Understanding “Church”

Podcast: Download (34.4MB)

Understanding “Church”

Introduction: The principle of returning to God is repeated throughout scripture: Isaiah 63:15-19; Jeremiah 6:15-16. The apostolic writers of the NT also give repeated reminders to the Christians to follow the commands and examples they are delivering to them: 

• Philippians 4:9 “What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me—practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you.” 
• In 1 Corinthians, 12 times Paul reminded them that what he was teaching came from God and was something he taught in all the churches. They were not special, and had no right to to follow their own ways.
• 1 Cor. 4:16-17 “I urge you, then, be imitators of me. That is why I sent you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach them everywhere in every church.” 

Therefore, when we study the scriptures to understand the Lord’s church, whether in a local sense or in the sense of all who have ever come to Christ (universal), it must be in line with what was revealed by Jesus and the apostles in the first century. That is our standard, and if every local church followed that standard, every church would be essentially believing and practicing the same thing.

There were no denominations in the first century. Paul insisted that every church follow the same pattern of teaching and practice as revealed by the NT apostles and prophets.

1. The Origin of the Word, “Church”
   1. If I asked just about anyone who has every studied the scripture the question of “when was the church established, or when did the church start,” the universal answer would be in Acts 2 on the Day of Pentecost, 50 days after Jesus’ resurrection. There are some inherent problems with that answer. Let’s begin with what is meant in scripture by the word “church.”
   2. First, consider the actual word “church.” Of course, many of you are ready for me to say that the word “church” comes from the Greek word ekklesia. But that really is not true. The word “church” did not come from ekklesia. In fact, the word did not come from any NT Greek word. That’s right, the Greek word for “church” is not in the NT.
   3. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the English word “church” derives from the Greek kuriakos, meaning “house of the lord,” thus, a house belonging to the lord or master. Now lest you misunderstand, the word does not mean “house of the Lord” (capital L), but it is a house belonging to any lord, whether a landlord or a lord of slaves, etc.
   4. The Oxford Dictionary of English Language tells us that ekklesia was carried over into Latin and the romance languages but was not carried over into English, German, or any of the Teutonic or Slavonic languages. In fact, as early as 300 AD, when church buildings were erected (especially among Western churches), they were referred to as a “house of the Lord” or kuriakos. In German, the word is “kirche,” meaning “belonging to the Lord” was used to refer to the building. Obviously, this change has affected how people think, where the emphasis is placed more on the locality, the building, or even the “institution” rather than the people.
   5. Further, it is has changed people’s allegiance. The question now is, “Which church do you attend?” In other words, “Which location is your allegiance?”
2. The Definition of Ekklesia
   1. If you have been a Christian for very long, you have heard the definition of ekklesia comes from two Greek words, EK (out) and KALEO (to call), thus, “to call out.” From this it is argued that the church is the “called out.”
   2. As Tom Hamilton, professor at FC, would say, “This is a common fallacy when studying biblical languages. It is called the ‘root fallacy.’” What happens is, a person researches the origin of a word and then comes up with the definition based on the root words from which the word came. The problem is, the root words may not have anything to do with the present meaning.
   3. This can be illustrated by the English word “tank,” as in military tank. When a tank was a secret weapon back in W.W.I, it was placed in a large crate and labeled “tank,” as in water tank, in order to hide its true nature. The name stuck. So, try finding the definition of “tank” based on its origin.
   4. Ekklesia is the same. In the first century, ekklesia simply referred to a group of people, sometimes assembled and sometimes not assembled.
3. The Biblical Usage of Ekklesia
   1. Ekklesia was used prior to the time of Christ. The word is used close to 50 times in the Septuagint which was translated around 250 BC. The word is usually translated “assembly” whether gathered or not (Deut. 9:10; 4:10; 18:16). Therefore, in this case, ekklesia was used to refer to the nation of Israel. The word was a plain, common word to refer to a group of people. The term was not used in a “religious” way.
   2. Even in the NT the word is used in a non-religious sense.
      1. Acts 7:38 Stephen used the word to speak of the “congregation” of Israelites in the wilderness.
      2. Acts 19:32, 39, 41 In this text the “church” is a riotous bunch of pagans. 
   3. Conclusion? Ekklesia is a non-religious term. When used in a  universal sense, the Lord never intended it to be understood as some kind of institution or mystical organization into which people were “added” or to which they “joined.” 
   4. Next, we need to understand that ekklesia or “church” is a collective noun. Examples of collective nouns are: covey, herd; flock; troop; jury, team; crew; family; assembly; committee, etc. One covey of quail is a bunch or plurality of quail. One quail is not a covey. One herd of cows is a bunch of cows. One cow is not a herd. A jury consists of several members. One person cannot be a jury.
   5. To be sure, the church was “instituted” by God and has “organization,” but it is a plurality of people, not an institution or organization. No one ever looked at a covey of quail and said, “O what a glorious organization!” No, it is just a bunch of quail just like the church of the Lord is a bunch of people. Jesus did not say, “I will build my salvation–organization. Get in and you will be saved.”
   6. Now, does it seem uncomfortable to refer to the church as a “bunch” of people? Does that sound irreligious? Good! Because ekklesia is not a religious term. Just take the idea of a bunch of people and plug it in every time you read “church” in the OT or NT and it will fit perfectly. It will not fit if you give it an institutional meaning. What was the Lord going to build in Matt. 16:18? His group of saved people.
4. Abuses of “Church” Today
   1. Because of our over-emphasis “church” as a religious organization, we have used the concept to draw people into our midst. The message is, “Look what our church does! Look at the day-care, the school, the music, the entertainment, the fellowship, the young people, etc.” It is like a club advertisement. It is consumerism. Contrast this to NT teaching:
      1. Jesus used the term only twice as recorded in the gospel accounts (Mt. 15:17; 16:18), and in the first case He probably was not referring to the NT church. Instead, there was an emphasis on the “kingdom,” that is, the Jesus’ rule from heaven which was about to begin. Those who accepted his rule would become His ekklesia.
      2. In Acts, Luke repeatedly uses ekklesia, but it is never once used in any recorded gospel sermon preached to unbelievers. In other words, we never see Paul or Peter preaching to the people about the importance of coming into the ekklesia nor do they extol the church as the place to be if one wants to be saved. But how many times today do we hear of people talking about the importance of getting in the church in order to be saved. Even some preachers will preach getting into the church in order to be saved instead of preaching the necessity of obeying Christ at which time the Lord will add that person to His group of saved people.
      3. In other words, the “church” or the people of God are not the message; we are not the gospel, we are just a bunch of forgiven people. We are the result of preaching the gospel, but we are not the gospel message. We are not the “drawing card.” Jesus is to be what draws us and the result is the church (John 6:44-45).
   2. Does this mean that a local church is not important or that a person can be pleasing to God without being part of a local group of Christians, a local church? Absolutely not. Consider:
      1. Everywhere Paul preached, the result was a group of Christians who functioned together in God’s service. Paul referred to those groups as churches: the church at Corinth, Ephesus, Philippi, etc. 
      2. A local church is referred to as a body with many members who function together. In Acts, each community of Christians had a significant impact on their culture that could not have been done by Christians working independently of one another.
      3. A local church is intended to keep each individual Christian strong, built up, and equipped for good works.

Conclusion: Understanding the meaning of a local church as it is used biblically is critical for how we present the gospel message and how we understand our purpose. “Church” is not an organization we get into, like getting on a train, to take us to heaven. God’s church is a result of obeying Christ. A local church is the result of those who have obeyed Christ joining together to accomplish what God has asked a group of Christians to do together.

Berry Kercheville

Acknowledgement: Some of the material in this lesson is taken from “Fellowship with God and His People” by Samuel Dawson