Pages

Monday, July 24, 2017

Church or No Church, That Is the Question

Have you ever wondered where words come from or how they came about? We pretty much take them all for granted. However, when you consider how many there actually are and the new ones being invented (Googling, and texting have not always been with us), it is a pretty amazing thing. Then compound that with the plethora of languages and dialects, the billions of words bouncing around is beyond amazing. In one way or another they are used to communicate things from one person, group, or generation to another. Words are pretty much my life. I teach with them, offer counsel, encouragement, and I also write them in a number of different forms. I also read them, lots of them. Every day of my life in filled with words. I sometimes even sing them in my car when the windows are rolled up. Words have been around for a long time and some have even changed a bit over the years. I like words. In my study I like finding out where they came from and what they meant at the time and in the culture they were spoken. There is likely a bit of archeologist and anthropologist woven into my DNA.

As the years have gone by I have noticed that some folks like to use long or complicated words. If you go to seminary you no longer talk about sin but rather hamartiology. Study of the Spirit is pneumatology. It does not make the study any clearer but it does sound impressive. Did you know there are common words we read in Scripture that we simply accept, which are not the words that the text holds. Translators add and delete words as they attempt to make their translations more clear or more acceptable. There are words the translators use or avoid using due to political pressure and fall-out. They may even conceal the original intent due to bias or subtle prejudice. For example, many of the names in the New Testament are Jewish. However, at the time of King James, there was a bias against the Jews, so we have James instead of Jacob, Simon instead of Simeon, and Mary instead of Miriam. We also have the word "baptize" which is a transliteration of the Greek baptismos. The simple translation is to immerse, dunk and is used of washing in Hebrews 9:10. However, as the king of England was an Anglican who believed in infant sprinkling.  The Anabaptists, who taught immersion for believers, were a group in disfavor at the time. Thus, the translators chose to make the Greek sound English rather than talk about immersing people or John the Immerser. Neither would have been appreciated by King James. It was not wise to irritate the king so they invented an acceptable word.

The word of interest for today is the very common word "church". It replaces the Greek word ekklesia, meaning "assembly". In the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, ekklesia is used to translate the Hebrew word for assembly every time. But not so in the English translation of the new Testament. Here, ekklesia, magically turns into the word "Church" whenever it refers to an assembly of Messianic believers. Assembly is used whenever ekklesia refers to a political group or gathering of people (See Acts 19:32 and Acts 23:7). So why this new word "Church" to refer to the Messianic assembly? Where did it come from? The best guess and most closely related words from the time the Scriptures were translated in 1611seems to be chirche, circe,or kirk. They are Middle English or Celtic words for a circle where people gathered for some kind of worship. The Stonehenge is the remains of one example. It was originally a place of pagan worship but grew into a general term for a religious gathering. The Greek word kuriakon, meaning "of the Lord" is used twice in scripture: 1 Cor 11:20 The “ Lord’s, kuriakon, supper;” and Rev 1:10, the “ Lord’s, kuriakon" day.” or "Day of the Lord". Some attempt to find the word "church" here, however, I believe that is a stretch in an attempt to find a Biblical word to justify a translation that never occurs anywhere in Scripture. Assembly is the normal, reasonable, and accurate translation of the word ekklesia. 

This being so, why the odd use of "church" in our English translations? And, at this point, does it really matter? We all know what the church is. Well, actually, it is seen now more as a building than an assembly. We go to church, we build a church, and we meet at the church rather than being the church. Only a relative few would think of this as a gathering of Messianic followers. Followers of Jesus or Christ, perhaps, but not the Jewish Messiah. Setting that aside, the word church is now fully accepted and has come to be defined as a place where Christians gather. So when we read the New Testament we understand these are groups of Christian believers. The people who gathered at that time would never have thought that, but that is beside the point. My concern is that there has been, and continues to be a great divide between Judaism and what has become the church. The early assembly of believers were made up of Jews and Gentiles meeting at the Synagogues and in homes learning about the Scriptures (read Old Testament here, it was all they had) and how to follow the Jewish Messiah. We do not need to return to the Synagogues (though an occasional visit might be worthwhile). However, we should not forget our Jewish roots.

Whether or not we want to believe it, the "church" has been quietly guilty of a form of antisemitism in our translations. From removing Jewish names to borrowing words from pagan meetings, English translators have tried to deny and hide the Jewish reality of the New Testament times. Find this hard to believe? Look up James 2:2. Here the translators are more than willing to use the word assembly or meeting, "For if there should come into your assembly a man with gold rings" (KJV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, and RSV),   "Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes" (NIV). The word translated "assembly" or "meeting" is  synagōgē, synagogue. The word synagōgē, is translated as synagogue everywhere else in the New Testament, but not here. Why? Because we know that James is writing to the church and we know they would not be at the synagogue. However, in truth, Jacob did write to the assembly of Messianic followers meeting at the synagogue. The translators, and many who say they follow Jesus, find this so hard to believe they simply hide from or ignore the truth.

So do you go to church or an assembly of Messianic followers? Does it matter? I guess that is up to you to decide.  

No comments:

Post a Comment