Use of the word "Church" in Scripture

[Rick-Parker]

Recently I was having a "discussion" with another person on this forum regarding the use of the word "church" in Scripture. You can find it under "Restoration of the Church" in Doctrinal Questions. I don't wish to resurrect the discussion but I asked the question to Jack Kelley of gracethrufaith. This is the communication:

On Dec 17, 2009, at 5:20 PM, Rick wrote:

On the Christian Forum I belong to, this statement was made: "Forget Matthew Henry commentaries and don't force the bible say something it doesn't say. There is, in truth, no such thing as "the church" (as defined since the 2nd century) mentioned in the bible whatsoever. That is a post-biblical (and quite intentional) error of translation that causes all kinds of contradictions of interpretation. The "church" as we know it today is defined as "a specifically Christian religious organization separate from Israel". That is a post-biblical invention because you won't find any place in the scriptures where such a thing is mentioned." Is this person correct, that the word "Church" as translated in the all versions of Scripture is a deliberate attempt to separate Jews and Gentiles by the Catholic Church?

On Dec 21, 2009, Jack wrote:

Hi Rick ...

This is why I avoid forums. There are too many people saying things that have no foundation as if they were the truth. Often they justify their claims by saying the Bible has been corrupted. The Greek word translated church is ekklesia. It was first used by Jesus in Matt. 16:18 and appears 118 times in the Bible. 115 of those times it's translated church. Thousands of early copies of the New Testament (pre-dating the Catholic Church) can verify this. Paul clearly distinguished the church from Israel in 1 Cor. 10:32, and his statement that Israel has been hardened in part until the full number of gentiles has come in (Romans 11:25) is another indication that he viewed them separately. Some so-called reformed theologians try to deny this separation in an effort to justify their view that the church has replaced Israel in God's plan, but such a view is inconsistent with God's promises to Israel.

Lord bless,

Jack

To be clear, I am not saying that the person whom I was debating believed in replacement theory, nor do I. The issue is as stated in my question, quoted and submitted to Jack for his input/opinion.

[MelodyCat]

Jack Kelly is NOT a Replacement Theologist. You only need to read some of his teaching articles to come to know that. Jack Kelly has a very good reputation as being Biblically Sound Preacher.

Not sure what you know about Bible Translations etc..

[Guest yod]

Is this person correct, that the word "Church" as translated in the all versions of Scripture is a deliberate attempt to separate Jews and Gentiles by the Catholic Church?

On Dec 21, 2009, Jack wrote:

Hi Rick ...

This is why I avoid forums. There are too many people saying things that have no foundation as if they were the truth. Often they justify their claims by saying the Bible has been corrupted. The Greek word translated church is ekklesia. It was first used by Jesus in Matt. 16:18 and appears 118 times in the Bible. 115 of those times it's translated church. Thousands of early copies of the New Testament (pre-dating the Catholic Church) can verify this. Paul clearly distinguished the church from Israel in 1 Cor. 10:32, and his statement that Israel has been hardened in part until the full number of gentiles has come in (Romans 11:25) is another indication that he viewed them separately. Some so-called reformed theologians try to deny this separation in an effort to justify their view that the church has replaced Israel in God's plan, but such a view is inconsistent with God's promises to Israel.

Lord bless,

Jack

I'm glad you brought this up, Parker. I love this topic!

But you make that first sentence sound like "this person" is saying that the Catholics all got in a room one day and said, "hmmm...what can we do to get rid of those pesky jews?"

First of all I don't think it's impossible that has happened many times but it isn't how I see this occuring at all. Over time and many schisms, there were problems between the jews and the gentiles in the assembly. An overview of the Book of Romans will show that this was what Shaul was dealing with in that congregation (which is why it is such a great book of theology addressing jewish and gentile questions).

!

This is why I avoid forums. There are too many people saying things that have no foundation as if they were the truth. Often they justify their claims by saying the Bible has been corrupted.

I've never ever, not even once, said that that Bible is corrupted so that remark can't be about me, right?

The record shows that what I have consistently said is that:

a) no translation is going to be perfect

b) words implying things not implied by the original language of the Bible were used.

c) hebrew is the language of the Bible and even the greek translations are to be consistent with the hebrew words they are translating to understand what the Bible is saying.

Will you admit that is not the same thing as attacking the veracity of the Word of God?

If anything, I'm fiercely fighting for 100% accuracy of the Word of God.

The Greek word translated church is ekklesia. It was first used by Jesus in Matt. 16:18 and appears 118 times in the Bible. 115 of those times it's translated church.

I've never argued that ekklesia wasn't used 118 times in the bible. I'm saying that ekklesia did not mean "a specifically christian religious institution separate from Israel" but that is how you read the word "church".

Jesus didn't speak greek and I've never argued that ekkesia isn't translated as church so that remark was also irrelevant. I'm saying that is an inaccurate translation. When you render that word "church" it implies something that didn't exist until late in the 2nd Century.

I'm saying, and I hope you will hear me this time, that this translation is incorrect and it changes the definition of the words being translated. It might have been an honest attempt to redefine something that hadn't existed before...but the definition of those words being translated was changed by using the word "church". There is no getting around it.

The word ekklesia in the original language simply means "an assembly" as I've stated already in another thread. If you or Rick are trying to say that ekklessia specifically means a "christian" assembly then why is that word translated as "mob" when the word "ekklesia" is used to describe the assembly in Athens stoned Paul? Was that "a specifically christian religious institution separate from Israel" throwing rocks at Paul?

And that is my point. Ekklesia should always be translated as either assembly or congregation because that doesn't imply an endorsed religious preference. There is no "specifically christian religious organization separate from Israel" in the bible.

There is only the faithful remnant of Israel, Yeshua's Assembly, the Congregation of the Righteous, and all the nations are joined to the Israel of God.

rick says:

Paul clearly distinguished the church from Israel in 1 Cor. 10:32, and his statement that Israel has been hardened in part until the full number of gentiles has come in (Romans 11:25) is another indication that he viewed them separately.

The verse he quotes has nothing to do with the question you asked him.

here is how that verse should be read:

Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews (non-believers who don't receive their Messiah), Greeks (gentiles who don't receive the Messiah of Israel) or the "Faithful remnant of Israel and those nations who are joined to them"

The other word usually translated as church is "Sunagoge" which, in the original language, was more like a jewish community center today. Just a place for gathering. Not a specifically christian place or even a religious connotation whatsoever....just gathering.

So here is what it boils down to:

Does the word "church" mean

1. Faithful remnant of Israel and those nations who are joined to them

2. a specifically christian religious institution separate from Israel

If you read "church" and see definition #1 then we have successfully redefined what "church" is.

However, the accepted meaning of the word "church" today is definition #2 and that is an incorrect rendering of what THE BIBLE is saying in every place it is used.

That might seem like a small distinction at first, but again, if you substitute the word "mosque" in it's place, you will start seeing how implying a religious connotation changes the meaning.

Some so-called reformed theologians try to deny this separation in an effort to justify their view that the church has replaced Israel in God's plan, but such a view is inconsistent with God's promises to Israel

.

I am blessed to see that Rick is someone who is honestly seeking the truth in the Word. When I first was challenged with this, I had the same reaction that you and most people who are reading this thread had.

But once I started considering the ramifications, I realized this isn't as small as it looks on the surface.

Changing the definitions of words is how the serpent works. This one translation has caused immeasurable suffering in history.

[Rick-Parker]

Jack Kelly is NOT a Replacement Theologist. You only need to read some of his teaching articles to come to know that. Jack Kelly has a very good reputation as being Biblically Sound Preacher.

Not sure what you know about Bible Translations etc..

UMMM. I post Jack Kelley OPs all the time. Maybe you should read what I posted with opened eyes. My last remark was to make sure that everyone knew that neither yod or I were into replacement theology. NOWHERE did I say that Kelley was a replacement theologist. I'm the one who wrote Jack and asked him his opinion. REALLY dude, you should read more carefully before you make unfounded statements about people you know nothing about (me). I know plenty about Bible translations, thank you very much.

edit: sorry, I must need my eyes examined. I totally misunderstood what you was saying. I apologize.

[Rick-Parker]

Yod, I'm Rick. The question was from me to Jack Kelly. The quotes I used in the question are yours. The answer to you quotes were from Jack. There is no debate between you and I. We just disagree and nothing I can say or you can say is going to change our minds. I just posted this topic so that some are not confused by what you are claiming. You can run with this or not, but I've accomplished my goal which was to get a recognized theologian out there with his opinion, not just lay persons such as you or I.

God bless,

Rick

[Guest yod]

not just lay persons such as you or I.

you assume a lot, Rick.

I answered him in the above post. If I'm wrong, then it should be easy to prove. Let's see what your best theological life-line can do with it

[MelodyCat]

Jack Kelly is NOT a Replacement Theologist. You only need to read some of his teaching articles to come to know that. Jack Kelly has a very good reputation as being Biblically Sound Preacher.

Not sure what you know about Bible Translations etc..

UMMM. I post Jack Kelley OPs all the time. Maybe you should read what I posted with opened eyes. My last remark was to make sure that everyone knew that neither yod or I were into replacement theology. NOWHERE did I say that Kelley was a replacement theologist. I'm the one who wrote Jack and asked him his opinion. REALLY dude, you should read more carefully before you make unfounded statements about people you know nothing about (me). I know plenty about Bible translations, thank you very much.

I know what you wrote. I was agreeing with what you said and added that he was a Minister with a good reputation. Please note I did not say Parker1 and then posted, nor did I quote your post. So I was not speaking to you but speaking in general to others who might some to read the thread. So you are aware in future, that is normal Forum ettiquette to address a person directly means you are speaking to them to just add a post with NO direction means you are adding a general COMMENT of agreement or disagreement.

By the way I'm not a dude. That is rude young people's talk. I'm of an older generation. You could have been kind and jsut asked me nicely "did you read my post, that is waht I said alrealdy". No you chose to make an assumption that was wrong.

My post was not personally rude nor disrepectful. Nor did I put you down or attack you.

I don't know you, I do know Jack Kelly. It was another comment. "I don't know what you know". As I actually don't know you.

I hope this clears it up for you.

MelC

Edited December 22, 2009 by MelodyCat

[Rick-Parker]

not just lay persons such as you or I.

you assume a lot, Rick.

I answered him in the above post. If I'm wrong, then it should be easy to prove. Let's see what your best theological life-line can do with it

I'm sorry, yod, I didn't know you were a theologian. Which Divinity School did you go to?

[Rick-Parker]

Jack Kelly is NOT a Replacement Theologist. You only need to read some of his teaching articles to come to know that. Jack Kelly has a very good reputation as being Biblically Sound Preacher.

Not sure what you know about Bible Translations etc..

UMMM. I post Jack Kelley OPs all the time. Maybe you should read what I posted with opened eyes. My last remark was to make sure that everyone knew that neither yod or I were into replacement theology. NOWHERE did I say that Kelley was a replacement theologist. I'm the one who wrote Jack and asked him his opinion. REALLY dude, you should read more carefully before you make unfounded statements about people you know nothing about (me). I know plenty about Bible translations, thank you very much.

I know what you wrote. I was agreeing with what you said and added that he was a Minister with a good reputation. Please note I did not say Parker1 and then posted, nor did I quote your post. So I was not speaking to you but speaking in general to others who might some to read the thread. So you are aware in future, that is normal Forum ettiquette to address a person directly means you are speaking to them to just add a post with NO direction means you are adding a general COMMENT of agreement or disagreement.

By the way I'm not a dude. That is rude young people's talk. I'm of an older generation. You could have been kind and jsut asked me nicely "did you read my post, that is waht I said alrealdy". No you chose to make an assumption that was wrong.

My post was not personally rude nor disrepectful. Nor did I put you down or attack you.

I don't know you, I do know Jack Kelly. It was another comment. "I don't know what you know". As I actually don't know you.

I hope this clears it up for you.

MelC

My apologies. I thought you were thinking that I disrespected Mr. Kelly. Perhaps I should read with eyes open myself. Please see that I edited my original post.

Edited December 22, 2009 by Parker1

[MelodyCat]

My apologies. I thought you were thinking that I disrespected Mr. Kelly. Perhaps I should read with eyes open myself.

Sorry reading abck over my post, I should have been a bit more clearer. Adding something like I agree.

But yeah I was agreeing with you.

I was going to say if you said something about Translations. To find a good lexicon. I am Serbian and our Bible directly from the Greek not via the Latin to English so I have a slightly different perspective on words used in the Bible.

MelC

Edited December 22, 2009 by MelodyCat