The progressive development of 'ekklesia' in the New Testament

A summary of Robert A. Baker's 1943 doctoral thesis entitled An Introduction to the Study of the Development of Ecclesiology

What does the Greek word ekklesia mean in the New Testament? The word is commonly rendered church in English Bible translations, yet this very word church may hinder rather than help in understanding what ekklesia meant to the writers of scripture themselves. In its most basic usage, an ekklesia is an assembly. But is this all that the word ever conveys? Does ekklesia have an absolutely fixed meaning in the pages of the New Testament, or are there signs of a gradual development in its usage over time?

These are the questions that Robert A. Baker sought to answer in the doctoral thesis he submitted to Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in 1943 entitled An Introduction to the Study of the Development of Ecclesiology. Regrettably, this helpful work was never published, but it is available upon request in electronic facsimile from the SWBTS libraries. Robert Baker himself went on to publish a dozen books and served as president of the Texas Baptist Historical Society and as chairman of the Southern Baptist Historical Commission.

Robert A. Baker (1910-1992)

In this important study, Baker seeks to trace the word ekklesia from its Greek origins and later Roman context, through its use in the Greek Old Testament (Septuagint) and Jewish writings of the intertestamental period, all the way to its various usages in the New Testament:

It is hoped that a contribution will be made to the literature of this field in six respects:

1. a study of the influences affecting the word ekklesia prior to the New Testament era;

2. a survey of the Hebrew background of ekklesia in the Old Testament;

3. a catalogue and description of the word in the Septuagint;

4. a study of the use of ekklesia by the writers of the Apocrypha, by Philo, and by Josephus;

5. a literary classification of the word in the New Testament literature;

6. the introduction of a new factor in interpreting the word ekklesia in the New Testament—the flux of language. (p. iv-v)

Baker begins with a detailed investigation of where the idea of the ekklesia first arose. He suspects the concept may have originally been imported from Nordic tribes which seem to have held similar popular assemblies:

The despotic monarchies of the Mediterranean world could hardly have been the source for a democratic system. This germ of democracy is known to have existed among the Nordic peoples, and there is some evidence that these tribes migrated southward into Greece. It is certain that nothing in this theory conflicts with all our known history. (p. 23-24)

Regardless of its precise origin, it is clear the ekklesia is an ancient institution. Having noted that the noun ekklesia is a derivative of the verb ekkaleo meaning “to call out”, he writes:

The written language of the Greeks is usually dated from three to four centuries after they had settled in the peninsula. By this time, the conception of an ekklesia had been well established. It is generally agreed that when the derivative of the verb meaning “to call out” was applied to this assembly, the idea was not of segregation but of summoning …

It is probable that the earliest ekklesia found the members acting more in the capacity of warriors and fathers than as citizens. Hort speaks for many as he says that the “calling out” was simply the calling of the men together from their houses for an assembly, and later, the calling of Greek citizens from their homes to the assembly. (p. 24-25)

For Baker, the very existence of these secular assemblies rules out the commonplace understanding of the Christian use of ekklesia as indicating the “called-out ones”—those who have been called out by God in a spiritual sense. The temptation to define ekklesia on the basis of its etymology must be resisted:

It would hardly be fitting to interpret the word found in the New Testament as carrying an etymology so susceptible to Christian teachings when surrounding the Christian ekklesia were numerous wicked and seditious (and more ancient) ekklesiai bearing the same name. (p. 25)

After discussing how much influence the Greek culture may have had on the later Mediterranean Jews, he concludes that early Christians derived their understanding of ekklesia from their intimate familiarity with the word’s use in the Septuagint, and not from direct experience with Greek or Roman political assemblies:

The disciples of Jesus were devout, uncultured Jews who knew no formal culture. Their conception of ekklesia sprang from their early training (as all Jews were trained) in the Scriptures, probably the Septuagint version. They would not be familiar with the classical etymology or connotation unless such were embedded in that writing …

The conception of an autonomous religious or political assembly was not unfamiliar to the disciples. Before the Greeks wandered into the country that bears their name, the Hebrews had a well-articulated means for group expression in the qahal. As will be noted later, in many instances this word was translated by ekklesia in the Septuagint. (p. 45-47)

Having establishing how influential the Greek Old Testament was on the writers of the New Testament, Baker proceeds with an exhaustive inductive study of the use of ekklesia in the Septuagint:

Perhaps the best method for determining why, for example, ekklesia was used as a translation of qahal instead of some other word in a given case is to study the various Hebrew words for “gathering” or “assembly” and notice how they were translated in the Septuagint. Likewise, as a predicate for grasping the vital background of ekklesia, the word qahal should be defined in its nature and relation to other Hebrew terms. (p. 59)

Baker then embarks on a lengthy and painstaking review of every translation in the Septuagint of the Hebrew word qahal, which is sometimes translated as ekklesia, and other times as sunagoge. He finally concludes with the following vivid illustration:

It will help to visualize the distinctions to be made between the two words by viewing the entire content of qahal as being in the form of a spectrum with seven bands of prism-filtered light.

The largest band, constituting well over half of the whole, represents ekklesia; the next largest, constituting about one-third of the whole, represents sunagoge; the other one-sixth is divided fractionally between the remaining five Greek words that interpret qahal. There is an evident distinction between the coloring of the ekklesia band and the band representing sunagoge, but as they approach in the spectrum they seem to fade into each other.

In its purest coloring, ekklesia is a particular corporeal assembly for immediate autonomous deliberation. It must be capable of assembling at one time in one place to consider a cause and, must not only be capable, but must have actually accomplished that assembly before it can be termed an ekklesia. The capability of assembling for autonomous action, whether true prior to or subsequent to the actual meeting, is not contemplated as constituting an ekklesia in the mind of the Septuagint writer.

On the other hand, in its brightest shade, a sunagoge consists of a gathering that does not consider a cause, was not specifically summoned for deliberation, and does not need to be capable of assembling at one time. (p. 143-144)

In other words, the Septuagint exclusively uses the word ekklesia to describe actual assemblies. It has no application to any group which is not presently assembled. Furthermore, this usage is seen to extend to any kind of gathering, regardless of the underlying purpose of the meeting. Baker points out that in 1 Samuel 17:47, David even addresses the opposing armies of the Philistines and the Israelites as a single ekklesia (p. 92)! He explains:

The use of modifiers in the Septuagint shows definitely that ekklesia was not a “technical” word that had particular organizational connotations or pre-suppositions concerning a certain quality, number or type of constituents, or, for that matter, any particular kind of purpose in meeting. It seems that the purpose for which the ekklesia was meeting might be known to but a few and yet the name ekklesia applied. That is, in the Septuagint use of the word, there was no demand for a common intellectual or spiritual unity with the physical unity that was essential. (p.146-147, emphasis in original)

Baker then assesses the use of ekklesia in the Apocrypha and in the Jewish literature of Philo and Josephus. He finds that, although there are some slight shifts in usage, the word maintains largely the same narrow range of meaning in this extrabiblical Jewish literature that it has in the Septuagint:

Throughout the Septuagint and the other writings studied, it seems apparent that the content of the word ekklesia was determined by its modifiers. Thus, there may be found “wicked” ekklesiai, ekklesiai “of saints,” etc. The word ekklesia, that is, may be likened to a vehicle, whose content depends on its modifiers and environment. The word does not signify the nature nor the purpose of its constituency: it points to their group identity and autonomous prerogatives.

It is reiterated that with two exceptions (one in the Septuagint and one in the Apocrypha), the word ekklesia is found always to describe a corporeal, physical unity of people. Furthermore, the article is never found with the word unless there is a reason, usually contextual, for its appearance. (p. 176-177, emphasis in original)

Having completed a comprehensive survey of the use of ekklesia in the Septuagint and other Jewish literature, Baker now proceeds to consider the word in the New Testament itself. He divides the uses of ekklesia into three broad literary categories which he sees as three distinct phases of development in the word’s usage.

His first broad classification is what he terms the “literal” uses of ekklesia, in which the word is used in reference to any kind of actual assembly:

Literally, an ekklesia is an autonomous group of people physically united or unified. Physical unity is the characteristic of a literal ekklesia. As has been noted in this study, spiritual or mental oneness is not a factor in a literal ekklesia. (p. 186-187, emphasis in original)

His second classification is for the “technical” uses of ekklesia—that is, where the word itself stands specifically for an actual assembly of Christians:

The second category, or technical use of the word, is a distinct development from the literal use of the word. It may be applied to a meeting of Christian people in ekklesia. That is, the distinction between a literal use of the word and the technical use of the word ekklesia is seen in the fact that the former has physical unity only, while the latter has both physical and spiritual unity …

It did not take the world long to discover that when Christians had an ekklesia, it was different from any other ekklesia because of the characteristic of spiritual unity in Christ. Thus, when the word ekklesia developed into a distinctly Christian word, its content was not limited simply to physical unity but to the spiritual unity as well which every Christian ekklesia had — and without which it was not a Christian ekklesia. (p. 187-188, emphasis in original)

His third and final classification is for “metaphorical” uses of ekklesia, in which the word eventually comes to only convey spiritual unity in Christ:

The third category, the metaphorical use of the word ekklesia, is a philological development beyond the technical use … In applying the term metaphorical to the use of the word ekklesia, it is meant that some characteristic idiom of the Christian or technical use of the word ekklesia has in turn become identified with the word ekklesia as well as with the thing the technical word described.

The peculiar characteristic of the Christian ekklesia was its spiritual unity, since the physical unity it enjoyed was a part of the untechnical meaning of the word … Gramatically speaking, the Locative of Place becomes a Locative of Sphere — en to Christo [in Christ]. This movement is in exact accord with the known principles of word development. (p. 188-190, emphasis in original)

Using this framework, Baker classifies five uses of ekklesia as strictly literal:

There are five literal uses of the word ekklesia in the New Testament: Acts 19:32, 19:41, 7:38; Hebrews 2:12; Acts 19:39 …

Acts 19:32 and 19:41 have been a cause of difficulty for those who have based their concept of ekklesia upon the classical use of the term … Dr. Dargan even asserts that these two occurrences do not constitute a proper use of the word ekklesia. Dr. Robertson comments sharply on the riotous character of this unruly mob and his language raises a question as to whether he saw ekklesia here as a proper usage. Lenski, on the other hand, and Ramsay, insist upon the accuracy of Luke’s usage. Ramsay, in his discussion, points to two types of ekklesia: one, the regular or lawful ekklesia, and the other, a mass meeting of any kind … This passage seems to present conclusive evidence that the word ekklesia had broadened its meaning far beyond the strictly classical sense …

Acts 7:38 and Hebrews 2:12 refer to the ekklesiai in the Septuagint. These are literal assemblies. Perhaps some explanation should be made concerning the unity of these ekklesiai. There may have been some nationalistic feeling and perhaps religious coherence, but there was not a Christian unity in any sense.

The remaining occurrence, Acts 19:39, is a reference to a “lawful assembly,” which was discussed in contrast with the mob in connection with Acts 19:32 by Ramsay. This passage shows the extreme width that the word ekklesia had attained: both a riotous mob and an orderly and authoritative legislature were termed ekklesiai. (p. 192-195, emphasis in original)

Baker identifies four uses of ekklesia as representing a usage somewhere between a literal and a technical use, which he sees as indicating a stage of development toward the fully technical use. He calls these uses “sub-technical”:

With reference to the remarks introducing the use of ekklesia in a literal sense, there are four occurrences of the word in the early writings of Paul that should be placed on the borderline of the literal use, or in what may be called the sub-technical use. These are the occurrences in 1 Thess. 1:1 and 2:14 and 2 Thess. 1:1 and 1:4.

There are some characteristics about these four uses (the only occurrences in Paul’s first two epistles) indicating the word ekklesia had not yet come be identified definitely with a Christian assembly, even in the minds of the Christians receiving the epistles. The nature and extent of the modifiers suggest this.

In the opening verse of each epistle, ekklesia is followed by the adjective form of the city, modifying it as to place, then it is further modified by a Locative of Sphere, defining the particular kind of ekklesia; i.e., the kind of ekklesia which is “in God our Father and Lord Jesus Christ.” In 1 Thess. 2:14, the word is modified fully as to place and again by the Genitive (of Possession, perhaps) “of God,” and the Locative of Sphere — “in Christ Jesus.” In 2 Thess. 1:4, ekklesia is modified only by the Genitive (of Possession or Description).

The unusual definitive forms in the opening verses of each of these two epistles are not repeated in any other epistles of Paul. Since it is known that the word ekklesia received its content from its modifiers in all the pre-New Testament writings which have been studied, and that various ekklesiai, other than Christian assemblies, existed in every city, it seems clear that Paul’s modifying descriptions of the ekklesia were of necessity added because the word ekklesia had not yet become a technical Christian word. (p. 195-196, emphasis in original)

Baker is not surprised to find that the vast majority of the uses of ekklesia in the New Testament are technical, where it means not just any assembly, but specifically a Christian assembly, without any separate modifiers to that effect:

The technical uses of the word ekklesia constitute by far the great majority of occurrences in the New Testament. This is to be expected. It is the Christian use of a word in Christian literature. It is the basis for Christian ecclesiastical polity. A local assembly spiritually united in Christ, with an autonomous nature, is a Christian ekklesia. It will hardly be necessary to go through a list of these uses individually and “prove” each one, since most of them are so clearly possessed of the two characteristics of the technical usage as to render discussion unnecessary.

One verse, however, where the word appears twice, should receive brief comment. In Matthew 18:17, Christ enjoins the disciples to tell a matter to the ekklesia as a final effort to secure a reconciliation between brethren as to some difficulty. It is clear that the ekklesia here must have a physical unity in order to be informed of the offense, and from the authority which Christ ascribes to the ekklesia, it apparently has a Christian unity … The ekklesia here, then, seems to be a local body of believers with Christian unity. (p. 202-203, emphasis in original)

Baker moves on to assess the metaphorical uses of ekklesia, in which the meaning is found in spiritual unity alone, without reference to physical unity. He notes some instances of the word that seem to fall between the technical and metaphorical uses, seeing these as additional evidence for the gradual development of the word’s meaning:

It has been noted that the occurrences of the word in both of the Thessalonian epistles should be termed “sub-technical” since there is every evidence that the word as it is used in those early letters had gone, as yet, little beyond the literal stage. Likewise it is true that there are some uses of ekklesia that are on the borderline between technical and metaphorical usage. As classified in this study, the group includes the following occurrences: Acts 8:1, 8:3, 9:31, 1 Cor. 15:9, Galatians 1:13, Philippians 3:6, and perhaps 1 Cor. 12:28 …

Acts 8:1 describes how a great persecution arose against the ekklesia which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout all the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles. Acts 8:3 continues by describing how Saul made havoc of the ekklesia, entering into every house and haling men and women to prison …

Luke says that there was a great persecution against the ekklesia (accusative singular) and they all (nominative plural) were scattered abroad, except the apostles. In this verse Luke makes the members of the ekklesia the equivalent of the ekklesia itself. “They all” could have no antecedent except “members of the ekklesia” and these were called simply “the ekklesia.” The exception made with respect to the apostles shows that this is exactly what he means — the people, whether assembled or scattered, were the ekklesia. Even with the apostles left in Jerusalem, the scattered disciples constituted the ekklesia …

Verse 3 is consistent with this view. “Saul made havoc of the ekklesia by entering in house by house” (a distributive use of kata, with the participle eisporeuomenos having the force of mode or manner). If the members of the ekklesia were in their houses, they could not be assembled in physical unity. They, themselves, whether physically united or not, constituted the ekklesia.

Likewise, the passage in 9:30 is favorable to this view. The very functions ascribed to the ekklesia of verse 30 suggest personality. “The ekklesia throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria had peace” being edified and they walked in fear of the Lord and comfort of the Holy Spirit were multiplied …

This use of ekklesia, then, seems to be a semi-metaphorical or extra-technical usage. It is a clear indication of the development of the word ekklesia as the word leaves the conception of a physical assembly and approaches the spiritual assembly. The Locative of Place, the literal necessity for an ekklesia, is giving way to the Locative of Sphere (en Christo [in Christ]), the metaphorical concept. This does not mean that the literal has disappeared; it means that the spiritual had been emphasized as an independent concept … In the passage now being studied, the physical unity cannot be maintained, but these scattered members of Christ’s body have one characteristic that makes them constitute an ekklesia — spiritual unity.

In 1 Corinthians 15:9, Paul remarks that he “persecuted the ekklesia of God.” This is a direct reference to Acts 8:1, 2, which has just been studied. The same is true of Galatians 1:13 and Philippians 3:6.

In 1 Corinthians 12:28, after discussing the oneness of the body into which believers come and asserting that “ye are Christ’s body (no article) and members and particular,” Paul says, “And God hath set some in the ekklesia, first apostles, secondarily prophets …” From the context of this entire chapter, it seems that Paul is using ekklesia as the equivalent of soma, used sixteen times in the last twenty verses of the chapter. Paul universalizes that soma in verse 13 to include “we all” — Jews, Gentiles, bond, free. The ekklesia here, then, cannot be a literal usage nor a technical usage, as there seems to be no corporeality. This passage, too, could be termed “sub-metaphorical” — not that it is not a metaphorical use, but that it has departed so slightly from the technical use. The emphasis here likewise has been transferred from the meeting itself to the persons meeting. In that sense there is a complete spiritual unity in Christ, without spatial assemblage. (p. 207-215, emphasis in original)

Finally, Baker identifies thirteen uses of ekklesia which he considers fully metaphorical:

In addition to this group, there remain thirteen other uses of the word ekklesia which have been classified as metaphorical. There has been a difference of terms in describing this use of ekklesia. Dana calls it a “spiritual and ideal” usage; Salmond in The Expositor’s Greek Testament calls it a “spiritual fellowship”; Hort calls it a “unity” and a “new society”; Dargan calls it the “universal” ekklesia; Broadus calls it the “ideal congregation or assembly”; Sampey calls it a figurative use “of all who are spiritually united to Christ as his body”; Robinson calls it a “general body never actually assembled” and “the universal spiritual church or kingdom”; Westcott calls it a “unity”; Hodge says that it is “the company of the redeemed here and in heaven, which constitutes one body …” Similar views along this general thought are held by Meyer, Lenski, Cambridge Bible, et al.

One thing is true concerning all the definitions given: they are metaphorical from a literary standpoint. They have not the literal idea of spatial or corporeal physical unity, but maintain a spiritual or Christian unity …

Matthew 16:18 is a passage around which much controversy has centered. It will probably suffice here to set out this student’s view without attempting to refute or discuss others. An examination of the text shows that the possessive pronoun mou is in the emphatic position with respect to the noun and article. This seems to have a comparative force, since the emphatic mou suggests that the ekklesia will be characterized by the content which Jesus gave it, as over against some other kind of ekklesia … The remainder of the context shows that He did not refer to the ekklesia of Jerusalem, later established, since that particular local congregation has succumbed to the power of death, and Jesus promised that such power would not prevail against His ekklesia. The contrast then would seem to extend to a spiritual ekklesia with His content, as over against a spatial or corporeal ekklesia of the Old Testament — “My ekklesia based on the spiritual content which I will give growing out of a God-revealed experience of grace, as over against the physical assembly of Israel.” … Thus, this occurrence of ekklesia may be described as referring to the spiritual body of believers united in Christ …

In Hebrews 12:23, the use of the word ekklesia has occasioned difference of opinion with respect not only to the classification of the word ekklesia, but to the interpretation of the phrase. This ekklesia does not appear to be corporeal. While the word probably is used in the sense of “assembly,” it is metaphorically used, since there is no actual physical assemblage on the earth …

In Colossians 1:18, Paul says of Christ: “He is the head of the body, the ekklesia,” with the word ekklesia in apposition to somatos. The ekklesia appears to refer here to the entire body of those spiritually joined to Christ … It is an ekklesia growing out of the immediate relationship of believer to God in Christ … Colossians 1:24 is a similar usage …

There are nine occurrences in Ephesians which have been classified as metaphorical: 1:22, 3:10, 3:21, 5:23, 5:24, 5:25, 5:27, 5:29, 5:32. The authorities just quoted agree, in the essentials, that these occurrences have the same content as the Colossian passages. (p. 215-221, emphasis in original)

Having finished classifying every usage of the word ekklesia in the New Testament using his literary framework, Baker relates his hypothesis regarding the progressive development of the word’s meaning. His hypothesis is centered on the writings of Paul, which are sufficiently extensive to permit this kind of analysis:

The hypothesis is not a complicated one; i.e., it posits that the word ekklesia in the writings of Paul has developed progressively in meaning from the literal to the technical to the metaphorical. Paul’s Early Epistles, although written approximately fifteen or twenty years after this word was introduced into the Christian vocabulary, show clear evidence of its literal use; his Major Epistles show unmistakable evidence of a predominantly technical use; his Prison Epistles show unmistakable evidence of a predominantly metaphorical meaning … The evidences of development in the writings of Paul are surprisingly constant, especially with reference to the development of this particular word …

The primary evidence is, of course, to be found in a surface examination of Paul’s changing concept of the word ekklesia. It has been shown in non-Christian writings that at the beginning of the Christian era the word ekklesia had a common, literal meaning of “assembly.” Internal evidences in Christian literature itself, particularly in the book of Acts, affirm this to be true. Paul’s use of the word ekklesia in his Early Epistles fits exactly into this background … Then, relative to Paul’s Major Epistles … of the thirty-nine occurrences of the word in his second group of writings, it is used in the technical sense thirty-six times. Finally, in his Prison Epistles, the word occurs twelve times in the metaphorical sense out of the sixteen occurrences …

In corroboration of this primary evidence, attention is called to four internal factors that suggest this progressive development in Paul’s use of the word ekklesia.

The first evidence consists of the early predominance of descriptive modifiers denoting the definite sphere in which the word ekklesia moves, and their omission in the later writings …

The second internal evidence of progressive development in the concept of ekklesia consists of the appearance in the early uses of this word of the plural form (ekklesiai) and its complete omission in later writings …

The third internal evidence is suggested by this second and is seen in the use of the article. This evidence, of necessity, is meager … It is significant that the article is never omitted in any metaphorical use of ekklesia …

A fourth evidence for the hypothesis herein set forth is the progressive change in Paul’s method of addressing his epistles. Most of the commentaries remark upon the significance of the fact that in the early writings of Paul, his salutation was addressed to ekklesiai, while in his later writings the salutation was addressed to individuals as they are related to Christ. In the two Thessalonian letters, the two Corinthian letters, and the Galatian letter, Paul salutes the ekklesia in each city; in Romans, Philippians, Colossians, and Ephesians he addresses the “saints” and “faithful in Christ.” (p. 226-231, emphasis in original)

The final chapter of Baker’s thesis is a brief historical review of the development of ecclesiology, with an emphasis on Baptist ecclesiology.

Although it is to be lamented that Baker’s doctoral thesis never found a wider audience, he has certainly done a great service to students of ecclesiology. It is unlikely that anyone will readily accept every conclusion he arrives at. (I don’t.) Nevertheless, his exhaustive study of ekklesia in the Septuagint and other Jewish literature, along with his framework of literary classification, are enormously helpful contributions to the literature on this subject.

It is commonly asserted that ekklesia has only one fixed meaning in the New Testament—an actual assembly—and that this unchanging meaning must constrain our interpretation of the many metaphors for the church that we find in scripture. Baker’s thesis shows us why this is simply untrue. The meaning of any word develops over time. This is especially true of the word ekklesia, the meaning of which was absolutely revolutionized by the first advent of Christ. To rightly interpret the New Testament, we must seek to understand the meaning of the word ekklesia from its usage in context, and not the other way around.