SO much is being said of the ekklesia these days. It was a thing I thought I was quite settled upon in my spirit. But then something happened that radically challenged me to look closer, it is so much like Ruach HaKodesh (Holy Spirit) to do this with me. I LOVE THAT HE KNOWS JUST HOW TO STIR MY CURIOSITY! I was trained in the typical classical Pentecostal belief that ekklesia is the "Church". Not a church or group of churches, but all churches which teach salvation by repentance of sin. That those who accept Jesus Christ as Savior and LORD of their life are members of the ekklesia. As He led me into other streams to learn some very important things I discovered another concept. One that taught the ekklesia is a people set to rule and reign in this life, as a governing body of representatives who speak under a prophetic unction to bring His will on earth even as it is in heaven.
When it all began to change, it went like this...
I was seeking God about the First Century "Church" and the stark contrast I saw between how they structured everything from a missionary trip for a single Apostle to each local assembly/congregation to the then known function of the global "church". Since early in the ministry to which I have now been called for over 30 years, I have rarely felt comfortable referring to local congregations (even the ones I attended) as a "church". Not just because Scripture seems to indicate that a local assembly is only one small part of the "Universal Church" (intended to mean universal in the strictest sense - NOT to equivocate Universal meaning Catholic). Also because it just didn't settle well in my spirit.
Recently I was reading from my favorite Chronological Gospel and there was a note that indicated the English word "church" has a very interesting etymology. So I began digging. Little did I know it was going to send everything I'd ever learned on the topic into a tailspin. Nor did I realize at the onset of this investigation that it would potentially undermine so much of what I had come to "know" as fact! Had I known the level of internal controversy this would cause for me, perhaps I would not have had the courage to move forward. But for God's Grace - His eternal, unwavering, unlimited empowerment (grace), I would not have been able to endure the findings of this research I am about to begin unfolding for you in the series on the "Church" and the "Ekklesia". This will indeed be an exciting ride, so buckle up! Prepare your heart for some crazy plot twists and cliff hanger moments of pure Biblical mystery as we together travel this path of exposition. It is going to challenge you to go deeper in His presence to find some rare nuggets of pure golden revelation. As you read, I can already tell you that you are going to have things explode from deep within your spirit as Abba YHVH unfolds the true nature and intention of the "Church" from the man-made traditions that you have probably accepted as Biblical fact, just as I had.
Here we go...
Let's start with a simple synopsis in my own words, then let's examine the evidence and see if my perspective is accurate, shall we? From the evidence I have examined, it would appear the word "church" has precarious origins to say the least. It would seem it is derived from the Greek (which made sense when I first found this - more on that though shortly) but has been run through the Latin (which also made sense to me since Constantine and the Councils at Nicaea made Latin the language of "The Church"). Then as the English language and vernacular changed with societal changes, the origins and their meanings were all but lost to antiquity. As you'll find, I am not the first nor even one of a few, who have studied this and came to the conclusion that perhaps the word "church" was likely never in God's heart for His people. Or wasn't it?
Let's take it backwards. The modern English word "church" goes back to the Scottish "Kirk" or "Kirke". The website screenshots below will help to show the connective etymology and clues as I followed them.
After reading this and following up with searching "Circe", which I will add in a moment, my heart began to sink a little. Before I do, I want to point out that on a hunch, from some implications I found in several online articles, I then looked up "Kirk":
Now, you'll notice the use of Kirk is circa 1200-CE (1200-AD). Not exactly an ancient use of any word which eventually became the modern word "church" which we use as commonly now as breathing, eating food, and drinking water. Yet, I doubt many understand its origin in the Greek.
Notice that I decided to use "Kirke" in the search bar. This was based on the notation from the Chronological Gospel I was reading from which started this whole adventure. By the way, this may be a good time for you to go back up and look at the pic defining "Church" - which is where I started. (Circe)
Author's Note: I found a number of sources on both sides of the for and against argument of translating ekklesia as church. Some are more questionable than others. So, using my typical method of looking for the areas in which they agree and assuming this middle ground to be truth, I began to work my way outward in both directions and quickly found the extremes. Essentially, it seems the two groups agree on very little except that whomever the ekklesia is, they are to rule and reign as representatives of God on Earth. More on that as I unfold the investigative discoveries. For now, let's continue with a line of thought that deeply offended me when I tripped over it while digging into this and following the slightest of clues.
Some claim that kirk/kirke, being of Scottish origin, was also spelled Circe and simply pronounced with a hard "K" sound and not the assumed classical "S" we would likely use now when seeing the C's in Circe. This holds merit and does explain the almost circular pattern I am beginning to find in the use of the words above. I even came across a number of sources which claimed a lineage with the word "kirkos" as well. After you read what I am about to write, you will be challenged and I hope you do the research yourself to see if I am being fair and impartial. I did not set out to discover anything but truth. I had no expectation of finding what I found.
Concerning this, Smith's Bible Dictionary from 1884, page 452 says:
"the derivation of the word 'church' is uncertain. It is found in the Teutonic and Slavonic languages and answers to the derivatives of ekklesia, which are naturally found in the romance languages and by foreign importation elsewhere. The word is generally said to be derived from the Greek kyriakos, meaning the lord's house. But the derivation has been too hastily assumed. It is probably associated with the Scottish kirk, the Latin circus/circulous, the Greek klukos, because the congregations were gathered in circles."
Specifically, Smith's is referring to a derivation from the translation or transliteration of the Greek (in this case specifically the word ekklesia) into the English word church. Because, you see, a translation uses a method of choosing a word of similar meaning to be chosen when "translating". Transliteration is a letter for letter translation for example; Yeshua when spelled in Greek and represented by English alphabetic characters is Iesous (pronounced Yay-soos at the time of the writing of the New Testament), transliterated into Latin it became Jesus (pronounced Yay-soos and later Hay-soos), into modern English vernacular it is pronounced Gee-zuhs. Neither translation nor transliteration was used to create church from ekklesia however, it is instead a replacement and this is of monumental importance. Ekklesia is a compound word meaning "called out ones" and NOT church. It is used in the Septuagint to represent the entire assembly of Israel. We'll look more at this in future chapters. For now, suffice it to say church does not mean "called out ones" and so may not even be an accurate replacement.
Back to Smith's notation concerning "Circe/chirche/kirk/kirke". Notice something odd about the last few examples of related words/translations? Yes, in Latin it is "CIRCUS"! I nearly lost my breath for a moment when I saw this. Especially considering that for centuries the only Bible read and taught from was the Latin Vulgate! The only authorized English translation prior to the Great Bible commissioned by Henry VIII and its closely subsequent Authorized King James cousin was translated from the Latin Vulgate not from Hebrew and Greek scrolls. Most of these two were the work of one William Tyndale, whom we will see become a central figure in this research as we go.
So, more digging...
Is this perhaps partly why "the church" is becoming more and more fragmented while at the same time experiencing less and less effectiveness against the counter cultures we face today?
Is it possible that this root has poisoned the fruit "the church" is producing, thus explaining its increasing irrelevance?
Is is possible that the reason many in "the church" cannot live a Mark 16:17 & 18 life is at least partly because of this dilemma of believing they are of the Body of Yeshua, but they are really part of the Body of Circe?
Could it be, the only way to return to the power and authority of First Century Believers is to become the fulfillment of "the last shall be [like the] first and the first shall be [like the] last" (insert added to make a point)? Was this a prophecy?
Do we need to return to the basics and rewrite what we believe in our own hearts in order to fully grasp truth and live by what He really said?