κυριακός What? More Greek?

Last time we looked briefly at the Greek word ekklesia as this is the word that is erroneously translated/substituted as 'church' in English translations of the Bible. 

I mentioned that the word 'church' didn't even appear until the mid-fourteenth century. 

So now I will look at how we came to the origin of the word 'church'.

'Church' has it's origin in an entirely different Greek word than ekklesia. The word being kuriakos. Kuriakos is only found two times in the NT (1 Cor. 11:20; Rev. 1:10), and a few times in the writings of the 'early church fathers', and not at all in the LXX. So it is difficult to develop an understanding of what the word means, yet it seems to apply a certain quality of belonging to a lord or master. This is an entirely different topic that I'll get into some time later.

Now over time, the place where believers met was called 'the Lord's house' using the Greek word kuriakon, which derives from kuriakos.

This word eventually became known as 'kirche' in German, 'circe' in Anglo Saxon, 'kirk' in Scotish/Norse, 'chereche, chiriche, chirche, churche, cherche, etc' in Middle English and 'cirice, circe' in Old English.

When Luther translated the NT into German in 1534, he did not use the word 'kirche' to translate ekklesia, but rather chose the German word 'gemeinde', which is similar to the English word community.

When John Wycliffe translated the first Bible into English in 1382 from the Latin, he translated the Latin word ecclesiam into "chirche". What led Wycliffe to do this?

According to the Ebenezer Cobham Brewers Dictionary of Phrase and Fable of 1898 concerning the word "church" it says:

"The etymology of this word is generally assumed to be from the Greek, Kuriou oikos (house of God); but this is most improbable, as the word existed in all the Celtic dialects long before the introduction of Greek. No doubt the word means "a circle." The places of worship among the German and Celtic nations were always circular. (Welsh, cyrch, French, cirque; Scotch, kirk; Greek, kirk-os, etc.) Compare Anglo-Saxon circe, a church, with circol, a circle." 

In England, the Druids would gather in stone circles, like Stonehenge, to worship their pagan gods. Many of the first Catholic houses of worship were located at these sites or were built with the stones from these sites. Therefore, the people attached the words "chirche", "cirice", or "kirk" to these buildings in error, as we learned in a previous blog post, ekklesia has no connection with a building, but rather a called out gathering of citizens, namely Christians.

When Tyndale translated the NT into English in 1536, he also did not use the word 'church' for ekklesia, but rather chose the word congregation. The Great Bible (1539) and the Bishop’s Bible (1568) also did the same.
In Wycliffe’s first translation of the Latin Vulgate into English in 1395, he used chirche for ekklesia. The Geneva (1557), Rheims-Douay (1582), and King James (1611) for some reason followed the approach taken by Wycliffe, rendering this “church” as have most English translations since then, simply because the KJV was the common translation for so many years.

It's interesting to note that in some modern languages, the true definition of ekklesia was used, like, in French (église) and Spanish (iglesia), rather than their word for 'church'.

As we have seen looking at the words ekklesia and kuriakos that the word 'church' did not originate from ekklesia nor from the concept of ekklesia. Ekklesia has an entirely different meaning than kuriakos. As you can see, there is a major problem here. We are not to add to or take away from God's Word (Dt. 4:2; 12:32; Prov. 30:6). Yet, the translators inserted the word 'church' in the English versions for ekklesia. They were not translating the word ekklesia in the text as one might expect. Rather, they were substituting an entirely different word, kuriakos, instead. This is wrong!

The word 'church' could be an acceptable translation for kuriakos seeing it derives from that word. However, the word 'church' is not an acceptable translation for ekklesia. Consider this carefully. The Word of God is Truth (Jn. 17:17). Yet, the word 'church' should never be used for ekklesia - a called out assembly. What will you do the next time you read and see the word 'church'? What should you do the next time you read and see the word 'church'? Is what you are reading or saying true? We'll be judged for every idle word we speak (Mt. 12:36). If we are to call Bible things by Bible names, as a popular slogan goes, then how can we honestly think that we can use the word 'church' instead of called out assembly or congregation as the word ekklesia is genuinely defined? Calling a tree a rock doesn't make it so, no matter how many times we refer to it as such. Or how about calling an apple a banana? The same can be applied to referring to ekklesia as 'church' instead of a called out assembly or congregation. Just because we do, doesn't make it so.

Let me put it another way to show the seriousness of applying a word with a different meaning to another word. I'll use two Greek words this time you should be familiar with - christos and antichristos. Would substituting or swopping the meaning of either word make a difference? Most certainly! It's honestly no different with the word ekklesia. 

There are believers which profess that they belong to the true and biblical 'church' because it's name can be found in Scripture (maybe) and they will vehemently stand by it's name and vehemently condemn your assembly if it cannot be found in their English Bible. False teachers do the same with their doctrines of devil's (1 Tim. 4:1) because they use Bible names for them and deceive many (Mt. 4:6; 24:4-5, 11, 24; 2 Tim. 3:13). 

Now the believers of the true and biblical 'church' will say that 'church' of God (Acts 20:28; 1 Cor. 1:2; etc) and 'church' of Christ (which this one is sad because the phrase does not appear in Scripture! Check it out. How deceived can one be? Though you will find 'churches' of Christ once - Rom. 16:16) are biblical because they are found in their English translation of the Bible (except as noted above), which I have shown to be faulty. Though I have pointed this out to some of them, they just brush it off and continue on as if I never mentioned it. Is their doctrine more important than the truth? The apostle John said he has no greater joy than to hear that his children walk in truth (3 Jn. 1:4). Would John be pleased with them? Do they enjoy speaking and teaching lies (Rev. 21:27; 22:15)? Jesus told the Jews that they where of their father the devil. That he was a liar from the beginning and the father of lies. (Jn. 8:44) How are these believers different than the false teachers I mentioned early? 

Take time and reflect and decide what you will do with the English word 'church' in your Bible.