Is "church" a religious name?

[charlesj]

What is the Church?



Many use this term “church” to mean a building or a location
where religious people meet. Is this the
definition?

How is “church” used in the Bible? Is it a New Testament term? We have to be careful as the way we used a
word depends on the idea we have of the thing (word) we have in our mind.


The way we use the word “church” reflects the ideas we have
about it.

You may be surprised, but the word “church” is not a
peculiarly religious word, nor is it used that way, even in the Bible. The word “church” is NOT religious at all!

In the New Testament, which was originally written in Greek, the word “church” is translated from the Greek word “ekklesia.” The Greek word is taken from two words, “ek”
which means “out” and “kaleo” which means “to call out.” This Greek word was used of a group of people who have been called out of some place or relationship into a relationship into
another one. Thus, the ekklesia, or church of Christ refers to people who have been called out of the world into Christ by the gospel.

How was the word “ekklesia” used BEFORE Christ came? Was “ekklesia” used in the Old Testament?

We know the Old Testament wasn’t originally written in Greek, but Hebrew. However, the Greek translation called the Septuagint
which was made around 250 B.C. which Jesus and the apostles many times quoted from has the word “ekklesia.” It
occurs both in a religious and non religious ways.

The word “church” occurs over forty times in the Old
Testament.


For example, in Deut 9:10:

10 "And the LORD gave me the two tablets of stone awritten by the finger of God; and on them were all the
words which the LORD had spoken with you at the mountain from the midst of the fire on the day of the assembly. (ekklesia)

The term “assembly” is from the word ekklesia in the Septuagint, the same word translated “church” in the New
Testament.


We see ekklesia in Deut 4:10; 9:10; 18:16; 23:1,2,3,8 and many others, the word is
translated “assembly.”


These passages make it obvious God spoke of the assembly of Jews, i.e. the Jewish nation, whether they were
assembled or not. It refers to the people of the nation of Israel..

Use of the Greek word “ekllesia” (Church) In the New Testament.


In the N.T., several passages use the word church where it has nothing to do with Jesus Christ. In Acts 19:32, Luke describes
Paul’s controversy with the Ephesian silversmiths:


“Some therefore cried one thing, and some another: for the assembly (ekklesia) was confused; and the more part
knew not wherefore they were come together.”


In Acts 19:32 the word “ekklesia”
is translated “assembly” and describes a mob that was trying to kill Paul! It was composed of silversmiths, a group of
people who had been “called out” of the city of Ephesus because of a distinctive relationship; i.e. there were all silversmiths.

Now keep in mine some important “concepts” of the word “ekklesia” here in Acts 19:32..

• ekklesia is a “mob” (group) here.
  
• They were “called out” of the city of Ephesus.
  
• They had a “relationship” with each other. (They were all silversmiths)
  

In this same chapter 19, verse 39:


“But if ye enquire any thing concerning other matters, it shall be determined in a lawful assembly.” (Acts
19:39)



In this passage, the word ekklesia refers to the town council, again, a “church” that has nothing to do
with Christ! This “church” was another group of people, called out of the town by their relationship to the council.


A third time, this word is used in Acts 19:41:

“And when he had thus spoken, he dismissed the assembly.”

All three of these passages describe the same thing: a group of people, not a building, not an
organization.


In Acts 7:38 we have another passage that uses ekklesia and has NOTHING to do with the church of Christ. In this chapter, Stephen, in giving his
defense shortly before his death, rehearses the history of the Jews and says, speaking of Moses:


This is he, that was in the church (ekklesia) in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina,
and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:


Here in Acts 7:38 we learn that Moses was in the “church” in the wilderness, but Moses did NOT deal with the New
Testament church, but with a group of people, the congregation of Israel, the ekklesia described in the Old Testament where this same word is used.



THE CHURCH (OF CHRIST) IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.


In the New Testament references to the church of Christ, the term “church” is ALWAYS a
collective noun. While a noun is the name of a person, place or thing, a collective noun is a thing that is composed
of a plurality of elements.


Here are some examples of collective nouns: convey; herd; flock; troop; jury; team; crew; family; assembly;
pride; school; committee; company; crowd.


One convey of quail is a bunch of quail. One quail is not a convey. Likewise, one herd of cows is
many cows, not just one. A flock of sheep contains many sheep; one sheep is not a flock.


A jury consists of several members; one member is not the jury. A school of fish are many, not just one.


SO IT IS WITH THE TERM CHURCH! A church, whether the nation of Jews in the Old Testament, a mob of silversmiths, a city council in the New Testament, or
the church of Christ, is a collection of people.

In Matthew 16:18 Jesus said:

“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of
hell shall not prevail against it.”


Jesus spoke of a number of people, a collection of people. He did not speak of an organization, like a corporation. He spoke of people. He did not speak of an institution like a
university. He spoke of people.


Some are interested in institutionalism and its effects on the religion of Christ (some at this point
will not be), the very root of institutionalism is right here. If we view the church of Christ
as an institution people get into, we are bound to be institutional in our thinking. The church is not an
institution people enter – IT IS PEOPLE!


To be sure, the church was instituted by God, and it has organization, but the church is a plurality of
people. To illustrate my point, note that no one looks at a herd of cattle and thinks, “my what a wonderful
institution!” A herd of cattle is not an institution; it is simply a bunch of cattle.
No one ever remarked about a convoy of quail, “what a glorious organization!” No, a convey is a bunch
of quail, not an organization.


Think of every passage in the Bible where the word “church” occurs, whether in the Old Testament or in the
New Testament. Doesn’t the phrase “bunch of people” fit the context exactly? In 1 Cor 1:2, when Paul spoke of
the “church of God at Corinth,” didn’t he speak of the people of God there, a bunch of collective of people?


Some object to the use of the word “bunch” as a synonym for church on the ground it doesn’t sound religious
enough. That’s exactly why I’ve chosen it: “church” as it’s used in the Bible is not especially a religious word, and
yet, with our religious backgrounds, most can hardly separate the idea of religion from it.


With our exposure of denominational, institutional, and organizational religion, most can hardly
think of the word “church” without those denominational, institutional, and organizational concepts come to mind.


First of all, notice the word “church” is a collective noun: it always stands for a “bunch of people” – whether
they’re Christians or not, whether they’re religious or not, whether they even believes in God or not. That’s the way the word
is used throughout the Bible.


Also, “Church” is a Non-Descriptive Collective Noun.


The term “church” is not only a collective noun, but it is also non-descriptive, that is, it is a collection of
people who are not described by the term itself. It is precisely because the term “church”
doesn’t describe the nature of the people in the group that the term “church”
can be used of a variety of people; i.e. sometimes Christians, sometimes Jewish
nation, sometimes a mob of silversmiths. This usage does no violence to the word “church,” because the term doesn’t
describe the kind people in the group.

Other terms in the Bible describe the same group of people, that is, the people of Christ. For example, in Eph. 1:22, 23, Paul speaks of the church
as the “body” of Christ. Body is another collective noun: one body has many
members. Sometimes when one is asked what the church is, the reply is given the
church is the body. True, but what is the body? Many are hard pressed to give
a reply, other than to say the body is the church. That’s like one old-timer who when asked if
he knew what rattlesnake (we have a lot of them in TEXAS!) meat tasted like, said, “Sure, it
tastes like bull snake!” Well, what does bull snake taste like? It’s obvious like rattlesnake! We really don’t know much
more than when we first asked the question.


The Bible also speaks of the church as the house or family of God, 1 Tim 3:5. Family
is another collective noun. One person is not a family any more than one member is a body. One might say the church is the family, and
the family is the church, but he still may not have an idea of what the church is.


So, two collective nouns with flavor, i.e., that describe the kind of people in the group, help illustrate
something about the people in the church, a term that in itself has no flavor. A church can be collective of any kind of
people. Whoever the kind of people who make up it up, though, the church is a bunch of people.


The church of Christ is the people who belong to Christ and are in fellowship with Him.


A question might be, “how do you get into the church?” Or, what church is it?


What is the gospel? How do you obey the gospel? How did the priests of Acts 6:7 obey the faith (gospel)?


The gospel is the

1. Death,

2. Burial,

3. Resurrection of Christ. (His resurrection back to GLORY!)


that is how simple it is. (See Romans 15:3,4)


How do you “obey” the gospel? You “emulate” what He did!! Jesus said, “…if you die with me
then you will reign with me.” (Rom 6:8)



The apostle Paul was speaking to some Christians and he told them “how and when they were saved.” Read it for yourselves:


Romans 6:3-5:


3 Or do you not know that all of
us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?

4 Therefore we have been buried with Him
through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead
through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.

5 For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall be also in the likeness of
His resurrection,



These Roman Christians had obeyed the gospel by faith. These Christians had repented of their sins to the Father (whom they sinned against),
confessed His Son, Jesus the Christ as savior and then were buried (baptized) WITH HIM. They died WITH HIM! These Christians had “obeyed from the heart,
‘that form of doctrine’ that set them free from sin and they became servants of righteousness.



He died (for you sins) you die to your sins

He was buried you are buried (in the water)

He resurrected you are resurrected (to walk in new newness of Life)

(you EMULATE what He did!)

(Rom 6:17,18)

At this time, when they obeyed the gospel, “God ADDED THEM TO THE CHURCH!” (Acts 2:47). What
“church” is this? This is the church (assembly) IN HEAVEN where their names were written in the Lamb’s Book of
Life. This “assembly” (church) contains all the righteous from Adam to the present time (and growing!)

This is what God says to all the saved when they are added to the church:

“But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to
the general assembly and church of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of righteous men made perfect,
and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than he blood of Abel.” (Hebrews 12:22-24)

May the Lord be with us as we serve Him

 

[archaeologist5]

why ask a question if you are going to answer it yourself? especially since you want to show off something even though it is in error.

 

[charlesj]

why ask a question if you are going to answer it yourself? especially since you want to show off something even though it is in error.

It’s really hard for me to respond to you. I’ve noticed that most of your posts to others
are very negative and critical.



You certainly have an axe to grind.



In Christ,



charlesj

 

[Selene]

Hello Charlesj,

The word "Church" does indeed mean "assembly." It is an assembly of people. But the word "Church" has other meanings. It is also the Body of Christ of whom Christ is the Head of (Colossians 1:24 and Ephesians 5:23). The "Church" is also the bride of Christ (Revelations 21:9).

In Christ,
Selene

 

[charlesj]

Hello Charlesj,

The word "Church" does indeed mean "assembly." It is an assembly of people. But the word "Church" has other meanings. It is also the Body of Christ of whom Christ is the Head of (Colossians 1:24 and Ephesians 5:23). The "Church" is also the bride of Christ (Revelations 21:9).

In Christ,
Selene

Hello Selene:

It's been about a year since we've talked. Are you still on Guam? Hope all is well with you.



Yes, Chirst is the Head of the assembly and also the church is the bride of the Lord.

Thanks for your imput.

May the Lord be with us,

charlesj

 

[Selene]

Hello Selene:

It's been about a year since we've talked. Are you still on Guam? Hope all is well with you.



Yes, Chirst is the Head of the assembly and also the church is the bride of the Lord.

Thanks for your imput.

May the Lord be with us,

charlesj

Hi Charlesj,

Yes, I'm still in Guam. I was born and raised here, but I have traveled off-island before. I have been to Japan, the Philippine Islands, and to many parts of the United States. Guam is my home.

In Christ,
Selene

 

[charlesj]

Hi Charlesj,

Yes, I'm still in Guam. I was born and raised here, but I have traveled off-island before. I have been to Japan, the Philippine Islands, and to many parts of the United States. Guam is my home.

In Christ,
Selene

Selene:

I hope the problems Japan is having hasn't affected you or the island?

Anyway, good to hear from you again.

I think I told you before, but Guam would have been one of my duty stations when I was in the military after leaving Africa and Germany.

charlesj

 

[Selene]

Selene:

I hope the problems Japan is having hasn't affected you or the island?

Anyway, good to hear from you again.

I think I told you before, but Guam would have been one of my duty stations when I was in the military after leaving Africa and Germany.

charlesj

Hi Charlesj,

People who were living near the coast and in low-lying areas were evacuated. There was a noticeable rise in the water level, but no damage was done to our island. Yes, I remember what you told me. You probably heard about the military build-up here.

In Christ,
Selene

 

[dan p]

It’s really hard for me to respond to you. I’ve noticed that most of your posts to others
are very negative and critical.



You certainly have an axe to grind.



In Christ,



charlesj

Hi charles , maybe he know the answer , EKKLESIA means assembly and then what does CHURCH mean , and this is what I read ,

KURIAKOS is the Greek word for church and is found in 1 Cor 11:20 and in Rev 1:10 and means I belong to the Lord .

But I have to disagree that the Body of Christ is the " bride of Christ " , especially , since we are in the Body of Christ with Christ as the Head ?

How does a Head marry its Body ???

And you can tell , I agree with most of your premise , and did a good job , dan p

 

[Selene]

But I have to disagree that the Body of Christ is the " bride of Christ " , especially , since we are in the Body of Christ with Christ as the Head ?

How does a Head marry its Body ???

dan p

St. Paul says that the husband is the Head of the wife just as Christ is the Head of the Church.

Ephesians 5:23-25 Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body.
Therefore as the church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it:


Christ is the savior of His body (which is the Church). The bride of Christ is the Church.

 

[charlesj]

Hi charles , maybe he know the answer , EKKLESIA means assembly and then what does CHURCH mean , and this is what I read ,

KURIAKOS is the Greek word for church and is found in 1 Cor 11:20 and in Rev 1:10 and means I belong to the Lord .

But I have to disagree that the Body of Christ is the " bride of Christ " , especially , since we are in the Body of Christ with Christ as the Head ?

How does a Head marry its Body ???

And you can tell , I agree with most of your premise , and did a good job , dan p

Hey Dan:

κυριεύω in both 1 Cor 11:20 and Rev 1:10 that you mentioned means "Lord" not ekklesia (assembly or church). Ekklesia is translated sometimes as "assembly" and other times as "church."

Body of Christ are people who believe and follow Him. Chist is the "Head" over this body of people. He is the head of the assembly or another way of saying it, He is the Head of the church.


In John 3:26 we see John’s disciples telling John that Jesus (His disciples) are baptizing
more than him (John). “…they came unto John, and said to him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond the Jordan, to whom
thou hast borne witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him. [sup]27[/sup]John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it have been given him
from heaven. [sup]28[/sup]Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but, that I am sent before him. [sup]29[/sup]He that hath the
bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, that standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom’s voice:
this my joy therefore is made full[sup].”[/sup]


Here in John 3:26-29 John tells his disciples, Hey fellows, I’m NOT the Christ[sup] [/sup]I am just sent
before Him and am just a “friend of the bridegroom.” This Christ has the bride (church), therefore
He is the Bridegroom…” (My words). John’s office was to bring the groom and bride together.” He fulfilled his mission!

In Mark 2:19ff Jesus uses a metaphor of Himself as the Bridegroom when John’s disciples question Him about fasting.


“Jesus said unto them, Can the children of the bridechamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them? as long
as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. But the days will come, when the bridegroom
shall be taken away from them, and then shall they fast in those days.” (Mk 2:19,20)


Here in Mark 2 Christ call’s Himself “the bridegroom.” Ask yourself this question,
can a bridegroom be a bridegroom without a bride?

What “bridegroom” was taken away?


The apostle Paul develops this in 2 Cor 11:2 (and Eph 5:23-32)


In the Corinthian church there were all kinds of problems. Paul tells the
Corinthians that he wanted to present them (assembly or church) as a “virgin”
to the husband, Christ.


Paul said, “I am jealous over you with a godly jealousy: for I espoused you to one husband, that I might
present you as a pure virgin to Christ.” 2Cor 11:2.


Now listen to the apostle Paul as he speaks of a human marriage and uses a simile, Eph 5:23-32, (when you see “as or like”, he is using a
simile.)


“23 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, being himself
the saviour of the body.

24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives also be to their husbands in everything.

25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself up for it;

26 that he might sanctify it, having cleansed it by the washing of water with the word,

27 that he might present the church to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but
that it should be holy and without blemish.

28 Even so ought husbands also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his own wife loveth himself:

29 for no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as Christ also the church;

30 because we are members of his body.

31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh.

32 This mystery is great: but I speak in regard of Christ and of the church.

33 Nevertheless do ye also severally love each one his own wife even as himself; and let the wife see that she
fear her husband



Just like a marriage, the husband is head of the wife and Christ (the husband) is had of the assembly. He
is the savior of the body, the people.


Christians are to be holy and walk as He walked. We are washed by His Word and one of these days, we will be presented to Him as a glorious people,
without spot, wrinkle or blemishes. Praise the Lord!!


May the Lord be with us as we honor and serve Him,

charlesj

 

[Disciple]

The church of Christ is a spiritual church in heart..

 

[charlesj]

The church of Christ is a spiritual church in heart..

Disciple:

See my little writing on http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/13563-local-universal-church/

charlesj

 

[jiggyfly]

Hey Charles, have you employed an entomology study of the English word "church"? It actually comes from the Greek word kuriakos and is used only two places in the scriptures, it means "the Lord's" and the two places is referring to the Lord's supper and the day of the Lord. It is a mistranslation and errant transliteration of the scriptures containing the Greek word ekklesia. I believe this error was at least partly responsible for errant thinking such as the house of the Lord being a building.

 

[charlesj]

Hey Charles, have you employed an entomology study of the English word "church"? It actually comes from the Greek word kuriakos and is used only two places in the scriptures, it means "the Lord's" and the two places is referring to the Lord's supper and the day of the Lord. It is a mistranslation and errant transliteration of the scriptures containing the Greek word ekklesia. I believe this error was at least partly responsible for errant thinking such as the house of the Lord being a building.

Hello jiggyfly it is good to hear from you again!!

(I have my Logos Bible Software to show definitions from College Dictionary, Strongs, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament and Louw-Nida.
The definitions below were copied and pasted from Logos Bible Software.)


This is from the “Theological Dictionary of the New Testament”:


“3258 κυριακός (kyriakos), ή (ē), όν (on): adj.; ≡ Str 2960;
TDNT 3.1095—LN 12.10 belonging to the Lord, pertaining to the Lord; the Lord’s (supper, 1Co 11:20), (day, Rev 1:10+)”


Also from Strong’s:


† κυριακός.


“An adj. derived from the noun κύριος in the sense of “owner” and meaning “of the lord or owner”: πρὸς
τὸν κυριακὸν λόγον, “to the debit of the proprietor.” In official terminology it is used esp. as a tt. for “imperial,” κυριακὸς
λόγος, στρατιῶτης, φόρος etc.

It occurs twice in the NT: 1 C. 11:20: θυνερχομένων οὖν ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ οὺκ ἔστιν κυριακὸν δεῖπνον φαγεῖν, and Rev. 1:10: ἐγενόμην ἐν πνεύματι ἐν
τῇ κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ. The adj. as thus applied arose on Greek soil, for there is no corresponding adj. in Semitic. κυριακὸν δεῖπνον
may be compared with τράπεζα κυρίου in 1 C. 10:21, and κυριακὴ ἡμέρα with the double κυριακὴ κυρίου in Did., 14, 1. A gen. τοῦ κυρίου might have been used instead of the adj.
But the choice of this adj. based on κύριος is not surprising, since of the Greek adjectives formed from the customary terms for Christ this was the only one
which could denote the relation of a thing to Christ; Χριστιανός was used of people and σωτήριος
had acquired a different sense from “belonging to the σωτήρ.” If it is asked, then, why the two words δεῖπνον and ἡμέρα are combined with the adj. instead of the genitive τοῦ κυρίου, the answer is that this is an
indirect relation to the Lord, e.g., as compared with λόγος τοῦ κυρίου, παρουσία τοῦ κυρίου etc.


The Lord’s Day takes its significance from the resurrection of Christ. The κυριακὴ ἡμέρα soon became the day when the congregations assembled, Ac. 20:7; Did., 14, 1: κατὰ κυριακὴν δὲ κυρίου συναχθέντες. Jn.’s Gospel emphasises that Jesus rose
on the first day of the week, Jn. 20:1, 19, 26, while the reference to the κυριακὴ ἡμέρα in Rev. 1:10 does not mention its importance as a day of assembly. The custom of not working on the Lord’s Day
was naturally impossible both for Jewish Christian congregations, which still kept the Sabbath, and for Gentile Christian congregations, which included
slaves among their members and which were implicated in many different ways in the everyday life of paganism. The day could be distinguished only by coming together,
although in 1 C. 16:2 Paul writes that something for the Jerusalem collection should be laid aside on this day (the actual expression does not occur). Whether this is connected with
pay-day, as Deissmann suggests, is not certain. Perhaps Paul takes the day when the congregation was assembling and when its thoughts would thus be occupied
with church affairs. There is no proof, of course, that the Pauline churches assembled every Lord’s Day, or only on the Lord’s Day. But the first day of the
week already enjoyed a certain prominence in Judaism, since it was the day when the creation of the world began. For Christianity the resurrection of Jesus was
the beginning of a new age. The fasts on the fourth and sixth days (Did., 8, 1) were also connected with the story of Jesus, since they were the days when
counsel was taken to destroy Him (Mk 14:1) and when He was crucified.”



And from Louw-Nida #12.10:


12.10 κυριακός, ή, όν: (derivative of κύριος[sup]a[/sup] ‘Lord,’ 12.9) pertaining to the Lord—‘belonging to the Lord, Lord’s.’ συνερχομένων οὖν ὑμῶν ἐπὶ
τὸ αὐτὸ οὐκ ἔστιν κυριακὸν δεῖπνον φαγεῖν ‘when you meet together as a group, you do not come to eat the Lord’s Supper’ 1 Cor 11:20. A strictly literal rendering of ‘the Lord’s Supper’
might simply mean ‘the supper which the Lord ate,’ implying that no one else participated. Therefore, it may be necessary in some languages to translate
‘the meal at which the Lord presided’ or ‘the meal which the Lord had for his disciples’ or ‘the meal which the Lord ate with his followers.’



Some think that ekklesia may have come from this word. It could have, but ekklesia is used over 100 times in the N.T. and is translated “assembly or church.” This could be an assembly or church of a city
council, the Jewish Nation, a synagogue, a Christian assembly or anyplace where people gathered together regardless if it was religious or not.



Thanks for your input. Our inputs help us all to know Him better. It causes us to "look again" and to study more. Again, THANKS!


May the Lord be with us as we serve and honor Him,


charlesj

 

[jiggyfly]

Hello jiggyfly it is good to hear from you again!!

(I have my Logos Bible Software to show definitions from College Dictionary, Strongs, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament and Louw-Nida.
The definitions below were copied and pasted from Logos Bible Software.)


This is from the “Theological Dictionary of the New Testament”:


“3258 κυριακός (kyriakos), ή (ē), όν (on): adj.; ≡ Str 2960;
TDNT 3.1095—LN 12.10 belonging to the Lord, pertaining to the Lord; the Lord’s (supper, 1Co 11:20), (day, Rev 1:10+)”


Also from Strong’s:


† κυριακός.


“An adj. derived from the noun κύριος in the sense of “owner” and meaning “of the lord or owner”: πρὸς
τὸν κυριακὸν λόγον, “to the debit of the proprietor.” In official terminology it is used esp. as a tt. for “imperial,” κυριακὸς
λόγος, στρατιῶτης, φόρος etc.

It occurs twice in the NT: 1 C. 11:20: θυνερχομένων οὖν ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ οὺκ ἔστιν κυριακὸν δεῖπνον φαγεῖν, and Rev. 1:10: ἐγενόμην ἐν πνεύματι ἐν
τῇ κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ. The adj. as thus applied arose on Greek soil, for there is no corresponding adj. in Semitic. κυριακὸν δεῖπνον
may be compared with τράπεζα κυρίου in 1 C. 10:21, and κυριακὴ ἡμέρα with the double κυριακὴ κυρίου in Did., 14, 1. A gen. τοῦ κυρίου might have been used instead of the adj.
But the choice of this adj. based on κύριος is not surprising, since of the Greek adjectives formed from the customary terms for Christ this was the only one
which could denote the relation of a thing to Christ; Χριστιανός was used of people and σωτήριος
had acquired a different sense from “belonging to the σωτήρ.” If it is asked, then, why the two words δεῖπνον and ἡμέρα are combined with the adj. instead of the genitive τοῦ κυρίου, the answer is that this is an
indirect relation to the Lord, e.g., as compared with λόγος τοῦ κυρίου, παρουσία τοῦ κυρίου etc.


The Lord’s Day takes its significance from the resurrection of Christ. The κυριακὴ ἡμέρα soon became the day when the congregations assembled, Ac. 20:7; Did., 14, 1: κατὰ κυριακὴν δὲ κυρίου συναχθέντες. Jn.’s Gospel emphasises that Jesus rose
on the first day of the week, Jn. 20:1, 19, 26, while the reference to the κυριακὴ ἡμέρα in Rev. 1:10 does not mention its importance as a day of assembly. The custom of not working on the Lord’s Day
was naturally impossible both for Jewish Christian congregations, which still kept the Sabbath, and for Gentile Christian congregations, which included
slaves among their members and which were implicated in many different ways in the everyday life of paganism. The day could be distinguished only by coming together,
although in 1 C. 16:2 Paul writes that something for the Jerusalem collection should be laid aside on this day (the actual expression does not occur). Whether this is connected with
pay-day, as Deissmann suggests, is not certain. Perhaps Paul takes the day when the congregation was assembling and when its thoughts would thus be occupied
with church affairs. There is no proof, of course, that the Pauline churches assembled every Lord’s Day, or only on the Lord’s Day. But the first day of the
week already enjoyed a certain prominence in Judaism, since it was the day when the creation of the world began. For Christianity the resurrection of Jesus was
the beginning of a new age. The fasts on the fourth and sixth days (Did., 8, 1) were also connected with the story of Jesus, since they were the days when
counsel was taken to destroy Him (Mk 14:1) and when He was crucified.”



And from Louw-Nida #12.10:


12.10 κυριακός, ή, όν: (derivative of κύριος[sup]a[/sup] ‘Lord,’ 12.9) pertaining to the Lord—‘belonging to the Lord, Lord’s.’ συνερχομένων οὖν ὑμῶν ἐπὶ
τὸ αὐτὸ οὐκ ἔστιν κυριακὸν δεῖπνον φαγεῖν ‘when you meet together as a group, you do not come to eat the Lord’s Supper’ 1 Cor 11:20. A strictly literal rendering of ‘the Lord’s Supper’
might simply mean ‘the supper which the Lord ate,’ implying that no one else participated. Therefore, it may be necessary in some languages to translate
‘the meal at which the Lord presided’ or ‘the meal which the Lord had for his disciples’ or ‘the meal which the Lord ate with his followers.’



Some think that ekklesia may have come from this word. It could have, but ekklesia is used over 100 times in the N.T. and is translated “assembly or church.” This could be an assembly or church of a city
council, the Jewish Nation, a synagogue, a Christian assembly or anyplace where people gathered together regardless if it was religious or not.



Thanks for your input. Our inputs help us all to know Him better. It causes us to "look again" and to study more. Again, THANKS!


May the Lord be with us as we serve and honor Him,


charlesj

I think assembly is a much better translation than church.

 

[Robbie]

If the buildings the church... you have to meet in their building in order to have fellowship so you become dependent on their business for fellowship... and the reason they create that perception is because their business is dependent on you meeting there for its survival... you can't serve God and money... because you can't tell people the truth about God and still make money off them...

If we're the church it sets us free... because being church is no longer dependent on money for survival because what makes us the church isn't based on anything that can be bought or sold or that's made by the hands of man...

I had this church one time want me to do it's website... after they asked if they could pray with me about the website and the prayer just happened to mention God putting it on my heart to do it for free I wrote them off... I hate it when people try and use God to manipulate me... so afterwords when I told my friend there who introduced me to them that I thought his church was weird because of the way they acted he said, "Well what are we going to do if we lose our building" I was like, "Go over to each others houses... your building means nothing"

Once again... you can't serve God and money... because the truth of Christ breaks all the principles of the business mind... there's no way to run a business on the principle of, "Freely you receive... freely you give" and there's no way to tell someone the truth that, "The Kingdom they want to purchase a lot in is already in them" if you're still trying to sell them lots in heaven.

 

[charlesj]

I think assembly is a much better translation than church.

jiggyfly:

I agree. I wish the translators would have used "assembly" rather than the word church.

charlesj