Is faith supposed to judge politics?

[ken_sylvania]

I'm not understanding why Jesus would have used a Greek word to describe religious gatherings, considering most of his conversations were likely conducted in the Aramaic or Hebrew language. (I believe consensus is that he normally would have used Aramaic, but he spoke Hebrew to Saul). Sure, he could have used a Greek word, just like some folks seem to like to insert a Greek word in their English language discussions occasionally, but think it's quite a stretch to say that his failure to use that Greek word means much of anything at all.

We have only the written Greek. We can speculate about what he might have said in Aramaic. Jesus probably spoke Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek, but the earliest texts we have are in Greek. How does that affect the way you would approach interpreting passages like this?

It makes me very slow to develop any kind of argument based off of shades of meaning of the words the translators chose. I'm sort of guessing that Barnhart might be referring to Matthew 16:18 but I don't know. At any rate, we simply don't know what word Jesus used. It wasn't long after the Church started spreading that ἐκκλησία (ekklesia) became the dominant term to refer to the Christian gatherings, and it would make sense for the Gospel writers to use the Greek term then in use to write down what Jesus was talking about. I'm skeptical of any attempt to figure out 2,000 years later how it happened that ἐκκλησία (ekklesia) became the term of choice for Christian gatherings. I suspect it was just a common word to use for assemblies and it didn't have the Jewish connotations of "synagogue", but I don't hold that opinion very strongly nor would I base any kind of policy or doctrine on it.

Here's how I see it: Even if we speculate about what he might have said in Aramaic, we don’t have a lot of possible alternatives that would change the meaning here. The standard Aramaic words for “assembly” are עֵדְתָּא (ʿedta) or כְּנִישְׁתָּא (kenishta), which line up closely with the Hebrew קָהָל (qāhāl) and עֵדָה (ʿēdāh). These are the same words that the Septuagint translators usually rendered as ἐκκλησία (ekklesia) or συναγωγή (synagōgē). In the Syriac New Testament (the Peshitta), the word for ekklesia is also consistently ܥܕܬܐ (ʿedta), showing that early Semitic-speaking Christians understood it the same way.

What matters for us is that the Gospels chose to preserve His teaching in Greek, and the word they consistently give us is ekklesia. That word carries both the biblical sense of Israel’s assembly before God and the public civic sense of an authoritative gathering. The Greek wording we have is not an accident. It reflects the way the early church understood and transmitted his words.

I'm not fluent in Greek or Hebrew. Did the Septuagint translators typically always translate Hebrew קָהָל (qāhāl) as Greek ἐκκλησία (ekklesia), and Hebrew עֵדָה (ʿēdāh) as Greek συναγωγή (synagōgē)? Do the Aramaic and Hebrew words carry the exact shades of meaning as the Greek words?

[Bootstrap]

It makes me very slow to develop any kind of argument based off of shades of meaning of the words the translators chose. I'm sort of guessing that Barnhart might be referring to Matthew 16:18 but I don't know. At any rate, we simply don't know what word Jesus used. It wasn't long after the Church started spreading that ἐκκλησία (ekklesia) became the dominant term to refer to the Christian gatherings, and it would make sense for the Gospel writers to use the Greek term then in use to write down what Jesus was talking about. I'm skeptical of any attempt to figure out 2,000 years later how it happened that ἐκκλησία (ekklesia) became the term of choice for Christian gatherings. I suspect it was just a common word to use for assemblies and it didn't have the Jewish connotations of "synagogue", but I don't hold that opinion very strongly nor would I base any kind of policy or doctrine on it.

Responding to that last sentence ...

I suspect it was just a common word to use for assemblies and it didn't have the Jewish connotations of "synagogue", but I don't hold that opinion very strongly nor would I base any kind of policy or doctrine on it.

Actually, if the NT writers had only wanted a *generic* word for “gathering,” they had plenty of other options:

• ὄχλος (ochlos) — “crowd, throng.” A mass of people, sometimes chaotic.
• σύναξις (synaxis) — “meeting, bringing together.” Generic, later used liturgically.
• συναγωγή (synagōgē) — “assembly, synagogue.” By the first century, this clearly meant the Jewish synagogue.
• πλῆθος (plēthos) — “multitude.” A neutral word for large numbers.
• σύλλογος (syllogos) — “concourse, gathering.” A generic word without civic or covenantal weight.

The word ἐκκλησία (ekklesia) is used for specific kinds of gatherings:

• In the civic Greek world, it meant the official, summoned assembly of citizens where binding decisions were made.
• In the Septuagint, it was the translation for qāhāl YHWH, the “assembly of the LORD,” Israel gathered before God (e.g., Deut 4:10; 9:10).

That’s why Acts can use the same term for Israel at Sinai (7:38), the believers in Jerusalem (5:11), and the civic assembly in Ephesus (19:39).

If the NT authors had simply wanted “a gathering,” they could have used ὄχλος or συναγωγή. They didn’t. They consistently preserved Jesus’ word as ekklesia. That choice carried both covenantal and civic resonance, not just generic meaning.

[Bootstrap]

I'm not fluent in Greek or Hebrew. Did the Septuagint translators typically always translate Hebrew קָהָל (qāhāl) as Greek ἐκκλησία (ekklesia), and Hebrew עֵדָה (ʿēdāh) as Greek συναγωγή (synagōgē)?

Not always. The Septuagint translators weren’t entirely consistent, but there is a general pattern:

• קָהָל (qāhāl) — “assembly, congregation.” Very often translated as ἐκκλησία (ekklesia), especially in contexts where Israel is gathered before God (e.g., Deut 4:10; 9:10; 23:3).
• עֵדָה (ʿēdāh) — “community, company, congregation.” Frequently translated as συναγωγή (synagōgē) (e.g., Exod 12:3; Num 14:5; Josh 18:1).

There are exceptions: sometimes qāhāl → synagōgē and sometimes ʿēdāh → ekklesia. The translators clearly saw some overlap between the two Hebrew words, just as there was overlap between the two Greek words.

Do the Aramaic and Hebrew words carry the exact shades of meaning as the Greek words?

In Hebrew, the distinction between qāhāl (קָהָל) and ʿēdāh (עֵדָה) can be described like this.

• qāhāl — usually points to the formal, gathered assembly (Israel convened before God).
• ʿēdāh — often refers to the community as a whole (the people, even apart from assembly).

The best place to look for Aramaic equivalents is In the Targums, where it uses two similar words:

• כְּנִישְׁתָא (kenishta) — the normal rendering for qāhāl, stressing the act of assembling.
• עִדְתָּא (ʿedta) — the counterpart for ʿēdāh, highlighting the community or congregation.

[Neto]

As concerns the Greek word, the definition one commonly hears in sermons is the etymological meaning, not the definition as indicated by actual textual examples (preferably in both the Scriptures and in secular letters and other documents). I would define the term as "a group of people called together for a meeting". I suspect that the NT writers chose that word in Greek mainly from the influence of the LXX. But I do not know Hebrew, so I cannot answer the questions regarding the translators' choices for 'synagogue' vs 'congregation' (as rendered in the KJV). But I do know that the LXX translators were not consistent in rendering (translating) some terms and names. In many cases, their reasons may have originated from the different contexts in which the same word occurs, but in other cases perhaps due to lack of the ease with which revisions could be evaluated and implemented into the final text. (We have it pretty easy now in translation work, due to the recent development of computers.)

[Bootstrap]

As concerns the Greek word, the definition one commonly hears in sermons is the etymological meaning, not the definition as indicated by actual textual examples (preferably in both the Scriptures and in secular letters and other documents). I would define the term as "a group of people called together for a meeting".

Yes, I agree. It's "called together", not "called out from". If you take the individual pieces of a word like "deadline", you might think that crossing that line will kill you, and that was actually true in the original meaning of the term, but it no longer means that in modern English. Similarly, this word comes from ek-kaleō (“to call out”) c, but by the time of classical and NT Greek, ekklesia meant “an assembly called together”, usually summoned by an authority — perhaps the town crier in a Greek city, or God Himself gathering His people in Scripture.

I suspect that the NT writers chose that word in Greek mainly from the influence of the LXX. But I do not know Hebrew, so I cannot answer the questions regarding the translators' choices for 'synagogue' vs 'congregation' (as rendered in the KJV). But I do know that the LXX translators were not consistent in rendering (translating) some terms and names. In many cases, their reasons may have originated from the different contexts in which the same word occurs, but in other cases perhaps due to lack of the ease with which revisions could be evaluated and implemented into the final text. (We have it pretty easy now in translation work, due to the recent development of computers.)

FWIW, I am also best at Greek, which I read well. I read Hebrew slowly with help. I don't read Aramaic at all.

For this discussion, I think you can simply look at the other Greek words gathering and also look at the use of συναγωγή in the New Testament, where it always means a Jewish synagogue. In the LXX, it is used with a wider range of meaning.

Check these links for an easy-to-use concordance of the NT.

ἐκκλησία
https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/ekklesia

συναγωγή
https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/synagoge

Incidentally, James 2:2 is the one place where the word synagogue is used for what appears to be a Christian church meeting. This likely reflects the very early setting of Christian life, when many believers were still worshiping in Jewish-style gatherings and the distinction between synagogue and church had not yet become sharp.

And for comparison, here are two other words for gatherings that are used in the New Testament:

• ὄχλος (ochlos) — “crowd, throng.” Often a large, sometimes chaotic group. Very frequent in the Gospels (e.g., Matt 9:36, Mark 3:9).
• πλῆθος (plēthos) — “multitude, large number.” A neutral word for a crowd, often used in Acts (e.g., Acts 4:32; 6:2).

The other common words for gatherings that I mentioned earlier are not used in the New Testament.

[ken_sylvania]

I'm not fluent in Greek or Hebrew. Did the Septuagint translators typically always translate Hebrew קָהָל (qāhāl) as Greek ἐκκλησία (ekklesia), and Hebrew עֵדָה (ʿēdāh) as Greek συναγωγή (synagōgē)?

Not always. The Septuagint translators weren’t entirely consistent, but there is a general pattern:

• קָהָל (qāhāl) — “assembly, congregation.” Very often translated as ἐκκλησία (ekklesia), especially in contexts where Israel is gathered before God (e.g., Deut 4:10; 9:10; 23:3).
• עֵדָה (ʿēdāh) — “community, company, congregation.” Frequently translated as συναγωγή (synagōgē) (e.g., Exod 12:3; Num 14:5; Josh 18:1).

There are exceptions: sometimes qāhāl → synagōgē and sometimes ʿēdāh → ekklesia. The translators clearly saw some overlap between the two Hebrew words, just as there was overlap between the two Greek words.

Do the Aramaic and Hebrew words carry the exact shades of meaning as the Greek words?

In Hebrew, the distinction between qāhāl (קָהָל) and ʿēdāh (עֵדָה) can be described like this.

• qāhāl — usually points to the formal, gathered assembly (Israel convened before God).
• ʿēdāh — often refers to the community as a whole (the people, even apart from assembly).

The best place to look for Aramaic equivalents is In the Targums, where it uses two similar words:

• כְּנִישְׁתָא (kenishta) — the normal rendering for qāhāl, stressing the act of assembling.
• עִדְתָּא (ʿedta) — the counterpart for ʿēdāh, highlighting the community or congregation.

We also have many words in English that have multiple meanings, and various shades of meaning, depending on context. Take, for instance, the word "capital", which can mean money, or can mean the designated city within a state where the seat of government is located. It would be incorrect to conclude that if I use "capital" instead of "money" or "assets" in my writing, that I am somehow giving a nod to some sort of government connection.

If the Hebrew and Aramaic words don't carry those same shades of meaning of civic assembly, and they aren't always consistently translated to the same Greek words in the Septuagint, it seems to me like a real stretch to say that #1 Jesus used the word ekklesia, or that #2 the word he did use was chosen to imply a civic or official gathering of some sort. And then to say that the use of ekklesia by the early Church writers means they were deliberately drawing in the civic connotations again seems to be reaching beyond what we know, and into the realm of supposition. From what you've given here I think it seems just as likely that the covenantal context and use of the word in the Septuagint would be reason enough for them to choose that word. From what I've seen of language and terminology drift and development over the years, I would say that when a word becomes popular to be used in a certain context it isn't necessarily because of its exact meaning or shades of meaning, so much as because it happens to be a word that a certain influential person starts to use, and other people pick up the usage without conscious intention. (You might have guessed by now that I kind of grit my teeth when a preacher or SS teacher starts to lecture about the Greek or Hebrew root of a certain word and all the hidden meaning that it brings to a particular text).

[Bootstrap]

You might have guessed by now that I kind of grit my teeth when a preacher or SS teacher starts to lecture about the Greek or Hebrew root of a certain word and all the hidden meaning that it brings to a particular text.

Me too. Because most preachers don't actually know these languages, and a lot of these "hidden meanings" are simply repeating what someone else said somewhere.

But I don't think speculating about what Jesus might have said in Aramaic is any better. We don't have an "original Aramaic" to work from. And speculating that this word is a generic word for any gathering is just as bad.

Let’s start with the lexicons. I think this is the root meaning we are talking about:

• Thayer: “properly, a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place; an assembly.”
• BDAG (3rd ed.): begins with “a regularly summoned legislative body, assembly” (with citations from Thucydides, etc.), then moves to the LXX for Israel’s *qāhāl*, then to broader NT use.
• LSJ (classical Greek lexicon): “an assembly of citizens summoned by the crier, the legislative assembly of the polis.”

The core meaning is consistent: ekklesia means a duly summoned gathering, especially of citizens in a polis. The LXX used it for Israel’s qāhāl. NT writers used it for the church, the “called-out” people of God.

Lexicons also note the sense of “any gathering.” But if you check the examples, they are never a random crowd. They are always either a lawful civic assembly or a chaotic version of the same. For example, in Acts 19:32 the ekklesia in Ephesus is in confusion, shouting different things — not just a mob, but the city’s assembly called together chaotically. In Acts 19:39, the town clerk distinguishes this from the “lawful ekklesia,” the official civic gathering. In Acts 19:41, he dismisses the ekklesia.

Josephus shows the same pattern: in Ant. 14.38, he uses ekklesia for a tumultuous gathering stirred up in anger; in War 2.229, Agrippa II summons a lawful ekklesia of the people; in Ant. 14.190, Josephus even speaks of the official ekklesia of the Jews alongside magistrates and the senate. In every case, whether orderly or chaotic, the word still means an assembly that has been called together — never just a casual crowd.

So when NT writers use ekklesia for the church, I really do think they are deliberately drawing on both traditions: the covenant assembly of Israel (qāhāl YHWH) and the civic assembly of the polis.

FWIW, I only started digging into this after reading P&T and Barnhart's posts, but it really resonates with what N. T. Wright argues in Paul and the Faithfulness of God — Paul is “retelling Israel’s story in a world where the word already had civic freight” (vol. 1, p. 387). Craig Keener makes the same point in his IVP Bible Background Commentary: ekklesia would have signaled both Israel’s sacred assembly and the civic assembly to its first hearers.

I could be wrong, and you certainly have the right to your own opinion. But could you show me an example where ekklesia means a random crowd, not a summoned assembly as in Acts 19?

[Robert]

I think it's clearer to say "Bible believing" than "conservative", which gets mixed up with so many other issues and identities.

And Bible Believing means something different for each group. Each group "fells" they are following Scripture. Those that accept LGBT do also. SO that term is even loose and hard to nail down.

[Neto]

I may have said this before, but probably buried in a lot of other talk. So I'll just say this one thing, that I suspect the word ekklesia was used in the NT primarily because it was often (if not normally) used for the "congregation" of God in the LXX. The non-Jewish (and the Hellenistic Jews as well) would have been using that translation when reading the OT Scriptures. So that choice preserved 'concordance' from the OT to the NT, which I also think is interesting when dealing with the comparative meaning between the 'church' in the OT and in the NT.

[Bootstrap]

I think it's clearer to say "Bible believing" than "conservative", which gets mixed up with so many other issues and identities.

And Bible Believing means something different for each group. Each group "fells" they are following Scripture. Those that accept LGBT do also. SO that term is even loose and hard to nail down.

Yeah, I get that.

Except that in most cases, I think those who accept gay marriage also believe in a kind of "progressive revelation", where we know more than they did back then, perhaps because the Holy Spirit has been at work all this time. I don't believe that. I have sometimes called this the "liberal assumption" versus the "conservative assumption" in biblical interpretation.

But I don't think that has any direct relationship to political conservatism as it is defined today. After all, there are plenty of people in gay marriages who consider themselves political conservatives. And I don't think either political conservatives or political liberals in the US are primarily motivated by what Scripture teaches.