Sid uses a Scriptural word, but he has in mind a realized eschatological view of God's kingdom and church (Max King's doctrine - 70 A.D. theory or similar), then his usage of the word is in vain, because he has an unscriptural idea attached to the word. Maybe someday Sid will revisit the forum (or somebody else with similar views), so we can discuss this doctrine, which is my supreme concern in this thread...

Thank you for the earnestness of your concerns.

JSM17
Posts: 275
Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 5:16 pm
Location: Hoffman Estates, Illinois

Post by JSM17 » Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:04 am

Didn"t Max King come out of a church of Christ in Ohio, my Mother also it a prederist if I am spelling it right, but I am not saying that all church of Christ teach this doctrine, I did not realize this gentileman was a 70 A.D. theorist. Are there not large holes in this theory that can be easily seen?

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

Post by m273p15c » Wed Jun 21, 2006 8:45 am

Yes, I believe Max King came from Ohio, and his followers have accepted the label of "preterist". My personal experience is that they constitute a very small portion among those who wear the Lord's name -- I would guess easily less than 5%; however, that says nothing to the correctness of the doctrine or to the damage they could do.

I do not think Sid would fall exactly into this camp (He references AD 1775, not AD 70), but he made several hints to similar effect, when he stated that the resurecction was past, the spiritual priesthood was past, and the church was past. It is hard to tell exactly what he believes, but here are some things that caught my attention (emphasis mine):
sid wrote:3) EKKLHSIA (Called-out) is not mentioned in the Bible during the New Testament Era. Rev 3.6 was before the Resurrection of Israel (Rev 4 & 5 & 7); and Rev 22.16 was after the angel announced to John, "These words are faithful and true"; thereby closing up the prophecy.

So then, the "Called-out" was in the "Hello salutation of Revelation"; and it was in the "Good-bye salutation of Revelation"; but it was not in the New Testament prophecy [what does this mean???].

4) The priesthood was:
A) a "generation of Jews in Peter's lifetime"; see: 1Pet 2.5-10.
B) this generation was raised up to Third Heaven; see: Rev 1.6, 5.10.
C) The First Resurrection was added to this "priesthood" in AD 1775; see: Rev 20.4-6.

5) THE CONCLUSION:
A) The "Called-out" (or, "Church") does not relate to anyone on earth today.
"Nothing new under the sun" ... Old things are made new: II Timothy 2:17-18 ... ("strayed concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past; and they overthrow the faith of some.")

Post Reply