This fascinating study on the derivation of the word ‘church’ and its adoption into most translations of the Bible as the proper translation for the Greek εκκλησια (transliterated as ekklesia, Greek-based; or ecclesia, Latin-based) was spurred by a discussion in a book my wife and I read recently. The author claimed that in Hebrew, the words for ‘congregation’/’assembly’ and ‘witness’ derive from the same Hebrew radical (verb root), by which he explicitly connected in a dramatic, ‘real life’ scenario (linguistically) that the raison d’etre of the church is to be a witness. While I agree wholeheartedly with his deduced purpose of the ‘church,’ the author’s underlying premise was incorrect. The Hebrew words ‘congregation’/’assembly’ are derived from the Hebrew radical יעד (ya’ad) meaning ‘to appoint.’ The words for ‘witness’/’testimony’ are derived from the Hebrew radical עוד (yuud), meaning ‘to bear witness.’ The difficulty comes from the fact that there is a point of intersection where a noun meaning ‘congregation’/’assembly’ deriving from the radical יעד (‘to appoint’) is identical to one derived from the Hebrew radical עוד (‘to bear witness/testimony.’). It seems that the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament and Apocrypha, was complicit in this confusion, according to Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament.[1] Therefore, the only way to determine the derivation of the nouns in question, since their meanings, while not mutually exclusive, do differ substantially, is to be versed in biblical Hebrew grammar and to have ready access to a reliable lexicon of biblical Hebrew.[2] An example in English is to compare the adjective ‘meet,’ deriving from Middle English (ME) ‘mete’ < Old English (OE) (ge)maete, with the verb ‘meet,’ having the derivation < ME meten < OE metan[3]. The following sentence illustrates the difference in meaning: ‘It was meet (the adjective which means ‘fitting’) that they would meet (the verb which means ‘to get together’) every year on the same date since they shared it as their birthday.’ Also, just so, the Greek εκκλησια cannot be translated as ‘church’ (whatever that word means) nor can the Hebrew יעד and עוד be translated as ‘church’—or at least until such time as we are able to establish if the word ‘church’ does, in fact, carry the same meaning as the Greek and Hebrew. In any case, the Greek and Hebrew words have no correlation phonetically to the Anglo-Germanic word ‘church.’

However, let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater and, just because one linguistic model doesn’t succeed, claim that a linguistic method is unable to pave a way forward to 1) get at the foundational extraction of the Anglo-Germanic word ‘church,’ ‘kirche,’ etc., and even the Russian ‘церковь’ (tserkov’ in transliteration); and, 2) examine the overarching raison d’etre of the church.

So, let’s get to the business of delving into the intricacies, yes, intricacies, involved in determining: 1) from where does our conceptual word ‘church’ come; 2) what were the probable circumstances leading to that nomenclature being used to signify the gathering together of the early Christians, through the medium of which the word ‘church’ eventually made its appearance; 3) what exactly are the connotations that the word carries; and finally, 4) in what way does all this effect the raison d’etre of the ‘church’ and how this affects us today.

First, an etymological explanation of εκκλησια as taken from Λεξικο της Νεας Ελληνικης Γλωσσας με Σχολια για τη Σωστη Χρηση των Λεξεων Γ. Μπαμπινιωτη. (Dictionary of the New Greek Language with Comments for the Correct Usage of Words by G[eorgios] Babiniotis), is in order:

Ancient < εκκλητος (ekkletos) < εκκαλω (ekkalo) (καλω εξω (exo), συγκαλω (sygkalo)| to call out, to call together) < εκ + καλω | out + to call

“The word originally referred to the Assembly of the Municipality as well as to gatherings of the officials of a city-state that served as legislative bodies. It includes generally the calling together (officially or unofficially) of persons for a predetermined purpose. The word acquired a religious meaning in the Biblical language. In the O.T., the Septuagint used the words εκκλησια and συναγωγη for the Hebrew word qahal [קהל] = gathering, assembly, congregation’ [συγκεντρωση (sygkentrosi), συναθροιση (synathroisi)] in relation with the assembling of Israel for religious or military purposes. In the N.T. εκκλησια refers to the entirety of Christians (overall or local) as well as to the entirety of believers who recognize Christ as their head (Cf. Col. 1:18 ‘and He is the head of the body of the congregation’ (εκκλησια.)”  ((My translation from the Greek))

Here we have the Hebrew word ‘qahal’ introduced, which the Septuagint – the Greek translation of the Old Testament from the original Hebrew – glossed both with the Greek word ‘ekklesia,’ and with the Greek word ‘synagogue’/συναγωγη, again none of which resemble at all the word ‘church.’ Based on my observations by comparing the appropriate Hebrew biblical texts with their Septuagint counterparts, the instances of the use of ekklesia in the Septuagint[4] was so glossed only for qahal, whereas synagogue was used as the gloss in the Septuagint for both qahal and eidah, with no occurrence of yuud.  (These occurrences are too numerous to annotate.)

So, so far, we have two Greek nouns taken from the vernacular Greek language spoken at the time that the Septuagint was written to express the assembly or congregation of the people of Israel: synagogue and ekklesia. Now the question arises, were these two words basically synonyms, or did the translators perceive there to be a distinction between them? If the latter is the case, then how great was that distinction? Were they mutually exclusive or was there some overlap? It can then be asked – does the way these two words were used in the Septuagint reflect how they came to be used during the first century when the New Testament was penned?

First, I must disagree with those who see a special, spiritual relationship between the corporate body of the ancient Israelites and today’s corporate body of Christians based on the word ekklesia. Indeed, to refer to an Old Testament ‘church’ is reverse engineering, thanks to an aberrant English translation of ekklesia with that meaning. As we noted in the paragraph above, both ekklesia and synagogue were used in the everyday language of the Greek-speaking population for which the Septuagint was written. Whereas the verb from which the noun synagogue is derived, meaning ‘to gather,’ was used quite frequently in everyday conversation, the noun synagogue acquired a special, religious meaning pertaining to the Jewish community as both the act of gathering together and the place of gathering for worship. On the other hand, recalling the definition given to us in the Dictionary of the Modern Greek Language (a huge volume that delves into the history of Greek lexicology) as it was noted above, ekklesia retained its universal meaning of a group called together for a specific purpose, be it civic or military. It does not appear that cultic religious practices came under the rubric of an ekklesia.

But before ending our examination of these two familiar Greek words that were applied as the glosses in the Septuagint for the Hebrew words eidah/עֵדָה and qahal/קָהָל, both of which can mean ‘assembly’ or ‘congregation,’ we need to consider another Hebrew radical כנס/kns meaning ‘to gather.’[5] The HALOT Lexicon referred to in footnote⁵ actually attributes this verb and its derivative noun ‘kneseth’ to Middle Hebrew/כנסת and Jewish Aramaic/כנשתא, כנ’שה with the meanings of ‘gathering’ and ‘synagogue.’ In the five instances quoted in the footnote, given specifically because they concern the ‘gathering’ of people, four of them indicate a passive connotation, in the same way that pebbles along the shore are gathered. Only one of the verses infers action on the part of the subjects, but there too it is in a passive context, i.e., “go assemble” – they were to be assembled.

While it is beyond the scope of this paper to affix time, place, and extent of Aramaic’s use as a lingua franca, it is without question that Jesus did speak Aramaic during His years as God’s Son in human form; otherwise, we would not have Him crying out, אלוהיי אלוהיי למה שבקתני “Elohii Elohii lamah shabaqthani/My God My God, why have you forsaken Me?” However, even as a lingua franca, the concentration of Aramaic words would have been greater or lesser depending on whether the region where it was acting as a lingua franca was closer or further away from the epicenter of Aramaic. Compare the Aramaic transliteration of Yeshua’s cry to YHWH with its Hebrew original in Psalm 22:1 – אלי אלי למה עזבתני, “Ali Ali lamah azavthani?” The only portion of the phrase that may not have been mutually intelligible is the tri-literal verb root עזב/azv in Hebrew vice שבק/shvq in Aramaic; the 2^nd person masculine singular suffix + the 1^st person common singular accusative suffix are the same in both languages. All this to demonstrate that the two languages were quite probably mutually intelligible in Palestine, basically at the epicenter of the Aramaic language.

On the other hand, certainly Hebrew continued to be used for religious purposes when the Jewish community would gather in the synagogue to read the Torah and pray as well as during the various festivals. I would suggest that the twelve men whom Jesus called to be His most intimate disciples – and Paul, “as one born out of season” – were trilingual, having abilities in Aramaic, Greek, and Hebrew. The authors of the New Testament, therefore, met the necessary criteria of innately understanding the Hebrew scriptures, were conversant in Aramaic and Greek, and were able to apply this knowledge as they wrote, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to a Christian community that included Gentiles, as well as Jewish believers in diaspora, meaning that both groups were predominantly Greek-speakers.

The crux of discussion that we have just entertained concerning Aramaic, Greek, and Hebrew is to determine what word Yeshua used that the writers of the New Testament translated with the Greek word ekklesia. It is highly unlikely that He chose the Aramaic word kneseth, since, as we have learned, 1) the frequency of its use in the original Hebrew of the Old Testament is quite limited; 2) it had a passive connotation; and, 3) it had taken on the meaning of synagogue, a system of worship that was being discredited as its leaders rejected their Messiah with open hostility. Nor would He have chosen this word, since it was never used in the Hebrew Old Testament for the two words that meant ‘the assembly/congregation of Israel.’ For the same reason as ‘3)’ when considering the word kneseth, Jesus probably would not have used the Hebrew Old Testament word ‘eidah,’ which the Septuagint glossed with the Greek word that came to mean the gathering place of the Jews, ‘synagogue.’ That leaves the word that was most frequently translated in the Septuagint with the Greek word ekklesia and the one that Jesus most likely used – qahal.

Thayer’s New Testament Greek-English Lexicon is in agreement with the above definition that ekklesia/εκκλησια is the translation for qahal/קהל in the meaning of ‘assembly.’[6] On the other hand, there is also the very productive Hebrew radical qara/קרא, with the following meanings: ‘to ‘cry,’ ‘call out,’ ‘shout,’ ‘proclaim,’ ‘call upon,’ invoke,’ ‘to call together,’ ‘convoke,’ while passively, the meaning is ‘to be called together’ or ‘to be called/chosen,’ depending on the passive verb form. The nouns deriving from this radical are miqra/מקרא, meaning ‘convocation,’ ‘assembly’ and qarah/קראה, meaning ‘a meeting.’ An identical prime root qara/קרא with the meaning ‘to meet’ as in ‘to encounter’ leads to a situation not dissimilar to the two prime roots discussed in the first paragraph above (יעד vs עוד). In this instance, however, the derivative noun, qirah/קראה, means ‘a meeting’ or ‘an encounter,’ either planned or coincidental. Let’s hold this thought while we consider how the Hebrew radical qara/קרא was translated in the New Testament.

To do so, one only needs to compare a few verses in the Old Testament Hebrew Bible with their translation in the Septuagint to see that qara/קרא with the basic meaning ‘to proclaim’ is glossed using the Greek verb κηρυσσω (kirysso), meaning ‘to proclaim,’ along with its derivatives κηρυξ (kiryks), ‘herald,’ ‘messenger’ and κηρυγμα (popularly transliterated as ‘kerygma’), ‘the message’ or ‘the proclamation.’[7] The alternative meaning of קרא ‘to meet’ as in ‘to encounter’ was glossed in the Septuagint using the Greek verb συνανταω (synantao) and the circumlocution εις συναντησις (eis synantisis).

Before answering the questions posed above concerning the derivation of the Anglo-Germanic-Russian word ‘church’ and the resulting implications, I would like to note that in none of my research have I been able to find a provenance for the conceptual word ‘church,’ i.e., how, when and why this combination of phonemes came into existence. There are those who claim that it derives from the Medieval truncation of κυριακος οικος ~ κυρκον (Kyriakos ikos ~ kirkon), meaning ‘the LORD’s house,’ based on the phrases “The LORD’s Supper” and “The LORD’s Day.” However, while the latter two phrases are found in the Bible, the former is not. Others contend that the word ‘church’ stems from κυριακη/kyriake, the Greek for ‘Sunday.’ Proponents of these two sources of the word ‘church’ are wearing parochial blinders linguistically, seeing only the possible Anglo-Germanic renderings without taking into consideration the linguistic trail that leads to the cognate form in Russian, ‘tserkov.’ So, however well-meaning the sentiment, since I can find no provenance that either connotation existed, such forms are justifiable to be doubted as ever having been in vogue, especially given the linguistic technicalities that must be considered. Because linguistically these solutions do not ring true, I am discounting them.[8]

Given that our English word ‘church’ did not evolve in a vacuum, but is actually cognate with the Germanic ‘kirche’ and even the Russian ‘tserkov’,’ as mentioned earlier, there is much more at work here than serendipity. I would argue, that just as most biblical archeology is focused on proving the Old Testament writings to be historically accurate and therefore truthful, which, in turn, makes imperative the work of establishing archeological digs in the environment in which the Old Testament was written over a span of several centuries in primarily Hebrew, so too is it imperative that we go digging linguistically in this virtual environment.

To explain the preceding two paragraphs and to preface what follows: I disagree with those who declare our present-day nomenclature for the New Testament ‘ekklesia’ – a vibrant, surging, active living body or organism – to be the corrupted form of either of the phrases noted above. On the one hand, that nomenclature, supposedly crafted by Hellenistic Jewish Christians, i.e., Greek-speaking Jews of the Diaspora, has not only redefined but also reidentified this living body as a static entity – a house, albeit of the LORD and granted that ‘house’ is used metaphorically in the Bible – but a house is still a house. On the other hand, if the version is accepted that the word ‘church’ is sourced in the Greek word for Sunday, kyriake, the misnomer continues to be perpetrated that the early Christians met on the first day of the week because that was when Christ rose from the dead.[9] We needn’t, however, concern ourselves with these models, since they are merely red herrings that would prevent us from establishing our linguistic dig site, at which we need to roll up our sleeves and begin the careful and tedious, yet exciting work of discovering linguistic articles of antiquity that will eventually come together as a beautiful composite picture through which we can accurately and truthfully assimilate this mysterious word into our vocabulary as it should be incorporated.

To be clear – although I have had training in the field of linguistics and find historical and comparative linguistics fascinatingly interesting subjects, I also find my eyes glazing over while reading the scientific (perhaps) minutia, as professional linguists delve into their observations in excruciating detail. However, the trail that we will be following is necessarily dependent on this type of methodological approach.

There is one more rather crucial piece to the puzzle that it behooves us to consider. In fact, by placing this piece in the center of the puzzle, we will find that the other pieces will fit around it nicely as we fill out the picture. Or, if we use the analogy of the archeological dig site, we will uncover the linguistic artifacts that have been waiting, lodged for centuries in a linguistic web of evolving languages, to tell their historical story.

We find this piece in the accounts in the New Testament concerning the tension that arose among early Jewish Christians, both in Jerusalem and beyond. The question became, whether or not their covenantal relationship with God through keeping the distinctive practice of circumcision as established by God with Abraham continued to remain in force; and, by extension, keeping the totality of the Mosaic Law (תורה/Torah). Those who argued in the affirmative were coined ‘Judaizers’ and ‘those of the circumcision party.’ These accounts also inform us that these new Christians continued to meet in the synagogue. However, at some point in time, a split did occur between the two factions, with the non-Judaizers meeting on the first day of the week.[10] It is not clear when this replaced synagogue attendance as the venue for corporate worship, but at some point, this did occur.[11] We only have to look at the current state of affairs regarding the separation that exists between evangelical Christianity and Messianic Judaism – the former being overwhelmingly Gentile and the latter, Jews, who acknowledge Yeshua to be the Messiah, yet cling to the Law, in particular, the seventh-day sabbath, to visualize this split

Having hopefully set the stage, let’s begin the dig!

Several paragraphs ago, I had asked you to hold on to the thought that there is a derivative noun, qirah/קראה, meaning ‘a meeting’ or ‘an encounter,’ either planned or coincidental, from prime root II qara/קרא with the same meaning. Prime root I qara/קרא means to ‘call,’ ‘proclaim,’ etc., as described a few paragraphs above. When I first began this study, I thought that with the discovery of this Hebrew tri-literal, I had perhaps found the answer as stipulated in the title of this post. Applying historical and comparative linguistic findings, the Hebrew qirah could, over time, appear as ‘kirche’ in German and ‘kerk’/’kirk’ in Scottish, with the ‘k’ phoneme, in the presence of an ‘e’/’I’/’u’ grade vowel, easily becoming the ‘ch’ phoneme in English. Then, by coupling the ‘qara’ prime root I meaning ‘to call’ or ‘to proclaim,’ we arrive at both the derivation of the word together with its purpose, on the one hand, dovetailing the Hebrew ‘to meet’ and the Greek ‘to be called out (to meet)’, and on the other hand, both the Hebrew and Greek for ‘to proclaim.’ Very neat! But what to do with the cognate Russian form ‘tserkov’? It is a phenomenon in Slavic languages that a ‘k’ followed by an ‘e/I’ grade vowel changes to a ‘ts’ sound (as in ‘pizza’ – in most American English dialects.) We could hypothesize that the plural ending of the Hebrew qirah/קראה = qiraoth/קראות > ‘ov,’ but this model breaks down 1) because we’re missing the middle ‘k’ (tserkov) and 2) the likelihood of the hypothetical plural scheme being correct is slim.

Indeed, however, what I believe to be the correct solution had been staring me in the face for several weeks. Although it is a Hebrew word that is only used twice in the Old Testament, its meaning, the probable triliteral radical of which it is a derivative noun, and other words possibly connected to this radical, I feel, makes it the number one contender as the source for the range of words we are considering: church, kirche, tserkov.

‘Karkov’/כרכב is the Hebrew word translated as ‘rim,’ according to HALOT. The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon (AHCL) gives the interpretation of being “the margin, border, or ledge going around the altar.” HALOT also suggests a meaning based on the Ethiopic of an ‘enclosure,’ which I would hypothesize to be an agglutinated form of the hypothetical form *krk/כרך ‘to wrap around/enclose’, again according to HALOT; while the AHCL notes that this root is not used, in Syriac and Chaldee the meaning is ‘to surround/to wrap around.’ Two other Hebrew words that are probably cognate are kr/כר meaning both ‘lamb’ and ‘pasture’ and karwuv/כרוב meaning ‘an intercessory priest’ < Akkadian meaning ‘to pray, consecrate, bless.’

Let’s first observe: the word we are suggesting as the source of the word ‘church,’ ‘Karkov’/כרכב, enclosed the altar of sacrifice as a ledge that encompassed the opening through which the lattice network – a sort of sieve – used to hold the burnt sacrifice was lowered. This was the moveable altar that was mounted in the courtyard of the Tabernacle whenever the Israelites set up camp for the purpose of offering their burnt sacrifices. This system was eventually transferred to the Temple, where the altar was located in the center of the Temple courtyard. This system of sacrifices officially ceased to exist in 70 A.D. with the destruction of the Second Temple, while the Jewish people ceased to have a homeland effectively in 73 A.D. when they were dispersed as a result of the Romans defeating the holdout Zealots at Masada.

With this quick dive into Jewish history, we are now ready to leap forward to approximately the 4^th century A.D. to examine, again in a cursory manner, Western Christendom’s assumption and resumption of ritualistic Jewish worship practices by replicating them with the trappings of Christian imagery. The rationale for this was based on the belief of the early ‘Church fathers’ that the ‘church’ was the ‘new Israel.’ In this context, Rome decided to mirror all things pertaining to a system of approaching YAHWEH that YAHWEH Himself had interdicted.

This brings us back to the issue of the two Hebrew words for ‘congregation/assembly,’ one of which was consistently translated by the Septuagint as ‘synagogue,’ while the Septuagint wavered on the other one, at times translating it as ‘synagogue’ and other times as ‘ekklesia.’ As a side note, there were times when both words were used along with the intensifier ‘all,’ indicating ‘the whole assembly of the congregation.’ We noted above that ‘synagogue’ meant both 1) the abstract gathering of the congregation of Israel as well as 2) (later) the tangible building where Jews congregated to worship. ‘Ekklesia,’ on the other hand, only had the abstract meaning of ‘a group called together for a specific purpose.’ The implication can be drawn that Rome drew on the concept of the second meaning of synagogue, despite Jesus Himself assuredly using the Hebrew word that at times was translated as ‘ekklesia,’ which is the word that we find in Matthew 16:18.[12]

Now for the presentation of the reasoning behind my theoretical reconstruction of the derivation of the conceptual word ‘church.’

Central to the worship of YHWH by the ancient Israelites and by the Jews in the Temple era was the altar upon which burnt sacrifices were offered. Just as there was the ledge that encompassed the altar, from which was lowered the mesh latticework upon which the sacrifice was burnt, so there was a courtyard (i.e., an enclosure) encompassing the altar, where the congregation gathered. It is conjecture on my part, however, at some point in time, in both cases, the Hebrew word most likely used was karkov. [Note: The word for the ‘court(yard)’ of the Temple, used in at least Jer. 26:2 is חצר/khtsr. I have not been able to determine if, over time, karkov may have become a synonym or perhaps even replaced this other term. However, I believe the weight of evidence points in this direction.] Rome, in mirroring the Tabernacle/Temple system, chose to make an altar the primary focus of worship; but rather than sacrificing animals as burnt offerings, the Mass was instituted to perpetually offer up to YHWH His Son.[13]

With this system of altar-centric worship established, the practice came about to refer to the reference point of this activity as the ‘karkov,’ i.e., the area surrounding the place of the altar. Initially meaning the courtyard, within which the structure containing the altar was built, this nomenclature eventually came to be the designation reserved for the structure itself. Most likely, Germanic tribes, possibly such as the Goths, who ventured into the Mediterranean region; and, later, Kirill and Methodius, who developed the Slavic alphabet, came in contact with this religious initiative. Based on the influence of this nomenclature, the German ‘kirchhof’ and the Russian ‘tserkov’ came into being, with ‘churchyard’ a direct translation of ‘kirchhof.’ Because ‘hof’ already existed in the German lexicon, this ending was dropped because of redundancy, leaving ‘kirch(e),’ while the ending was retained in the Russian word since the word was seen as a semantic entity in its entirety. Of course, the English ‘church’ is a derivation of the Germanic ‘kirch(e).

To recap:

1. at the start, this nomenclature referred strictly to a static object with the progression: altar > courtyard > building;
2. the concept of a static location where people would gather for worship stemmed from the synagogue, not the ekklesia; and,
3. salvation depended on coming to the altar in order to celebrate the sacrament of the Eucharist by partaking of Christ’s body and blood as He was being perpetually sacrificed through the medium of a priest.

Over time, this nomenclature was attached to various denominational shingles such as Southern Baptist Church, Presbyterian Church in America, United Methodist Church, etc., with which the members of these churches identified. Perhaps most distressing, however, is that based on the deliberate mistranslation of the original terminology used by the Hero of our Faith, our Deliverance and Salvation, Yeshua ha Moshiach (Jesus the Christ), most if not all confessional statements contain a section on the doctrine of the Church – the visible church, the universal church, the invisible church. This definition of ‘the Church’ differs from the other two in that it has in mind the totality of believers in Jesus, i.e., the assembly/congregation of those who have been called out to be the Body of Christ – the ekklesia. Unfortunately, this understanding of the word ‘church’ – although completely bogus as hopefully has been shown from the discussion of how this occurred as a result of faulty translation – has been buried under the refuse of its other, more conspicuous connotations.

True, language is a living phenomenon that is always changing, but which seems to be always seeking the lowest common denominator, often driven by the prevailing culture. In the case in point, it is much easier and much more comfortable to express belonging to a certain church rather than to be a member of the Body of Christ.

Satan has been occupied from the beginning with attempting to deliver a death blow to this Body – an all-out effort to defeat this surging organism, alive to Christ in actively proclaiming to the world the Good News of salvation through God’s Son. Among the wartime tactics that enable victory is to infiltrate the enemy and conduct subversive activities that degrade his fighting capabilities. Misidentifying and wrongly defining Christ’s ekklesia is a subversive coup, a masterful subterfuge on Satan’s part to confuse Christ’s call to live in such a way as to demonstrate and proclaim His love with belonging to an organization. Perhaps beyond any other of Satan’s stratagems, this could be considered the coup de gras, the thrust to the jugular that in the end would be fatal, but for the promise that “the gates of hell will not prevail over it.”

Although I have termed this study to be theoretical, I believe it has merit. And I will admit that the final result has surprised me. It is on this ground that even though it may sound heretical, it is my conclusion that the conceptual word ‘church’ is, in the final analysis, extra-Biblical and diabolical. In order to escape Satan’s clutches and the consequences of continuing to identify ourselves with a church or even the church, we must recast our mindset to be followers of Christ alone, to reidentify as members of a particular congregation of the Body of Christ, and to renew our raison d’etre to be to serve Him alone by proclaiming His love through our lives.

---

[1] Under the entry μαρτυριον (witness), the following is noted: “Sept. for עדה, עד, oftener for עדות (an ordinance, precept); most freq. for מועד (an assembly), as though that came from עוד to testify, whereas it is from ‘עד to appoint.” (Italics mine)

[2] The lexicon employed by the author is the 2-volume The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament by Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner; translated and under the supervision of M.E.J. Richardson, Brill, 2001.

[3] Webster’s New World College Dictionary, Third Edition, 1995.

[4] My research methods yielded a total of 71 occurrences, discounting a questionable reference to Joshua 9:8, and excluding the verb form meaning ‘to call together, convoke. (Num. 19:20, 20:4; Deut. 4:10, 9:10, 18:16, 23:1-3,8, 32:1 (31:30); Joshua 9:2 (8:35), 21:5/8; Jud. 20:2, 21:5/8, 1 Sam. 17:47, 19:20; 1 Kgs. 8:14/22/55/65, 12:3; 1 Chr. 13:2/4, 28:2/8, 29:1/10/20/20; 2 Chr. 1:3/5, 6:3/3/12/13, 7:8, 10:3, 20:5, 23:3, 29:23/28/31/32, 30:2/4/13/17/23/24/25; Neh. 5:8/13, 7:66, 8:2/17; Job 30:28; Psalms 21:22/25, 25:5/12, 34:18, 39:9, 67:26, 88:5, 106:32, 149:1; Prov. 5:14, Micah 2:5; Joel 2:16; Lam. 1:10; Ez. 32:3 (questionable).)

[5] Given here are the five times, according to The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT), Koehler & Baumgartner, Leiden-Boston-Köln, Brill, 2001, vol. 1, p. 484; the Greek is the Septuagint’s translation of the O.T. Hebrew:

 לך כנוס את-כל-היהודים Esther 4:16 Go assemble all the Jews βαδισας και εκκλησιασον τους Ιουδαιους

וַיֹּ֣אמֶר דָּוִ֔יד לִכְנוֹס֙ אֶת־הַגֵּרִ֔ים אֲשֶׁ֖ר בְּאֶ֣רֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל  I Chronicles 22:2 And David ordered to gather the strangers who were in the land of Israel  Και ειπε Δαυιδ συναγαγειν παντας τους προσηλυτους τους εν γη Ισραηλ

וְכִנַּסְתִּ֣י אֶתְכֶ֔ם Ezekiel 22:21 And I shall gather you  και συναξω…υμας

וְְכִנַּסְתִּ֖ים עַל־אַדְמָתָ֑ם Ezekiel 39:28 and I shall gather them to their land  και συναγαγειν με αυτους εκ των χωρων των εθνων

בֹּנֵ֣ה יְרֽוּשָׁלִַ֣ם יְהֹוָ֑ה נִדְחֵ֖י יִשְׂרָאֵ֣ל יְכַנֵּֽס Psalm 147:2 The Lord is the builder of Jerusalem; He will gather the outcasts of Israel. Οικοδομων Ιερουσαλημ ο Κυριος, και τας διασπορας του Ισραηλ επισυναξει

[6] Cf. note 2 under the entry for εκκλησια.

[7] Cf. Thayer’s entry under κηρυσσω, the Sept. for קרא; b. specifically used of the public proclamation of the gospel and matters pertaining to it, made by John the Baptist, by Jesus, by the apostles, and other Christian teachers. (Italics in the original.)

[8] K.L. Schmidt, in his article, εκκλησια, in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. III, Θ-Κ, edited by Gerhard Kittel, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, fn. 92, p. 531, notes that “Karl Barth in his Credo (1935), 120: “Ecclesia is a gathering assembled by a summons. The Germanic equivalent, Kirche, Kerk, Church, is not in my view a garbled reproduction of the Greek adjective κυριακη (εκκλησια), as is commonly supposed. … .”

[9] Cf. https://wordpress.com/read/feeds/125354824/posts/3785258923 discusses this point.

[10] Two verses that point to the first day of the week to have been so designated are Acts 20:7 and 1 Corinthians 16: 1-2.

[11] We are accepting this event by using as an analogy the perspective of the perfect tense in Hebrew grammar – that it happened, but this is not the place to examine the separation in detail, i.e., from the perspective of the imperfect tense in Hebrew grammar.

[12] https://d.docs.live.net/24db7d938064f022/Translations%20of%20Matthew%2016.docx  I would encourage the reader to read the various translations of ‘ekklesia’ in this link in order to gain an appreciation of the conundrum at which we have arrived owing to an intentional mistranslation and application of the Greek word.

[13] This practice is, of course, theological sophistry, but is not the point of this paper.