Flash Mob
So then, some were shouting one thing and some another for the assembly was in confusion, and the majority did not know for what cause they had come together. Acts 19:32 NASB
Assembly – So why don’t the translators call this mob a “church”? The Greek word is ekklesia, almost uniformly translated “church” in New Testament texts.[1] But that wouldn’t make any sense here, would it? After all, the mob in Ephesus isn’t a “church.” Context forces translators to use the Greek definition of ekklesia and in Greek this word never means “church.” It means a civil assembly, not a religious one. It means a mob, a gathering, a convocation, a crowd, a group that comes together for some non-religious purpose. There is a Greek word for a religious assembly. That word is synagoge. It doesn’t mean just a Jewish religious gathering. It means any religious gathering. In the New Testament, most of these just happen to be Jewish.
Okay, so what? So what if the translators chose “assembly” for ekklesia in this verse? That’s what they should have done. Ah, but the question is, “Why didn’t they use “assembly” for all the other occurrences of ekklesia? Why did they choose “church” when the Greek meaning is clearly “assembly”? The answer is that translators use words according to their presuppositions. The Christian Bible was translated in order to support Christian theology, therefore, the word ekklesia was translated as “church” whenever the verse supported the idea that the “church” arose out of Judaism in the first century. Where the verse did not support that idea, other English words were used. There was little regard for consistency. Theological paradigms determined translation.
With this in mind, we are required to reread the New Testament texts in their own culture and historical period. That means we need to reread ekklesia as “assembly.” Of course, Paul uses the term for a religious assembly, something no Greek would have done. But when he uses it as a religious assembly, he does not mean “church.” “Church” has connotations that would never have entered Paul’s mind. Paul writes to synagogues, not churches. There were no churches in the first century. There were assemblies—religious or non-religious. None of them carried the ideas that we have about “church.”
Why do we care about this little technical issue? We care because we need to know what Paul really said and who was his audience. Rethinking the audience makes a huge difference. If Paul were writing to first century religious assemblies characterized by first century religious ideas in a Jewish context, then most of what we experience in “church” would never have been part of what the first century worshippers experienced. That makes a difference! Perhaps one of the reasons that we do not see repetitions of the experiences of the Acts ekklesia in our churches is because we attend meetings that are based on 4th and 16th Century models. We attend Church. The people of the Bible met in assemblies that were completely different.
Topical Index: church, ekklesia, assembly, Acts 20:32
Wow. Very good explanation!!
Today’s reference should be Acts 19:32, instead of Acts 20:32.
Blessings & Shalom!
sorry. I will fix that.
“That word is synagoge. It doesn’t mean just a Jewish religious gathering. It means any religious gathering. In the New Testament, most of these just happen to be Jewish.”
Could it be that at the time of Yeshua the word συναγωγή synagogue already had taken on a technical meaning for Jewish people [an LXX meaning if you will], and therefore actually does mean Jewish synagogue in their minds? This would make James 2:2 a Jewish synagogue not just a religious gathering.
Just because it means any religious gathering for Greeks doesn’t mean that that is how Jews used is, does it?
“For where two or three are gathered together in My name,
I am there in the midst of them.” Mat 18:20
What do you call this gathering?
How about four or five gathered together?
Or six?
Or more?
“Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners,
but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household
of God, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and
prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, in whom
the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple
in the Lord, in whom you are also being built together for a
dwelling place of God in the Spirit.” Eph 2:19-22
Isn’t Mat 18:20 one of those misapplied passages? I’ve read that it has nothing to do about a church meeting, but has to do with something that is missing in churches today, a beit din, an elders court to handle dispute between fellow congregants.
I haven’t checked that out, but it certainly makes much more practical and functional sense.
Hi Luis,
Right you are. But beyond the specifics of helping a brother
in error, isn’t the larger truth of two or more believers coming
together in the Spirit seeking God’s will, a powerful occassion,
no matter the specific circumstances that brought them together?
Ok Rich, the psalms say the He inhabits the praises of Israel.
But T tend to be a stickler for context.
Mat 18:20 is an allusion to Deut 1:16
And I charged your judges at that time, ‘Hear the cases between your brothers, and judge righteously between a man and his brother or the alien who is with him. 17 You shall not be partial in judgment. You shall hear the small and the great alike. You shall not be intimidated by anyone, for the judgment is God’s.
In considering the verbal nature of the Hebrew language and the noun-based language of Greek, the two or three or four or five or more of those meeting together are those that are synagogue-ing rather than attending a physical thing. Those meeting together, it seems to me, are assembling together to relate to one another in a joint relationship with Yeshua, YHWH in a dynamic, ongoing occurrence. This is similar in nature to salvation as an ongoing, choice of life or death, moment by moment.
As a body at large, we, as gentile believers of the Way are synagogue-ing as those grafted in having become a part of Israel, the whole remnant of believers. It’s a daily, weekly, monthly or annual reoccurring event, whenever it might happen. Just as “today” is the day of salvation, that is NOW is the time, the moment to choose the way of life as directed by Torah, the way of YHWH, the way of love, as opposed to death, anti-nomia, that is, anti-Torah.
The “church” designation has become a substitute, an incorrect replacement, of the chosen priests of the world, Israel. Again, of which we are grafted in through the hesed of YHWH. The “church” title has replaced the true nature of followers of the Way in my estimation and by doing so has been misleading ever since the second and third centuries when the organized Roman “church” began it’s existence.
Admittedly, it has been difficult to embrace this negative idea as the “church” has been so precious to me right up to the point of discovering all the pseudo authority it’s been granting itself in stark contrast to the early first century Hebrew and Gentile believers of the Way. Therefore, the more I delve in to the background of the “church” that I was never clearly presented and never discovered on my own, the more I must back away from all the traditional “church” doctrines, manners, and teachings. They just don’t look right anymore when a more clear understanding of the Hebraic worldview during the times of Yeshua and before.
The Brit Hadasha encourages us to “not forsake the [Greek]’episunagogan’ (synagogan) “synagogue-ing” of ‘meeting together.’ Here the English translation avoids, again, tying the meeting or assembling to the real ‘synagogue’ word. If used like ‘church’ is in it’s place normally in the English tradition, it seems the required English translation should be something similar to “not forsaking coming to church or churching.” (Heb 10:25)
The more I look at this the more I see the usage of the word “church” is contrived. The authority attributed to the “church” when organized a few hundred years after the resurrection is also contrived and thus suspect of place and position even today.
This thinking, of course, is anathema if spoken within the walls of “church” buildings I congregated in. I would immediately be categorized, red flagged and asked to step away from any teaching position I might have, surely. Never, ever say anything derogatory of the “church” as it is the sacred and untouchable institution immortalized in the “New” Testament.
I just don’t think that is remotely so anymore.
I actually had a ‘flash mob’ encircle me one time during a bible study when I calmly and matter of factly stated the copy of Scriptures I was holding in my hand (NASB English version, of course) wasn’t divinely inspired! WHAM! People actually got up out of their chairs and came close and surrounded me to answer my accusation. Actually, after it was all over, it was kind of fun and interesting. Talk about the conversation (the lively kind as opposed to the typical boring canned stuff we usually got!) that was created! The few remaining times I went, I noticed everyone was on their toes more. I think they were ready for battle to defend all the “church” stuff.
Anyway . . . just reminiscing.
Perhaps one of the reasons that we do not see repetitions of the experiences of the Acts ekklesia in our churches is because we attend meetings that are based on 4th (Catholic) and 16th (protestant) Century models.
Could it be that the church(es) are under judgement for seeking to make a name for themselves and building houses that bare their own name rather than the Name YHVH? Could it be that all the confusion of language and dividing of the churches is judgement from Babel? Has Elohim done this thing? Is this not a strong delusion? Hummmm
Hey Pam,
I have wondered the last couple of weeks if “Christianity” is the strong delusion spoken of?????? Scary thought 🙁
Who’s idea was “the church”?
“And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock
I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail
against it.” Mat 16:18
Jesus is the author. And He’s the finisher!
He’s building the church. It’s His Body! And to this day,
it’s alive and well. Put your spiritual glasses on!
It’s right on track!
Abraham’s faith is foundational. Peter’s faith is foundational.
Faith is the foundation of the church.
It’s God’s plan. We are the “current” faithful foundation!
“Coming to Him as a living stone, rejected indeed by men,
but chosen by God and precious, you also, as living stones,
are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer
up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.”
1 Pet 2: 4-5
Jesus gave us this head’s up:
“Take heed that no one deceives you.” Mat 24:4
Taken from:
https://skipmoen.com/2011/06/04/rock-of-ages/
” Right here, in the place where pagan gods seem to be in charge, Yeshua will build His qehelah. And what is this? It is the movement of the Kingdom, the assembly of people who will become the true followers of the Way. “My ekklesia” is the movement He has begun, the Kingdom of Heaven that is at hand.”
Does this hold true for “church” in Revelation?
Yes. The roughly 20x the word ‘church’ is translated in Revelation in English, ekklesia is the Greek word.
If that is what you were asking.
“And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock
I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail
against it.” Mat 16:18
The Greek is “I will build my “ekklasian.” Ekklasia means the same thing
as the above mentioned qehelah, which much before the first century B.C.E. The congregate/assembly
who followed the Way in the first century included both Jews and God-fearing
Gentiles. It wasn’t something new at Pentecost, rather a continuing of what
began earlier. Those assembled as followers of the Way are identified by Paul and
the others as ekklesia. “Church” is an attached word to this Greek word such that
‘the church’ has been elevated above and has replaced those believers of the Way then and
now that belong to the same body.
If the KJV simply transliterated the Greek word baptizo (meaning ‘to immerse’) for, what, political purposes, it seems those
translators would have done less damage by simply transliterating ekklesia rather than attaching
a whole different word to it. In so doing it certainly helped provide for a divide between the newly
created Christianity of the 4th century and those that continued to follow the Way with all it’s
Jewish nature and characteristics that Yeshua, Shaul and the rest demonstrated faithfully.
Flash Mob?
So then, some were shouting one thing and some another for the assembly was in confusion, and the majority did not know for what cause they had come together. (Acts 20:32 )
What matters here is “why?” or “purpose.” Why did the people (people are people) meet together? What was the purpose of this “assembled” peoples?” Why has God “called out” this “assembly?” (What are His purposes?)
“This people have I formed for Myself; they shall show forth My praise.” (Isaiah 43:21)
This particular (and peculiar?) people met together for a common cause. Was it (perhaps) to teach and to preach/proclaim Jesus is LORD? Did they meet together to worship and to praise? to glorify God and to give personal testimony of the grace of God in each of their lives? Was this the Messiah? the Sent One? the Chosen One of God? Did our Creator become as the creature, and live among us? This new “religion” (a system of beliefs?) was spreading fast. Have you heard the good news? What is this “gospel” people are talking about? Did this “carpenter’s son,” rise from the dead? Did this Man- the Lamb of God- defeat death?- Unheard of- ever. And now to pray and say (to God) to say “Our Father?” Never. Unheard of. How is it any man may say to HIm-“our Father?” Isn’t this (also) blasphemy?
Why was the veil of the temple torn in two from top to bottom? – Why? Why did Paul receive a new name (from Saul?) Why was Saul persecuting this new “assembly?” Who is the “Bride of Christ?” – Who has been invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb?
~ that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness (chesed?- “loving-kindnesses?”) toward us through Christ Jesus ~ (Ephesians 2.7)
~ The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are (now) the children of God:
and if (since) children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ? ~ Joint-heirs? (Romans 8.16-18)
~ For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us ~ (Romans 8.18) – Oh? “Glory?” – The best is yet to be?
~ For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works. Speak these things, exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no one despise you. ~
From a flash mob in confusion and chaos, to a fixed and “focused’ people with clear vision and purpose :
Let the nations be glad and sing for joy,
for you judge the peoples with equity
and guide the nations upon earth. Selah
Let the peoples praise you, O God;
let all the peoples praise you!
“These people”- this ‘now glorified Bride of their Heavenly Boaz” (our Near-Kinsman Redeemer) ~ sang a new song, saying, “Worthy are You to take the scroll and to open its seals, for You were slain, and by Your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation..
~ Then they cried to the LORD in their trouble, and He brought them out of their distresses. He caused the storm to be still, so that the waves of the sea were hushed. Then they were glad because they were quiet, so He guided them to their desired haven.. ~
The current church model is unbiblical. The Jews discussed spiritual teachings by dialogue in mtgs – at dinner – and often argued over points. This was normal practice. When Paul preached till midnight it wasn’t a monologue. No-one would have expected anyone to sit passively saying nothing for an hour then go home having honed no gifts and provided no service to the Body (“when they came together some brought a gift, a prophecy, a spiritual song …”). What began with the requirement to go to “rhetoric school” before being “allowed to share the gospel” somewhere around 250AD has resulted in the pulpit hogging control – stealing Jesus’ headship and keeping the Body passive and ineffective. Pastors were never meant to “rule the church” they are to shepherd people (not administer systems) – and there should be many shepherds in each assembly. It would address the current pastoral burn-out stats! Frank Viola and George Barna’s book “Pagan Christianity” sheds light on the history of this pretzel twist. Irenaus on his way to be martyred in 95AD wrote letters urging people to obey the bishops as if they were God. The apostle John would still have been around then and the rot was already setting in. We shouldn’t expect the devil to be passive and must now be vigilant to change things. Many know that God is now leaving this model behind and doing a new thing. Pray for it folks – that the Bride will shine with His radiance and not hide passively behind 4 walls. The post-moderns want to see people take a stand – they’re turned off by the lukewarm church. Studies show they seek spirituality – they like Jesus but don’t like this church. Change is afoot. YAY! We need to figure out what a dialoguing, gift sharing, counter-cultural, Christ-focused, “assembly” looks like.
Amen, Marion! Preach it!
The Body, as I am coming to realize it, was meant to minister to the Body. We were all meant to be able ministers of each other, and the pastors were supposed to be there to assist us and teach us how to minister to each other.
I have noticed that the best heads of corporations and other organizations that end up figuring out how to do a superlative job happen to have done a good job of becoming humble enough to realize that their job consisted of being a servant to everyone ‘below’ them. The better they understood the ‘servant’ and ‘assist’ part, the better the whole outfit functioned. This whole top-down approach should be foreign to the representatives of heaven, as we are told to follow our Example, Yeshua, Who came to be a servant to all, and left copious instruction on what that looked like. He instructed us to “call no man your master”, and said that the only way He was to draw all men to Him is if He were to be “lifted up”, and no, it wasn’t a pulpit! What if we considered the only leaders worth following to be the ones who had figured out how to be so effective that they ended up martyrs? What if that line is the only one a “Christian” should ever be seen in?