A Case of Identity Theft: How “Ekklesia” Became “Church” from Jesus Movement Blog
It may come as a shock to discover that the English word “church” is a made-up word. But stay with me. I’ll explain.
William Tyndale, the first scholar to translate the entire Bible into English in the 16th century, translated the word ekklesia consistently as “congregation” everywhere it appeared in the New Testament. This was a reasonable way to translate the word, given that ekklesia meant something like “congregation” or “assembly” in its non-biblical usage. In fact, when the NT was written, the word ekklesia was not a “religious” word at all, but one with secular connotations.
However, Tyndale’s use of the English word “congregation” was opposed by Thomas More, the English Roman Catholic scholar. On what grounds did he dissent? Simply put, the word “church” had come to be associated with a religious institution (the Roman Catholic Church), and translating ekklesia as “church” aided in preserving that association (one that was foreign to the original meaning, but essential for maintaining institutional authority over the masses).
But how did we get from the Greek word ekklesia to the made-up English word “church”? The word “church” is a transliteration (not a translation) of another Greek word, kuriakos, which means “the Lord’s.” From kuriakos comes “kirk” (in Scotland) or “church.” It is an ambiguous word that could be applied to a people who “congregate,” but equally to an institution, a building, a clerical hierarchy or whatever else. It was a “wax nose” that could be easily shaped and manipulated.
After Tyndale died, translators of the King James Version of the Bible (the one “authorized” by the King of England and Head of the Church of England), while using much of Tyndale’s prior translation word-for-word, when it came to translating ekklesia, usually chose the word “church” instead of “congregation.” This move assured that the true meaning of ekklesia would be obscured for future generations in both Roman Catholic and Protestant traditions.
Five hundred years later, when we pick up an English Bible and read the word “church,” what comes to mind? Do we think primarily of the collective of faithful Jesus-followers in a house, a city or around the world; or do we associate the word with an institution, a building, religious services and rituals, a clerical hierarchy or a denomination? It seems our minds effortlessly now gravitate towards the latter, while we struggle with great difficulty even to envision the former.