Ekklēsía, Church, & the Problem of Inconsistent Language
Image Clarification:
Under the New Covenant during the 1st century, assemblies often met in homes rather than dedicated buildings. The distinction addressed here is not building versus home, but physical gathering versus virtual dispersion. Scripture defines ‘ekklesia’ as people assembled together in the same place.
Purpose Statement:
This webpost is not about semantics or linguistic exercises for their own sake. Its purpose is to present the Greek word ekklēsía as Scripture uses it and intends it to be understood, and to show how the Greek term kyriakós relates historically to the English word ‘church’. The goal is clarity—allowing the biblical text to define its own language, categories, and authority.
Introduction
Much of modern Christian discourse appeals to Scripture while simultaneously relying on inherited ecclesiastical language that Scripture itself does not define. One of the clearest examples of this tension is the continued use of the English word church to describe realities that the New Testament consistently calls ἐκκλησία (ekklēsía).
This paper argues that failing to distinguish between these terms is not a harmless semantic issue, but a source of theological and practical contradiction—especially when questions of authority, legitimacy, and identity are involved. If Scripture is our final authority, then Scripture must also be allowed to define its own terms.
I. Ekklēsía Defined by Scripture
The Greek noun ἐκκλησία (ekklēsía) appears over one hundred times in the New Testament and consistently refers to an actual assembly or gathering of people. Lexically, the word denotes “a regularly summoned legislative body” or “an assembly of people gathered for a specific purpose.”1
Acts 19:41 provides a decisive example. In that passage, a secular crowd in Ephesus is explicitly called an ekklēsía and is then formally dismissed. The text demonstrates that ekklēsía is neither mystical nor abstract; it presupposes physical presence and assembly. One cannot dismiss what has not gathered.
The implication is unavoidable:
where there is no gathering, there is no ekklēsía.
II. Agreement on Definition, Inconsistency in Application
Many Christians readily affirm that ekklēsía means a gathering and even critique building-centered or institutional models of “church.” Yet despite acknowledging this definition, they often continue to reason, categorize, and assign authority using the English word church, a term with a different historical and conceptual lineage.
This creates an internal inconsistency. The biblical definition is affirmed in principle, but displaced in practice. The result is a framework that claims Scripture as its authority while quietly allowing inherited language to override scriptural categories.
III. The Problem with “True Church” vs. “False Church”
A common distinction is made between a “true church” and a “false church.” However, when both categories are framed using the same non-biblical term (church), the evaluation itself occurs outside the definitional framework Scripture provides.
Scripture does not instruct believers to determine whether a church is true or false.
Scripture instructs believers to recognize and function as ekklēsía.
The proper question, therefore, is not:
Is this a true church or a false church?
but rather:
Does ekklēsía exist here at all?
If ekklēsía does not exist, then the authority, identity, and functions Scripture assigns to ekklēsía cannot be claimed—regardless of sincerity, intention, or historical custom.
IV. Ekklēsía and Kyriakós: Related, but Not Interchangeable
It is sometimes argued that the English word church is justified because it derives historically from the Greek adjective κυριακός (kyriakós), meaning “belonging to the Lord.” This observation is linguistically accurate, but it does not resolve the biblical issue.
In the New Testament, kyriakós appears only twice: in reference to the Lord’s supper (κυριακὸν δεῖπνον, 1 Corinthians 11:20) and the Lord’s day (κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ, Revelation 1:10).2 In both cases, the word functions adjectivally, describing ownership or association, not an assembly of people.
Lexically, kyriakós means “pertaining to the Lord” or “belonging to the Lord.”3 It never denotes a gathering, congregation, or body of people. Scripture never speaks of a kyriakós assembling, exercising discipline, or appointing overseers.
By contrast, ekklēsía is consistently used to describe the gathered people themselves. It is definitional, not merely descriptive. While the English word church developed historically through the kyriakós lineage—passing through Gothic (kirika) and Old English (cirice)—this linguistic development reflects later cultural usage, not New Testament ecclesiology.
In short:
- kyriakós describes ownership
- ekklēsía defines what exists
Scripture never equates the two.
Therefore, the question is not whether something is associated with the Lord, but whether ekklēsía exists. Where there is no assembly, there is no ekklēsía. And where ekklēsía does not exist, the authority Scripture assigns to it cannot be claimed.
The distinction between ekklesía and kyriakós is not merely semantic, but grammatical and categorical. Ekklēsía is a noun describing a gathered assembly of people; kyriakós is an adjective denoting possession or association with the Lord. Scripture never uses kyriakós to name an assembly, and never uses ekklēsía to describe ownership or institutional identity. Treating these terms as interchangeable collapses categories the New Testament carefully maintains and imports later ecclesiastical concepts into the biblical text. The result is not a clarification of meaning, but a shift in emphasis—from a gathered people to an abstract or institutional entity—foreign to the language of Scripture.
V. Transliteration, Translation, and the Power of Inherited Language
The New Testament uses the Greek word ἐκκλησία (ekklesía), which refers to an assembled gathering of people. This word was not originally religious; it was a common civic term used throughout the Greek-speaking world to describe people summoned and gathered at a specific time and place.
A. Acts 19 and the Plain Meaning of Ekklesía
Acts 19 provides the clearest demonstration of this meaning. In Acts 19:32, Luke uses ekklesía to describe a confused and disorderly pagan crowd. In Acts 19:39, the city clerk contrasts this unlawful ekklesía with a lawful civic ekklesía. In Acts 19:41, the ekklesía is dismissed—and once dismissed, it no longer exists.4 The term refers simply to a gathered assembly, regardless of purpose, legitimacy, or morality, so long as people are actually assembled.
English Bible translations reflect this reality by translating ekklesía as “assembly” in Acts 19, while translating the very same Greek word as “church” elsewhere. Luke does not change words; translators change English terms.
Acts 19 is not a marginal example or an exception—it is the clearest demonstration in Scripture of how the word ekklesía was actually used. For that reason, it deserves special attention.
B. Why Reference Tools Can Mislead Without Explanation
Reference tools such as Strong’s Concordance, Blue Letter Bible, and Bible Hub are valuable for locating Greek words, but they are not full lexical authorities. Strong’s, in particular, is a concordance with brief glosses that often reflect traditional English translation usage rather than precise Greek meaning.
When such tools correctly define ekklēsía as an assembly, yet also append the familiar English word “church,” readers are conditioned to treat the two as interchangeable. This occurs not because the Greek word is ambiguous, but because English translation tradition is being silently imported into the definition.
Scholarly lexicons such as BDAG and LSJ, which analyze actual Greek usage rather than English tradition, consistently define ekklēsía as an assembly or gathering. The problem, therefore, lies not in Scripture, but in how inherited language is allowed to override lexical meaning.
This inconsistency reveals that “church” is not the meaning of ekklesía, but a later theological label applied selectively.
C. Translation Tradition and Its Lasting Effects
The English word church does not derive from ekklesía at all. It traces instead to the Greek adjective κυριακός (kyriakós), meaning “belonging to the Lord.” This word appears only twice in the New Testament—referring to the Lord’s Supper and the Lord’s Day—and never names an assembly of people. Substituting church for ekklesía therefore replaces a noun describing a gathered people with a term rooted in ownership and institutional association.
Strong’s Concordance, Bible Hub, and similar reference tools correctly define ekklesía as an assembly, yet also append the familiar English word “church,” leading readers to treat the two as interchangeable when they are not. Greek lexicons, by contrast, consistently define ekklesía as an assembly rather than an institution.5
This linguistic issue cannot be dismissed as a harmless historical development or a neutral translation choice. William Tyndale translated ekklesía as “congregation,” a rendering faithful to the Greek and threatening to ecclesiastical power structures.6 For allowing Scripture to define its own terms rather than ecclesiastical tradition, Tyndale was executed.
Not all translations perpetuate this confusion. Vietnamese Bible translations consistently render ekklēsía as “assembly” or “holy assembly,” preserving the Greek meaning across contexts—including Acts 19. This demonstrates that the problem lies not in Scripture, but in inherited English terminology, and that such clarity is achievable when translators prioritize meaning over ecclesiastical tradition.
Section V: Conclusion
A translation can be accurate in one sense and misleading in another. When a traditional English term is repeatedly used in place of a Greek word with a different meaning, readers begin to inherit assumptions that were never present in the original text. Over time, the translation no longer reflects meaning—it shapes theology. This is why returning to the original language is not academic skepticism, but fidelity to Scripture.
The conclusion is unavoidable: where there is no gathering, there is no ekklesía. And where ekklesía does not exist, the authority Scripture assigns to it cannot be claimed.
VI. Language Shapes Authority
Words are not neutral containers. Language shapes theology, and theology governs practice. When non-biblical terms are allowed to define biblical realities, they inevitably reintroduce the very assumptions and structures Scripture never established.
This is why appeals to authority, oversight, and legitimacy must be rooted in ekklēsía, not in inherited ecclesiastical vocabulary. To allow a word that does not mean ekklēsía to define ekklēsía is to surrender biblical clarity for linguistic convenience.
VI. Why This Is Not “Semantic Hair-Splitting”
Some may dismiss this discussion as semantics. Yet Scripture itself places great weight on words and meanings. Faithfulness requires more than good intentions; it requires allowing Scripture to define its own categories.
This is why careful attention to the original language matters. When Christians rely exclusively on English tradition without examining the Greek text, long-standing conditioning can obscure what Scripture is actually saying—like failing to see the trees because of familiarity with the forest.
Conclusion
The call of Scripture is simple but demanding:
let God define His own words.
Where ekklēsía exists, biblical authority, oversight, discipline, and communal life follow. Where it does not, those claims cannot be sustained—no matter how sincere or familiar the language used.
Faithfulness requires not only rejecting unbiblical practices, but also abandoning unbiblical categories. Only then can Scripture truly govern both belief and practice.
Footnotes / Lexical References
Appendix: Common Objections & Scriptural Responses
Q1: “But the word church comes from Greek—doesn’t that make it biblical?”
Answer:
It is true that the English word church has a historical connection to the Greek adjective κυριακός (kyriakós), meaning “belonging to the Lord.” However, this fact does not make church equivalent to the biblical term ἐκκλησία (ekklēsía), nor does it grant it the same meaning or function in Scripture.
In the New Testament, kyriakós appears only twice—referring to the Lord’s supper (1 Corinthians 11:20) and the Lord’s day (Revelation 1:10). In both cases, the word functions adjectivally, describing ownership or association, not a gathering of people. Scripture never uses kyriakós to define an assembly, congregation, or body of believers.
By contrast, ekklēsía consistently refers to an actual assembly of people who gather together. The authority, identity, and functions commonly associated with “church” in Scripture are always grounded in ekklesia, not in kyriakós.
In short, while church may have a Greek linguistic ancestry, it does not carry the biblical definition that ekklēsía carries.
Q2: “If church comes from kyriakós, isn’t it just another way of saying ‘the Lord’s people’?”
Answer:
No. This confuses description with definition.
Kyriakós describes something as belonging to the Lord.
Ekklēsía defines what exists—a gathered assembly.
Scripture never defines God’s people merely by ownership language. Instead, it defines them by assembly, participation, oversight, discipline, and shared life—all realities tied to ekklēsía. Saying something “belongs to the Lord” does not establish it as an ekklēsía.
The New Testament never asks, “Does this belong to the Lord?” as the test of ecclesial identity. It assumes the Lord’s ownership and then addresses how the ekklēsía gathers, functions, and lives together.
Q3: “Isn’t this just semantics or word-splitting?”
Answer:
No. Scripture itself places great weight on words and their meanings. Doctrinal clarity depends on allowing the biblical text to define its own categories.
When non-biblical terms are allowed to replace biblical ones, theological confusion follows. In this case, using church as a substitute for ekklēsía allows authority, identity, and legitimacy to be claimed without the defining feature Scripture requires: a gathered assembly.
This is not hair-splitting. It is the difference between letting Scripture speak and allowing inherited language to govern interpretation.
Q4: “Didn’t early Christians use the word ‘church’?”
Answer:
Early Christians used ekklēsía, not the English word church. The English term developed centuries later through linguistic and cultural shifts, particularly as Christianity became institutionalized and associated with buildings and places.
While later Christians used church as a convenient term, Scripture itself never redefines ekklēsía in terms of kyriakós or “the Lord’s house.” The New Testament remains consistent: the people gathered are the ekklēsía.
Historical usage does not override biblical definition.
Q5: “Can’t a virtual or dispersed group still be a church in spirit?”
Answer:
Sincerity and spiritual benefit do not create biblical categories. The New Testament does not define ekklēsía by intention, connection, or shared belief alone, but by actual gathering.
Acts 19:41 demonstrates this clearly: the ekklēsía exists as long as the people are assembled and ceases when they are dismissed. A group that never gathers cannot meet the biblical definition of ekklēsía, regardless of how meaningful the interaction may be.
Online fellowship may be valuable—but Scripture does not assign ekklēsía authority or identity apart from physical assembly.
Q6: “Why does this distinction matter so much?”
Answer:
Because authority flows from definition.
Scripture assigns authority, oversight, discipline, and responsibility to ekklēsía. If the term is redefined—or replaced—those claims of authority become untethered from Scripture.
The issue is not preference or tradition, but faithfulness:
We must let Scripture define the terms we use and the authority we claim.
Summary
- Church may have a Greek linguistic ancestry, but it is not the biblical term.
- Kyriakós describes ownership; ekklēsía defines existence.
- Scripture assigns authority to ekklēsía, not to abstract or dispersed concepts.
- Faithfulness requires allowing Scripture—not language tradition—to govern belief and practice.