Assembly

c h ap t er 5
The assembly – ,
5.1 introduction
The term means ‘assembly’, ‘gathering’, or ‘community’, and is
used  times in the NT. It has the following distribution: Matthew: ;
Acts: ; Paul: ; Ephesians: ; Pastorals: ; Hebrew: ; James: ;  John:
; Revelation: . The usage of the term is thus reasonably widespread and
it is quite prevalent in some books although there are also some notable
exceptions.
Here I will be looking at the use of as a self-designation,
rather than giving a full discussion of ‘the assembly in the New Testament’.
Why did the early ‘Christians’ call themselves and what is the
significance of this? It should of course be noted that although the actual
term is not found in Mark (for example), the concept implied
by the term is closely related to what Mark says about the community
gathered around Jesus. But my focus is on the actual language the early
Christians used as self-designations, and so I will not go beyond the usage
of here.
I will first seek to show that the term was indeed used as a self-
designation. I will then focus on the background and origin of the term,
and then on its significance and function. I also need to note a point
of translation. Traditionally, has, of course, been translated as
‘church’. But this is not the most obvious translation of the Greek term,
since its regular translation was ‘assembly’. The risk in using ‘church’,
a distinctively Christian term, is that it is anachronistic, and for many
readers almost unavoidably evokes ‘church’ of a later time and so has mis-
leading connotations. The natural meaning of the term for readers of
Paul’s letters, for example, would have been ‘assembly’, rather than any
 BDAG: –.  See, e.g., Barrett : –.  See Horrell a: –.
 See TDNT iii: –.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. The University of Manchester Library, on 18 Oct 2019 at 09:07:30, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139003438.006
Context 
specialised Christian word. Here then I will generally use ‘the assembly’
for .
5.2 was used as a self-designation?

In letter openings, Paul regularly designates readers simply as ‘ ’.
Note  Thess :: ‘To the assembly of the Thessalonians (34
f)) in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ’. Similarly,
Paul and other NT authors regularly use as a self-designation or
name for a group of Christians in other parts of their writings. In Gal :
we read: ‘I was violently persecuting the assembly of God (<
* *) and was trying to destroy it.’ Paul could have written: ‘I was
violently persecuting the brothers and sisters’, or ‘the believers’ or ‘the
saints’. And Rev : reads: ‘Let anyone who has an ear listen to what
the Spirit is saying to the assemblies (/ )’, rather than ‘to
the brothers and sisters’. Clearly, functions as a self-designation.
One answer given by the early Christians to the question, ‘Who are we?’,
would have been ‘We are .’
However, is a somewhat different self-designation from the
other terms considered here. Whilst other terms can be applied either in
the singular or the plural, is a collective term and so cannot be
used of an individual.
5.3 context
5.3.1 Greco-Roman context

was used from the fifth century bce onwards for the political
‘assembly’ of citizens of the polis, who met to make a range of decisions
affecting their common life. In this context, had the quite
specific meaning of a ‘coming together’, or a meeting, rather than the body
of people which assembled together. It was only when the citizens actually
 Contrast this with which only applied to the ‘Christian’ group, and did not have
‘another’ meaning. The problems with the use of ‘Christian’ have been noted in Chapter .
 See TDNT iii: ; Friesen : passim. I will need to use ‘church’ at times with reference to
‘the Universal Church’ since ‘the assembly’ does not have this sense of universality in English. For
the same reason that I seek to avoid the term ‘church’, I will also generally use or
‘synagogue’ in quotation marks when writing about the Jewish ‘synagogue’.
 Similar usage in  Cor :;  Cor :; Gal :;  Thess :; Phlm ; Rev :, , .
 See also Acts :;  Cor :; :; :; Col :.  See Harnack : ; cf. Acts :.
 See TDNT iii: –; Mitchell , i: –; McCready : –; Clarke : –.
 The assembly – ,
assembled that there was an . By contrast, the M , or Council,
was a body which continued in existence and could be referred to even
when it was not actually meeting.
Although the people’s assemblies rarely initiated political action in the
NT period, this does not mean that they were of no political significance.
For example, Dio Chrysostom’s speeches to Tarsus and his political advice
to the cities of Bithynia were addressed to meetings of the whole people; in
his view, the opinion of the whole people clearly mattered. Thus, although
the power of the assembly was clearly circumscribed, it retained a significant
degree of importance.
was also a designation for an association, although the term
was not among the most common designations for these associations;
other designations for associations were , , and &.
5.3.2 Jewish context: the MT, LXX, Philo, and Josephus

Whilst this Greco-Roman context is significant, I will argue that the Jew-
ish context of the term is crucial for the use of in the NT.
Two Hebrew terms – lhq and hd[ – concern us here. lhq has the basic
meaning of ‘assembly’ and can be used of assemblies of a variety of kinds,
including the assembly of the people of Israel. hd[ is best translated as
‘congregation’, and is regularly used of the people of Israel during the
wilderness wanderings.
lhq is translated in the LXX by seventy-three times out of a
total of  occurrences; lhq is never translated by in its twenty-
three occurrences in Gen–Num with always being used on
these occasions. hd[ is generally translated with in the LXX
and is never translated by .
Marshall comments: ‘Where qahal stresses more the idea of assembly,
‘edah denotes the group of people who may be assembled, but the two words
can in fact be used with no real difference in meaning.’ In this regard
note Prov :: ‘Now I am at the point of utter ruin in the public assembly
(hd[w lhq; LXX: + ).’ The two Hebrew terms are
used together, and they seem synonymous; the LXX uses both Greek terms
 See Campbell : ; see, e.g., Thucydides ..  See Mitchell , i: –.
 See Kloppenborg : .
 See Kloppenborg : –, ; McCready : –; cf. Schrage : . In general see
Barclay : –.
 See TDNT vii: –.  Marshall –: . E.g., Exod :; :; Num :, , .
 An exception is found, e.g., in Judg :, where hd[ is translated by .
 Marshall –: ; see also Hort : –; Campbell : –; TDNT vii: .
Context 
in which we are interested, again suggesting they can be considered as
synonymous. In Ps :– (LXX :–) lhq occurs twice; on the first
occasion it is translated by , on the second by , which
again indicates that the two Greek terms can be regarded as synonymous.
The very close relationship between the two terms is also indicated by the
occurrence in the LXX of each noun with the verb related to the other
noun. Thus and " are found together in  Chron :;
 Chron :; Ezra :, and Joel :; and "A are
found together in Lev : and Num :.
As we have noted, in the LXX, translates lhq seventy-three
times and is never used to translate hd[. By contrast, translates
lhq thirty-five times (always in Gen–Num and generally in the Prophets)
and hd[  times. The different translations of lhq seem to result from
the idiosyncrasies of different translators. In total, is used 
times in the LXX and  times.
is used in a range of expressions. The strongest sense behind
is that of ‘the act of assembly’ or ‘gathering’, or an actual meeting
together of people. The phrase ‘the day of the assembly ( ) G
)’, when God spoke to Israel at the mountain, is found in Deut :,
the first use of in the LXX. ‘The assembly’ can be qualified in
a variety of ways relating to God: ‘the assembly of the Lord’ (Deut :,
,  (twice), ;  Chron :; Mic :), ‘the assembly of God’ (Neh :),
and ‘the assembly of the Most High’ (Sir :). ‘The assembly’ can also
be qualified by expressions relating to God’s people. We regularly find the
phrases ‘all the assembly of Israel’, ‘the assembly of the people of God’
(Judg :), ‘all the assembly of Judah’ ( Chron :; :; :), and ‘all
the assembly in Jerusalem’ ( Chron :).
 See Schrage : –; Marshall –: ; Binder :  n. Both lhq and hd[ are also
found in Exod :.
 and " are also found together in Did :; see also Berger : .
 Marshall –: ; Beker : ; see also TDNT vii: .
 Its usage across the LXX is as follows Deut: ; Josh: ; Judg: ;  Sam: ;  Kgs: ;  Chron: ;
 Chron: ; Ezra: ; Neh: ; Jdt: ;  Macc: ; Ps: ; Prov: ; Job: ; Sir: ; PsSol: ; Mic: ; Joel: ;
Lam: .
 See also Deut :; there is doubt about the text in Deut : and the Gōttingen edition omits
‘ ) ’ at the end of the verse; see Wevers : .
 In Neh : mss S and L read against the other manuscripts, so there is some doubt about
the phrase * here; see Fitzmyer a: .
 ‘Assembly of holy ones ( H)’, where
means angels, is found in Ps : (LXX);
is used of an assembly for worship in Ps :, .
 See Deut :; Josh :;  Kgs :, , ;  Chron :;  Chron : (twice), , ; :;  Macc
:; Sir :.
 The assembly – ,
The simple phrase ‘the assembly’ is also regularly found, with the
plural ‘in assemblies ( )’ occurring in Ps : and :
(LXX). can also be used of the ‘assembly of the prophets’ (
Sam :), the gathering of an army as it prepared for war ( Sam :; 
Chron :), an ‘assembly of troops’ ( Macc :), an ‘assembly of evildoers’
(Ps : LXX), and ‘an assembly of a mob’ (Sir :).
Philo uses twenty-three times, nineteen of which are references
to Israel in the wilderness. He has a number of direct or indirect references
to Deut , and also uses with reference to the Exodus (see
Decal. , ; Her. ; Post. ). While refers to an actual
assembly or public meeting in some passages (Abr. ; Decal. , ; Her.
; Prob. ; Spec. .; .), in his references based on Deut , Philo
has the congregation of Israel in view. The only place where
refers to a local congregation is Virt. . There are also no eschatological
connotations in Philo’s use of the term.
Josephus uses forty-eight times. He uses the term of an assem-
bly of the people of Israel (Ant. :, , , ; :; :), of prophets
(Ant. :), of the army (Ant. :), and of political assemblies of various
sorts. He regularly uses phrases such as ‘calling the people together in
assembly () ( . )’, which recalls Greco-
Roman usage, and at times he adds to a text from the LXX.
This suggests that in his use of , Josephus is reflecting the fact that
the term is well known in the Greco-Roman world, and so he is assisting
his readers to understand events in Jewish history in terms that are familiar
to them.
What do we conclude from this usage? Clearly, is a general
word which does not refer to a particular type of assembly and so is not
a technical term; the type or form of ‘assembly’ must be defined by the
addition of further words, or by the context. It was not associated with
 See, e.g., Judg :, ;  Sam :; Neh :. The phrase ‘all the assembly’ is found in, e.g.,  Chron
:; :; and ‘in the assembly’ in, e.g.,  Chron :;  Macc :.
 See, e.g., Conf.  (twice); Deus ; Ebr.  (twice); five are direct quotations of Deut : Ebr. ;
Leg .; Post. ; Somn. ..
 Du Toit : .  See du Toit : –; see also TDNT iii: ; Berger : .
 See du Toit : .
 See Ant. :, ; :; :, ; J.W. :, . It can also be used of unofficial assemblies in
J.W. :, ; :.
 See Ant. :; see also :, ; : (‘convened the people in assembly ( (
. )’); :; :; :; :. The only comparable expression in the LXX is found in
Jdt :.
 Cf. Num : and Ant. :; Num : and Ant. :; Lev : and Ant. :.
 Stegemann and Stegemann (: ) comment that assemblies in OT are ‘presupposed to have
the purpose of hearing the word of God or of worshipping God’; they refer to Deut :; :; :;
Paul’s usage 
any one phase of Israel’s life and was not solely used in one established
expression or set formula. Common usage includes speaking of Israel as
‘the assembly of the Lord’ or speaking of ‘all the assembly of Israel’. It
does not have a particular eschatological reference. Further, as in general
Greco-Roman usage, in the LXX and in other Jewish authors
generally refers to an actual ‘assembly’ of people when they gather (e.g.,
Deut :; Sir :). But du Toit suggests that in Deut  ‘ is
becoming an entity which is not restricted to the occasion of the meeting
event, but outlives it’, and notes that this is also clear in Neh :– and
probably also Lam : and in Philo’s usage. In some of its occurrences
then, has become a self-designation for a group regardless of
whether it was actually ‘assembling’ or not.
5.3.3 Usage at Qumran

At Qumran, lhq can be used for an assembly of the community (CD :;
:; QSa :; :), and for an assembly of their opponents (QM :;
:; QH :). In QM :– we read: ‘When they go out to battle they
shall write . . . on the sixth [banner] “Assembly of God” (la lhq).’ One of
the standards to be carried into the eschatological war thus has this title.
hd[ is much more common at Qumran, and is used both for the sect (CD
:; QSa :, ; QM :) and for its enemies (CD :; :; QHa :).
djy is also used extensively. As Donfried notes, ‘To refer to the community
as a whole, or to the present manifestation of the community, it uses hd[
and djy.’ Thus both lhq and hd[, the terms that are of significance for
us in the MT (along with their translation equivalents in the LXX), are in
living use at Qumran.
5.4 paul’s usage

I will now discuss Paul’s use of , and then the use in Acts. I
will then be in a position to discuss when the early Christians first used
as a self-designation, and why they chose this word.
:; Judg :–. While the term can be used with this meaning in these particular passages, the
use of is sufficiently broad to mean that as a term it is in no way associated with this one
activity.
 Du Toit : ; cf. Berger : –.
 QSa :– reads: ‘No man, defiled by any of the impurities of a man, shall enter the assembly of these;
and no-one who is defiled by these should be established in his office amongst the congregation.’
Vermes (: ) translated this as ‘the assembly of God’ but Martinez gives ‘the assembly of
these’; the text is hla lhq; see DJD i: ; cf. also Schrage : .
 Donfried : .
 The assembly – ,
5.4.1 Frequency
As noted above, Paul uses fifty times. Dunn notes ‘Ekklēsia
(“church”) is the single most frequent term used by Paul to refer to the
groups of those who met in the name of Christ . . . “church” is the term
with which Paul most regularly conceptualized the corporate identity of
those converted in the Gentile mission.’ It is thus a very significant term.
5.4.2 What does Paul mean by as a self-designation:

‘the actual assembly’
Paul uses in a number of places with the dynamic sense of a group
of people who ‘gathered’ in ‘assembly’. Note the parallel between these two
verses:  Cor :: ‘For, to begin with, when you come together in
(') 6, )’; and  Cor :: ‘When you assemble
in the same place (P') ? 6, + ( #()’. Paul is clearly
speaking of the same event in both verses. The emphasis in the use of
here is on the actual ‘assembling’, or ‘gathering’. This meaning
explains Paul’s use of the plural, ‘assemblies’, when more than one entity is
in view. We read of ‘the assemblies of Galatia’ (Gal :), ‘the assemblies of
the Gentiles’ (Rom :) and ‘the assemblies of Asia’ ( Cor :). In these
passages he is thinking of a number of local ‘gatherings/assemblies’; he does
not speak of ‘the assembly of Asia’ or ‘the assembly of the Gentiles’, nor
(apart from in Colossians, on which see below) of ‘the assembly’ in what is
clearly a universal sense. Rather, his use of the plural demonstrates he is
thinking of many localised ‘gatherings’.
 Individual book usage is Romans: ;  Corinthians: ;  Corinthians: ; Galatians: ; Philippians:

; Colossians: ;  Thessalonians: ;  Thessalonians: ; Philemon: .
 Dunn : .
 This sense of assembling is particularly clear in  Cor –; see  Cor :, , , , , –; Hainz
: ; Berger : –; Beker : –; Merklein : –; Donfried : –;
Stegemann and Stegemann : .
 This has been discussed considerably. Note the following points. First, in  Cor :: ‘every assembly’,
is a distributive expression, not a reference to the universal ‘church’. Secondly, Dunn (: )
notes on Gal : (‘I was violently persecuting the assembly of God’) that Paul’s ‘persecution of “the
church” implies a recognition of the Jerusalem church’s central role as the eschatological focus of the
assembly of Israel, not a claim to persecute the worldwide Church’. Hence the sense of
here is localised (cf. du Toit : –). The sense of ‘the Jerusalem assembly’ is the same in  Cor
:. Thirdly,  Cor : is often taken to refer to the ‘universal Church’ (e.g., Brown : –).
However, ‘apostle’ at this time was not a universal office, but related to particular assemblies, which
apostles founded, as  Cor :– with its language of ‘God has appointed in the assembly [in
Corinth] first apostles . . . ’ indicates; see Dunn : –. Finally, in  Cor : ‘the assembly of
God’ clearly refers to the assembly in Corinth; see Dunn : ; cf. EDNT i: ; Thrall :
–.
 See Hainz : ; Banks : .
Paul’s usage 
In addition, that by the term Paul means ‘the actual gathering’
explains why he never speaks in Romans of ‘the in/of Rome’.
This is almost certainly because the Christians of Rome never actually
all gathered together in Paul’s time. Hence he writes in Rom :: ‘to all
God’s beloved in Rome, who are called saints’, rather than to ‘the assembly
in Rome’. Banks notes: ‘Since for him ekklēsia cannot refer to a group
of people scattered throughout a locality unless they all actually gather
together, it is not possible for him to describe all the Christians in Rome as
a “church”. The “whole church” of Rome never assembled in one place. He
could have called them a “church” only by giving the word a new meaning.
By way of contrast the Christians in Corinth are an ekklēsia. Although they,
like the Romans, meet in small groups in different parts of the city, they
also come together as a unit from time to time (as did the earlier believers
in Jerusalem).’ Paul’s (otherwise puzzling) lack of use of with
reference to all the Christians in Rome can thus be explained by noting
that the word has this very specific meaning for Paul.
So the emphasis in the word in these passages is on the actual
‘assembly’ in a particular time and place, rather than on ‘a number of local
assemblies conceived as part of a larger unit’. This also explains Paul’s use
of the phrase, ‘the assembly in X’s house’. This is simply the gathering
of Christians meeting in someone’s home. Wherever and whenever Chris-
tians met together, they could call themselves ‘the assembly of God’, ‘the
gathering of God’. This can be extended to speak of Christians in a local
area, understood as those who regularly assemble as a community.
This use of for each ‘assembly’ is significant. As Dunn notes,
‘the “church-ness” of each individual Christian assembly did not depend
for Paul on its being part of some universal entity. Its reality and vitality as
church depended more immediately on its own direct continuity through
Christ and its founding apostle with the assembly of Yahweh.’ Clearly,
then, in the passages we have been discussing the meaning of as
a self-designation is that when they say: ‘We are the of God in
Corinth’ they mean ‘we actually get together and are the assembly of God
in this city’.
 Paul does use of Christians in Rom in :– but here one group among the Christians in
Rome, rather than all the Christians of the city, is addressed as ‘’. On this usage see Jewett
: , –; Lampe :  n.
 It seems likely that at the time Paul wrote Romans there were around five separate house assemblies
in Rome; see Lampe : ; Gehring : –; Jewett : –; Trebilco forthcoming.
 Cf.  Clem .  Banks :  (emphasis original).  Banks : .
 See Rom :;  Cor :; Col :; Phlm . Jewett (: –, –) argues that some early
Christian gatherings were in tenement buildings.
 See Merklein : –; Branick : ; Krauss : ; Dunn : .
 Dunn : ; see also Dunn : –; TDNT iii: .
 The assembly – ,
5.4.3 A second and related meaning: the community

As well as the sense of an actual assembly or gathering of Christians, in
some texts is used with the sense of ‘community’ or ‘group’.
For example, in  Cor : we read: ‘But if anyone is disposed to be
contentious – we have no such custom, nor do the assemblies of God.’
Here the emphasis is not so much on the actual ‘gathering’, though this
is clearly presupposed, but rather has become a self-designation
or name for the ‘community’ or group which ‘gathers’. Thus Stegemann
and Stegemann note: ‘the term can also designate individuals or a group,
independent of whether they are gathered together or not’. Paul also
already uses in the sense of ‘people belonging to the ’
and hence a ‘group’ or ‘community’ when talking about those he persecuted
( Cor :; Gal :; Phil :).
So as a self-designation for the group does not only mean
‘assembly’, used of them when they are gathering, but by extension can
also be used as a designation with the sense of ‘the community which
assembles’. It comes to refer to the group, regardless of whether they are
gathering, and so refers to them permanently through time – a natural
development. Paul’s usage of the term is both with regard to an assembly in
which people come together and a community or group ‘whose members
are bound together even outside their actual meetings through reciprocal
social interaction’.
5.4.4 A variety of expressions

Categories of use
There are a variety of ways that Paul can use . I will outline these,
and then discuss their significance. First, he relates the assembly to God
on eleven occasions, generally using the phrase ‘the assembly/assemblies of
God’. Secondly, he writes of ‘the assemblies of Christ’ once, and four
times of ‘assemblies . . . in Christ Jesus’. Thirdly, he uses followed
 Stegemann and Stegemann : . This sense is also clear e.g., in  Cor :; :; :; Gal :;
Phil :; :; see also  Tim :; Acts :, ; :; :; :.
 See Berger : –; Merklein : ; Økland : ; du Toit : .
 Stegemann and Stegemann : .
 E.g.,  Cor :: ‘To the assembly of God (34 * *) that is in Corinth’; the singular is
found in  Cor :; :; :; :;  Cor :; Gal :; the plural in  Cor :;  Thess :; 
Thess :. In  Thess :;  Thess : he relates the assembly to both God and the Lord Jesus.
 Rom :; see Moo : –.
  Thess : (the assemblies of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea (, , * * ,
#, 34 12 12*)); Gal :;  Thess :;  Thess :.
Paul’s usage 
by a genitive of place eight times. Fourthly, he writes of the assembly ‘in’ a
place on four occasions. Fifthly, he can write of the assembly in a person’s
house, which we have come to call ‘a house church/ assembly’. Sixthly, he
can write of ‘the assemblies of the Gentiles’ (Rom :) and ‘all the assemblies
of the saints’ ( Cor :). Finally, he frequently can write simply of ‘the
assembly’, or ‘the assemblies’. This is a very significant variety, and shows
that there is no one set expression that Paul uses. Further, the idea of the
being ‘of’ a province, or ‘in’ a place, or ‘in a house’ relates to the
sense of as ‘gathering’ – this is where they gather (even if there
are many ‘gatherings’ in ‘Asia’ for example).
Assemblies of God and Assemblies of Christ/in Christ

What is the significance of Paul’s use of the phrases *
and * or ? First, we note that the G
is pre-eminently the ‘of God’ rather than ‘of Christ’. Paul sees
the initiative as being with God in all matters to do with salvation, and
hence also in establishing ‘the assembly’, and this is a way of emphasising
that. The is not a human organisation but is created by God.
Further, the assembly clearly belongs to God, the one who brought it into
existence.
Secondly, we can suggest the phrase ‘assembly (or assemblies) of God’
was highly evocative for Paul in that it clearly connects the ‘gatherings’ or
‘assemblies’ of Christians with God’s people of the OT, in a way that ‘the
of Christ’ would not. As I have noted, the actual phrase
* is rare in the LXX, being found only in Neh :, with *
being somewhat more common. But clearly expressions such as
this latter one speak of ‘God’s people’ Israel in general. As Dunn notes,
‘The phrase “the church(es) of God” was too evocative and pregnant with
meaning [from the OT] for Paul’s deliberate use of it to be accidental.’
This connection with the OT is a further reason for the regular use of the
phrase ‘assemblies of God’.
  Cor : (‘the assemblies of Galatia (/ @)’);  Cor :;  Cor :; Gal
:, ; Col :;  Thess :;  Thess :.
 See also  Cor :;  Cor :; Rom : (Cenchreae);  Thess :. Cf. Phil : and Col :.
 E.g., Col :: ‘the assembly in her house (< Ʌ - # )’; see also Rom :;
 Cor :; Phlm .
 Thiselton (: , –) argues that :b– is not an interpolation.
 See  Cor :; :; :; :, , , , , –; Phil :; :;  Cor :.
 See Schnelle : –.
 See O’Brien : ; Banks : ; Stegemann and Stegemann : .
 is found seven times: see Deut :, ,  (twice), ;  Chron :; Mic :.
 Dunn : . I address the question of why Paul does not use * below.
 The assembly – ,
This connection with the OT is not something for which Paul argues;
nowhere does he quote a passage related to the hwhy lhq/ *
, and say ‘this relates to us’, or ‘now we are the assembly of God’.
Rather, he presupposes that * * scattered around the
Mediterranean are in continuity with ‘the assembly of the Lord’ of the
OT. Just as one could read of ‘the assembly of the Lord’ being ‘gathered’
or ‘assembled’ on various occasions during OT history, so in Paul’s day, ‘the
assembly of God’ continued to exist in Galatia, Corinth, and elsewhere.
We should not let familiarity with this idea cause us to overlook the
huge significance that is embedded in this language. The small and often
struggling ‘assemblies’ with which Paul worked were in continuity with the
assembly of old, and just as much as in OT history, were the recipients of
revelation, grace, salvation, blessing, and so on. As Horbury notes, the use
of ‘presented the churches as continuous with the congregation
of Israel described in LXX Pentateuch’.
Thirdly, as noted above, Paul does speak of ‘the assemblies of Christ’
(although only once) or ‘the assembly of God in Christ’, although he
uses such phrases less often than ‘the assembly of God’. In this way God is
not ‘replaced’ by Christ as the founder and initiator of the ‘assembly’, for
the role of initiator is clearly God’s. But Christ is spoken of at times as the
mediator of the assembly, and the one ‘in whom’ they exist. As O’Brien
notes: ‘God’s acts of founding the ekklēsia is mediated through Jesus Christ
and his gospel . . . So, the churches of the NT are the congregations of
God in Christ, the churches in Jesus Christ ( Thess :; Gal :), or the
churches of Jesus Christ (Rom :).’
Fourthly, it is important to note that these ‘assemblies of God’, which are
in continuity with God’s people of the OT, include uncircumcised Gentiles
as well as Jews. Further, , is used with reference to the Jewish
Christian ‘assembly’ in Jerusalem (e.g.,  Cor :) and of the predominantly
Gentile Christian ‘assemblies’ throughout the Mediterranean, and Paul can
write of , , (Rom :). Again, we should not let
familiarity blind us to the significance of this usage. Paul does not argue for
it, but this is an assumed part of the eschatological newness of ‘the assembly’.
As Dunn comments with regard to ‘the assembly of God’ including both
Jew and Gentile: ‘This is significant, since a not untypical concern of Jewish
 See Dunn : .  Horbury : ; see also Dunn : .
 Quite often, Christ is mentioned in the broader context when another phrase is used with ;
note, e.g.,  Cor :.
 O’Brien : ; see also Hort : ; Merklein : –. Paul never uses the phrase
‘assembly of the Lord’ –  Thess : and  Thess : are closest.
Paul’s usage 
writings was to preserve the purity of the assembly of Israel, precisely by
emphasizing its set-apartness.’
Finally, Paul often wrote of ‘the assemblies of God’ in the plural; by con-
trast, LXX usage is almost always in the singular with the plural being found
only in the LXX of Ps :; :. Paul clearly thought of ‘the assembly
of God’ as manifested simultaneously in many different locations. Each
gathering was ‘the assembly of God’ in that place, so he could also write
of ‘the assemblies’. By contrast, the LXX assumes there is but one assembly
and we regularly find the phrase ‘all the assembly of Israel’.
Related to this, Paul clearly conceived of each (small) group of Chris-
tians as ‘¡ ’, ‘the gathering of God’, rather than as a part of ‘the
assembly’, or as ‘an assembly of God’. There were many ‘gatherings’, or
‘assemblies’, in striking contrast to the overwhelmingly singular OT usage.
Dunn notes: ‘The point is that wherever believers met for fellowship and
worship they were in direct continuity with the assembly of Israel, they
were the assembly of God.’ The crucial factor was not size, or geograph-
ical location, or ethnicity, but rather the emphasis was on the fact that the
assembly belonged to God, regardless of size, place, or ethnic composition.
Each little group, then, participated fully in being ‘the assembly’, in being
‘the gathering of God’. It was not incomplete, or in any way disadvantaged
in comparison to the OT people of Israel, just because it was small.
When members of a small local assembly said to each other ‘we are the
assembly of God’, they were to regard themselves as in continuity with
the assembly of Israel, with all that that involved as regards revelation,
salvation, God’s presence, and so on. Each assembly scattered throughout
the Mediterranean was to think this too.
What we have said in this section raises the question of why Paul uses
* * rather than (although even the latter
is only found seven times in the LXX as we have noted). It seems most
likely that to use would have been confusing with regard
to the referent of . To ensure the rich element of continuity with the
OT and its use of ‘the assembly of Yahweh/the Lord’ was preserved,
would need to be taken to refer to Yahweh, yet apart from when he quotes
 Dunn : ; he refers to Neh :; Lam :; QSa :–; CD :–.
 Cf. Becker : .  See Dunn : .
 See Deut :; Josh :;  Kgs :, , ;  Chron :;  Chron : (twice), , ; :;  Macc
:; Sir :.
 See Hainz : –; Merklein : –; O’Brien : .  Dunn : .
 This is parallel to what Paul says about ‘the body of Christ’; see O’Brien :  and see, e.g.,
 Cor :, .
 The assembly – ,
Scripture, Paul always uses to refer to Christ. If Paul (and others
before him) did find a helpful precedent in the use of in
the LXX, they substituted * for , and in so doing emphasised the
initiative and centrality of God in their experience of ‘gathering’. We can
suggest that it was more straightforward to use * *, which
also continued to underline continuity with the OT assembly, without
introducing confusion about to whom referred. The importance
of Jesus for the assembly was then spelt out on occasion using different
language.
, idiolects, and language usage

I have noted that Paul regularly speaks simply of ‘the assembly’. Here we
can draw on the idea of a ‘social dialect’ or ‘idiolect’. As I have noted in
Chapter , when a group has its own language it can leave things unsaid,
since they are known within the group. I suggest that talk of ‘the assembly’
is actually shorthand for ‘the assembly of God’. When they speak simply
of ‘the assembly’, they assume that it is ‘of God’, and do not need to spell
out the fuller self-designation within the group.
Thus Paul writes of ‘the assembly’ or of ‘the assembly of God’ in very
similar contexts. Compare  Cor : (‘because I persecuted the assembly of
God’) and Phil : (‘as to zeal, a persecutor of the assembly’) or  Cor :
(‘when you come together as an assembly’) and  Cor : (‘Or do you
show contempt for the assembly of God’). When ‘of God’ is not stated, I
suggest that it is assumed; Paul does not need to say ‘assembly of God’ on
each occasion. This is ‘in-group language’, or theological shorthand.
However, the use of in this way could also be confusing, and
here we can briefly bring forward from our later discussion one dimension
of Luke’s use of in Acts – the use of the term with reference to
a group other than the Christians. In Acts : (following its first use in
Acts : to refer to Christians), the people of Israel are described as ‘the
congregation/assembly in the wilderness ( 34 34 )’. In
Acts : is used of the regularly appointed and duly constituted
 See Dunn : – with usage on  n.

 See Dunn : ; see also du Toit : .
 See, e.g., Rom :; Gal :;  Thess :; :.
 Compare  Thess : with Gal :; see Becker : .
 See TDNT iii: ; Marshall –: ; EDNT i: .
 is found in some texts in Acts :, but is almost certainly not original; see Barrett :
.
Paul’s usage 
meeting of the assembly of the citizens of Ephesus, and in Acts : and
 of an informal and unofficial ‘assembly’ that results from the riot in
the city; it was not a duly constituted meeting and so could not transact
business. This less technical use in :,  is understandable, since
those who gathered in the theatre included the people who would have
been called to a lawful assembly. Luke’s usage here is quite in keeping
with general usage of in the wider society.
Clearly Luke knows that is used by others – in the Greco-
Roman city, and in the LXX where it is used for Israel. Christians do not
have a monopoly on the term and it is not a technical term to such an
extent that it can only be used for Christian assemblies. Luke’s usage
reflects its wider meaning and the context must determine the sense of the
term.
Given this usage, it is all the more significant that Christians – from
before Paul onwards, as we will see – can simply use in writing.
This is a further indication that this is an idiolect and thus ‘in-group
language’; insiders know exactly what is being spoken of when the term is
used.
But this also emphasises that the language could be very confusing to
outsiders. To say to a Gentile resident of a Greco-Roman city ‘we are
’, which would be heard simply as ‘we are the [city] assembly’,
or an assembly of an association, or even to say ‘we are *
*’ could have been very confusing indeed. ‘I know about ’,
they could say, ‘but it meets in the theatre.’ After all, the primary meaning
of in the Greco-Roman world was the citizen ‘assembly’ of the
city. Or to say to a ‘non-Christian’ Jew ‘we are * *’
could again be highly confusing.
In this light, we can also understand the use of as part of much
fuller descriptions. In  Thess : Paul writes: ‘To the assembly of the Thes-
salonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.’ Whilst using the
same term as in Jewish and Greco-Roman circles, Paul here distinguishes
this ‘assembly’ from others in Thessalonica. Donfried notes of the ‘assem-
bly’ in Thessalonica: ‘for the Apostle, it is not an assembly of Thessalonians
 In the Salutaris inscription from Ephesus we read of the ‘sacred and regular assembly’ in I.Eph ,
line ; see also Lucian, Deorum concil. ; John Chrysostom, Hom. ..
 Sherwin-White : .  See Barrett : .
 See Cadbury : ; also Trebilco : –.
 See Seccombe : . Thus it is not used only with the specialised meaning of ‘church’.
 See Stegemann and Stegemann : .  See Kloppenborg : .
 See Horsley : .   Thess : is almost identical.
 The assembly – ,
gathered in the name of Roma and the Roman leaders as fEOP or divi
filius, but an assembly gathered + + 12* .
The Apostle is clearly distinguishing and separating two types of assemblies
in Thessalonica, each comprising different groups of people with substan-
tially different allegiances and loyalties.’ Hence, whilst Paul is using what
was a familiar term for Greco-Roman readers, with this very familiarity
for new converts perhaps facilitating the term’s use in the Pauline mission,
Paul’s extended description in  Thess : serves to underline the distinctive-
ness of this particular ‘assembly’ for his Christian readers. This is to make
the distinction crystal clear internally – it is not intended to explain this to
outsiders (who would not be reading the letter), but rather to reinforce the
usage for insiders, although clearly such reinforcement would be invaluable
when it came to explaining the group to interested outsiders. Both the
abbreviated usage of and more extended descriptions can be
seen to be part of the ‘social dialect’ of the group.
in Colossians
Whilst I consider Colossians to have been written by Paul, it does use
in a somewhat different sense from that found in the undis-
puted Paulines. Indeed, one of the reasons that some scholars have argued
that it is not by Paul is that, while can be used for individual
‘assemblies’ in Col :, , it also speaks of ‘the universal assembly (or
better, universal church)’ in two passages. In Col : we read: ‘He is the
head of the body, the church (+ # < * $
)’, and in Col :: ‘in my flesh I am completing what is lacking
in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church (R
).’
In Col : ‘the church’ is identified with ‘the body’ of which Christ
is the head; in : the church is simply identified with Christ’s body.
The wider context and the use of the singular ( ) shows that the
reference is not to a particular ‘assembly’ but to the totality of Christians,
 Donfried : ; see also Merklein : ; Strecker : –.
 See Stanton : .
 Because of the sense of ‘the universal church’, I need to use the term ‘church’ rather than ‘assembly’
here, given that ‘assembly’ does not have this universal sense in English. This usage of is
often part of the argument for pseudonymity; see, e.g., Sumney : –; but it is not a decisive
argument.
 I am not concerned here with whether ‘the assembly’ was added to an original hymn or not (on
which see Dunn : –, –) but rather with the final form of the text.
 On ‘the Body’ in Colossians see Dunn : –; see also Marshall a: –.
Paul’s usage 
and thus to ‘the universal Church’. Further, it is Christ who in Col :–
 is said to ‘reconcile to himself all things’; yet the church in : is the
body of which Christ is the head. Given that can also refer to
individual ‘assemblies’ in the letter, Barclay notes ‘the author can view the
local gatherings of believers within a perspective so broad that “the church”
is an integral aspect of the meaning and redemption of “all things”. If “the
church” has this broader role, that is only because of its special relationship
to Christ.’ This relationship is particularly spelt out in :, where Christ
is said to be the head ‘from whom the whole body, nourished and held
together by its ligaments and sinews, grows with a growth that is from
God’. The life of believers as ‘the church’ is thus completely dependent on
the life of Christ.
To use as a self-designation against the background of this
theological understanding shown in Colossians is to say that one is part
of a universal entity which has cosmic dimensions and significance. But it
only has this significance because the is Christ’s body; it is not due
to any human factor, but its significance is directly related to Christology.
In the following section, I will suggest that in his other letters Paul can
see ‘the assembly’ as a worldwide movement of interdependent assemblies.
This means that the use of with a more universal reference,
particularly in Col :, is not a total surprise, although it is a development
from Paul’s other uses of .
A worldwide movement
I have noted that Paul conceives of as an individual ‘assembly’
in each particular place and so uses the term as a self-designation for the
group when they are gathering, but by extension also uses the term as a
designation with the sense of ‘the community which assembles’. However,
the sense of the world-wide ‘assembly’, whilst only explicitly mentioned in
Colossians as we have seen, is present as a concept in other letters.
That Paul sees all the individual assemblies as interconnected is clear
in a number of ways: he commends one assembly to another ( Thess
:); he encourages one assembly to provide hospitality for visitors from
another assembly (Rom :); he speaks of ‘my rule in all the assemblies’
 See Barclay : ; see also Schweizer : ; Strecker : . In  Cor :,  and Rom
: the thought is of the assembly in a particular locality being the body of Christ; see Dunn :
.
 Barclay : ; see also Dunn : –.
 See Dunn : , who also notes that the usage in Col :,  provides a transition to the
consistent use of with a universal sense in Eph.
 The assembly – ,
( Cor :) and of customs in ‘the assemblies of God’ ( Cor :); a
brother is said to be ‘famous among all the assemblies’ ( Cor :); he can
write that ‘all the assemblies of Christ’ greet the Romans (Rom :); he
organises the collection from a range of Gentile assemblies for the Jerusalem
assembly ( Corinthians – and elsewhere); and he can write of a common
policy in all the assemblies ( Cor :; :). As Hort notes, the sense
of independence of each ‘was brought into harmony with his
sense of the unity of the body of Christ as a whole, by this watchful care
to seize every opportunity of kindling and keeping alive in each society a
consciousness of its share in the life of the great Ecclesia of God’. Hence
when speaking of ‘the assembly of God’ in Corinth (even though this refers
to the local ‘gathering’), readers would not be encouraged by Paul’s own
language and practice to see their assembly as totally autonomous. Far
from it, since much of what Paul says would indicate that they should see
themselves as part of ‘the assemblies’, as part of a worldwide movement.
Even Paul’s talk of ‘the assemblies’ of a province (e.g.,  Cor :; Gal :),
or ‘the assemblies of the Gentiles’ (Rom :) encourages each assembly to
see their own small group as part of a much larger whole, to which they
integrally belong.
Thus, for Pauline communities the language of ‘the assembly’ as a self-
designation for their own group did not involve seeing themselves as
autonomous, isolated groups. They were ‘the assembly’, but there were
others who had that name, and whom Paul referred to often, and with
whom they made up ‘the assemblies’. Calling themselves ‘the assembly of
God in Corinth’ ( Cor :) certainly had implications for connectedness,
and for being part of a worldwide movement, not least because it echoed
the language of Israel, who saw herself as ‘the assembly of the Lord’. Against
this background the language of Col :,  can be seen as a development
from other Pauline use, rather than as a quantum leap with regard to the
meaning of .
5.5 acts
is used twenty-three times in Acts, nineteen times with reference
to Christians, three times of a city ‘assembly’, and once of Israel. We have
already discussed these latter four uses for groups other than Christians.
The first use is with reference to Christians in Jerusalem (:): ‘And great
 Hort : –; however, I would note that we can only really speak of ‘the great Ecclesia of God’
in Col. See also Best : ; Branick : .
 Branick : .
Acts 
fear seized the whole assembly (+ ) M ) L R <
).’ After being used of Israel in :, it is used in Acts :, 
of persecution against the assembly in Jerusalem, and then regularly in
Acts –.
In Acts –, Luke refers to Christians almost everywhere using G
; he writes of the assembly with reference to Jerusalem (Acts :, ; :;
:, ; :, ; probably in :), Antioch (:; :; :; :), Lystra
and Iconium (:), Syria and Cilicia (:), Ephesus (:), unnamed
cities (:), and throughout Judea, Galilee, and Samaria (:). In these
passages, is regularly used as a designation for a local Christian
congregation. The reference to the assembly in a place shows that Luke
is thinking of a local ‘gathering’ of Christians there (see also : and :).
That he can use in the plural, also shows that Luke generally
uses of the local assembly, of the Christians ‘as they gather’.
In Acts : (‘When they arrived, they called the assembly together (+
< )’), has the sense of ‘the assem-
bled body of Christians’. Luke sees as a designation that can be
used of Christians everywhere with the meaning of ‘the actual gathering’
in each locality; this sense is the same as the predominant usage in Paul’s
writings. But in Acts :; : also designates the community
who make up ‘the gathering’, whether they are actually assembled or not;
we have seen the same usage in Paul.
may have a wider sense than ‘the local assembly’ in Acts ::
‘Keep watch over yourselves and over all the flock, of which the Holy Spirit
has made you overseers, to shepherd the assembly of God (<
* *) that he obtained with the blood of his own Son.’ Only here
do we find the extended expression ‘the assembly of God’ in Acts. Barrett
notes: ‘the verse speaks of a single body of all Christians which God has
redeemed and constituted through the bloody, that is, sacrificial, death of
Christ. , then, is here the worldwide company of the redeemed,
ecclesia catholica.’
 See Haenchen : ; Barrett : . Acts : is somewhat unusual; the expression ‘< ?
’ is best translated as ‘the local assembly’; see Pervo :  n; cf. Blass, DeBrunner,
and Funk : .(c). In Acts :, the singular Ʌ , is a distributive phrase which
implies the plural; see Giles : .
 See Acts :; :.  See Barrett : .
 See Brown : ; Giles : . On Acts :,  see Barrett : .
 Barrett (: ) defends the reading ‘* *’ here; see also Giles :  n.
 Barrett : lxxxviii (italics original); see also Michiels –:  n. may also have
a wider meaning in :; see Haenchen : , ; Brown : ; Koester : ; cf. Barrett
: lxxxviii.
 The assembly – ,
Clearly, then, is a self-designation for ‘the Christians who
assemble’ or ‘the Christian community’ as far as Luke is concerned. It is
a corporate designation, and Christians call themselves ‘the assembly’. His
normal use of is of a local entity, a ‘gathering’, but it is important
that he also uses the term (even if rarely) in the wider sense of ‘the whole
church/Church’. The dual use of the same term indicates that each local
assembly of Christians ‘is not merely related to the total church but in fact
is the total church in the place in which it exists’. Again, we see the
similarities with Pauline usage.
We can make two additional points about the use of in Acts.
First, as noted above, in Acts : Luke has Stephen use the term of the
people of Israel: Moses ‘is the one who was in the congregation in the
wilderness ( 34 34 ) with the angel who spoke to him
at Mount Sinai, and with our ancestors’. In Stephen’s speech in Acts  a
typological relationship is established between Moses, who is rejected by the
people (:–, –) but who is to be ruler and deliverer (:), and Jesus,
who is similarly rejected (:) but who is ‘Leader and Saviour’ (:).
One dimension of this typology is that between Moses and the ‘assembly
in the wilderness’ on Mount Sinai (Acts :) on the one hand, and Christ
and the ‘assembly ()’, spoken of in Acts : and regularly from
Acts :, on the other. The assembly of the covenant people on Sinai and
the Christian are thus associated, with the former providing a
foreshadowing of the latter; the Christian could thus claim to
be the legitimate continuation of the assembly in the wilderness. The use
of of Israel in Acts : is thus very important. As Seccombe
notes, ‘Though the Church was undoubtedly new in form, Luke contends
that properly understood it is an ancient foundation.’ At least in part
this is to counter the charge that the was a sect or a breakaway
group (0; see Acts :; :), which would imply both that they
had broken with God’s purposes, and that they were a new group, without
an ancient heritage. here, then, plays a role in Luke’s concern
to show that the followers of Jesus are in direct continuity with Israel and
her ‘assembly’. Having underlined this association of the term in :, Luke
then regularly uses of Christians from Acts : onwards.
 Barrett : lxxxviii.  See Seccombe : –; see also Meyer : ; Barrett : .
 See Seccombe : –.  Seccombe : .
 Recall that to be a new and ‘innovative’ group was far from being considered a good thing in the
ancient world; see Marcus : –.
 See Seccombe : , .
Origin of the Christian usage of 
Secondly, is not used until Acts :. In this regard, Seccombe
writes: ‘The community which we meet in the early chapters of Acts –
the Jerusalem followers of Jesus gathering in homes and at the temple –
is a community without a name. From our vantage point we recognize it
immediately as the Church of Jerusalem, the original Christian ,
but Luke does not say so. Instead he uses every art to avoid the word.’
Thus Luke uses a range of other designations for Christians in Acts –.
It is also notable that Luke does not use with regard to Pentecost.
As Campbell notes, Luke ‘seems deliberately to avoid using the word in his
account of the happenings on the day of Pentecost, doubtless because he
felt that to use it there would have been an anachronism’.
All of this suggests that was not the term used in the very
earliest period – hence Luke’s avoidance of it until :, and then further
avoidance of it with regard to Christians until :. It is also clear that
is not a Lucan creation, given its widespread use in Paul. If
Luke had created it, the actual point at which he first uses the term might
bear little weight historically, but given that he is using a pre-existing term,
and that we can argue that he avoids using the term in the early chapters of
Acts, we can strongly suggest that his actual usage reflects the development
of the use of . That is, it was not used in the very earliest period
after the resurrection, but its use emerged as time progressed. This careful
presentation by Luke would also suggest that the geography of its usage
might be reliable – that it did emerge in Jerusalem. I will revisit these
suggestions in the next section.
5.6 origin of the christian usage of

Can we ascertain when the early Christians first used , where this
may have occurred, and why they chose this word?
5.6.1 Signs of the early use of , in Paul and Acts

Our earliest NT usage of is of course in Paul’s writings. Paul
refers to his activity as a persecutor in Gal :,  Cor :, and Phil :
 Seccombe : –; also : . Seccombe also notes (: ) that the variant readings in
:,  are ‘testimony to the difficulty Greek readers experienced with the awkward way Luke
uses + ( #, and alerts us to the fact that he was deliberately avoiding using , at the
same time as he wished to stress the close association of the believers’.
 See + ( # in :; :, ,  (on which see Seccombe : ); see also :, ; :, .
 Campbell : .  We will argue in section . that its use is pre-Pauline.
 The assembly – ,
and in the first two passages he says he persecuted ‘the assembly of God
( * *)’ while in Phil : he simply says he persecuted
‘the assembly’. Roloff suggests that in speaking of * *, Paul
‘takes up the self-designation of the early Jerusalem church as “the church of
God” . . . [O]ne may proceed with the assumption that * *
(qe hal ‘el) was first a self-designation of the early community coming into
existence after Easter.’ A number of other scholars agree that here Paul
is citing an existing way in which the Christians in Jerusalem referred to
themselves. While it is hard to say that the exact phrase ‘ *
*’ was being used prior to Paul, since in Phil : he simply writes of being
a persecutor of ‘the assembly’, that Paul uses when talking
about his activity as a persecutor suggests he is recalling a designation used
by the group he persecuted.
Gal : reinforces the likelihood that was first used as a self-
designation in Jerusalem and Judea. There we read: ‘and I was still unknown
by sight to the assemblies of Judea that are in Christ (/
12 / )’. Paul is referring here to a time three years after
his Damascus Road experience (Gal :), and so to a very early period.
As Dunn notes, this passage implies that ‘Paul’s usage was not original to
him or to his mission’. That in these four passages Paul chose to use
rather than ‘the saints’, or ‘the brothers and sisters’ (although I
have argued that both of these designations were in use) suggests the origin
of the term in pre-Pauline Christianity and that was applied to
the Jerusalem ‘assembly’ and to those in Judea.
 Roloff in EDNT i: .

 See Harnack :  n; TDNT iii: ; Hainz : , ; Merklein : –; Krauss
: ; Donfried : , ; Hengel and Schwemer : ; Stegemann and Stegemann
: ; du Toit : . Schnelle (: , ) does not think that the pre-Christian Paul
persecuted Jewish Christian Hellenists in Jerusalem and so Paul’s use of of those he
persecuted would not be evidence for the use of the term in Jerusalem (see below). Schnelle argues
for this primarily on the basis of Gal :: ‘I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea.’
However, Gal : may indicate that Paul only persecuted Hellenists who then fled beyond Judea
(Dunn : ), or it may be that there was ‘a persecution within Judea, directed by Saul/Paul
but involving minimal face-to-face contact with those affected’ (Dunn : ; see also –;
Hengel : –; Hengel and Schwemer : –). Hence Paul could say he was unknown by
sight there. We have no reason, then, to doubt that Paul persecuted Hellenists in Jerusalem. Gal
:–, with mention of ‘the assemblies of Judea’ with reference to Paul’s pre-Christian activity
as a persecutor, suggests that was used more widely than just of Jerusalem at this very
early point; see du Toit :  n. So we should not think (as Hainz : – does) that
* * was originally a technical term for the Jerusalem assembly alone.
 Schnelle :  n notes that * * ‘is only found in Paul . . . and in literature
dependent on him’ (with references); but my argument below does not depend on the exact phrase
* * being used by the Hellenists.
 Dunn : . Note also  Thess :.
Origin of the Christian usage of 
The usage in Acts discussed in the previous section is also relevant here.
As I noted, the first time Luke uses is in Acts : of the assembly in
Jerusalem; he then uses it of the ‘congregation in the wilderness’ in Stephen’s
speech in Acts :. The assembly in Jerusalem is spoken of in Acts :, ;
:; :, ; :,  (and probably in :), sometimes using the actual
phrase, ‘the assembly in Jerusalem’ (Acts :; :). Further, in Acts :
we read of: ‘the assembly/church throughout Judea, Galilee, and Samaria’
and from : onwards Luke speaks of the assembly in Antioch (:;
:; :; :) and elsewhere. Thus, at first, Luke associates
with Jerusalem and the surrounding region on a number of occasions.
This could be anachronistic, but given that Paul also uses of
Jerusalem and Judea, this is confirmation that the term applied to an early,
pre-Pauline period.
However, I have already noted that Luke does not use ‘the assembly’ until
Acts , and really only regularly from Acts  onwards. This suggests it was
not used in the very earliest days, but that after the passage of some time it
was used in Jerusalem (as confirmed by Paul’s usage) and then elsewhere.
5.6.2 Who used it first, and where? 

It has often been argued that was first used as a self-designation
in Jerusalem by the Hellenists, who are first referred to in Acts :.
The Jerusalem ‘Hellenists’ are best understood as Jewish Christians who
spoke only Greek and understood little or no Aramaic, in contrast to
the ‘Hebrews’ who spoke Aramaic as their mother tongue as well as at
least some Greek. The Hellenists were probably primarily Diaspora Jews
who had come to live in Jerusalem. These linguistic differences led the
two groups to worship separately and to develop significantly different
emphases in their theology and practice.
We have good grounds for the historicity of the Hellenists. Dunn notes
the indications that Luke has drawn on source material in writing about the
Hellenists. He notes, for example, as four of thirteen points, that Luke
 Pervo (:  n) thinks this with regard to Acts :.  See Fitzmyer a: .
 Originally published as ‘Why Did the Early Christians Call Themselves ?’ which
appeared in New Testament Studies  (): –.
 See Campbell : ; Hengel : ; Lohfink : ; Klauck : ; du Toit : .
 See Hengel : –; Koch : –; Dunn : –. Given that Greek was quite
commonly used in Jerusalem, it is unlikely that the Hebrews did not know any Greek. See also
Acts : where the reference is to Greek-speaking Jews; in : the reference is to Greek-speaking
Gentiles; on the textual issue there see Barrett : –.
 See also Acts :; :–.  See Dunn : –; see also .
 The assembly – ,
is unlikely to have introduced the notes of dissension between Hebrews
and Hellenists without some source, that since Luke is not interested in
five of the seven people named in Acts : they probably came to him from
a source, that the opposition to Stephen comes from other Hellenists (see
:–) not the high priestly authorities as in Acts –, and that ‘various
linguistic peculiarities suggest a vocabulary provided by others’. Acts :
with its reference to a synagogue for those who returned to Jerusalem
from the Diaspora also supports the existence of the Jewish Christian
Hellenists in Jerusalem.
Several points suggest that the use of originated with the
Jerusalem Hellenists in particular. First, I have already noted that Paul
uses when writing of those he persecuted; it seems likely that
Paul persecuted the Hellenists in Jerusalem in particular, rather than all of
the earliest Christians, and so he is recalling an early designation of the
Hellenists when speaking of his persecution. Secondly, the Hellenists are
first mentioned in Acts :, and, as we have noted, Luke first uses
in Acts :, and only regularly from Acts : onwards (recall that very
little time elapses between Acts : and :), so this, again, is in keeping
with the Hellenists developing the term. Finally, we have no evidence for
an underlying Aramaic term; the designation seems to have first emerged
as the Greek term , rather than this being a translation of an
earlier Aramaic designation. This evidence is in keeping with the term
originating with the Hellenists, who are clearly associated with Jerusalem
in Acts .
 Dunn : ; with regard to vocabulary, for example, the only time the apostles are called ‘the
twelve’ in Acts is in :, ‘full of the Spirit’ is only found in this material (:, , :) and '"
is characteristic of it (:; :, ; :). See also Barrett : , who notes that Luke here
follows a ‘fresh tradition’ and concludes that Luke ‘did not invent the fact that in the early years
in Jerusalem there were Greek-speaking Jews who became Christians’.
 Catto (: –) and Runesson, Binder, and Olsson (: ) discuss whether this verse refers
to one or more ‘synagogues’.
 In support of the historicity of the Hellenists in Jerusalem see Lūdemann : –; Seland :
–; Schnelle : –; Dunn : –. On Penner’s view (: , see further –
) that ‘there are serious difficulties in attempting to reconstruct any type of original situation’
behind Acts , see Dunn :  n and Koch :  n. Hill  downplays the degree
of factionalism between Hebrews and Hellenists, but on his work see Dunn : –; Elmer
: –.
 See Dunn : –.  See du Toit :  n.
 An alternative is that the term emerged among Hellenists in Antioch, since they are probably also
to be associated with the start of the Christian mission in that city (see Acts :–). However,
this is considerably less likely in view of the implicit or explicit association of with
Jerusalem and Judea in a range of texts ( Cor :; Gal :, ; Phil :;  Thess :; Acts :;
:; :; :). Further, if the term did emerge in Jerusalem with the Hellenists, it would clearly
travel with them to Antioch (see EDNT i: ), so its early and continued use there too would not
be surprising.
Origin of the Christian usage of 
5.6.3 Why did the Hellenists call themselves , ?

The use of , a term used in the LXX of ‘the assembly’ of Israel
as we have seen, clearly expressed the Hellenists’ theological conviction
that their group was in continuity with that assembly of Yahweh. As Dunn
notes, that it was first used in Jerusalem ‘implied the special status of the
Jerusalem church as the focus and conduit of this continuity with the
assembly of Yahweh and Israel’. But can we say more about why the
Hellenists called themselves ?
First, Roloff thought * * could translate la lhq, which he
thought was attested in apocalyptic Judaism as a term for the eschatological
company of God, as evidenced by QM : and QSa :. Roloff thought
this would explain why the NT used * * rather than
the LXX’s (a translation of hwhy lhq): the source of the
NT’s usage was not the LXX but apocalyptic Judaism. However, I have
given an alternative explanation for Paul’s preference for *
* over the LXX’s (see ..). We do not need to
invoke the usage of la lhq in apocalyptic Judaism in order to explain
NT usage of * *. Further, we now know that la lhq is
not actually found at QSa : and so is very weakly attested at Qumran,
and Schrage notes that has no clear eschatological colouring in
the LXX.
Secondly, did the Hellenists choose because of its use in the
Greco-Roman city? Becker, for example, argues that this usage was a cru-
cial factor in the adoption of by Christians. With regard to
Paul’s usage of , we cannot rule out that the term had political
overtones for Paul which enhanced its use, although in Paul’s writings
there is no explicit discussion of the alternative ideas associated with the
Greco-Roman usage of , he never associates the word with other
political language and he sets up no explicit antithesis of one
against another, all of which suggests that its Greco-Roman meaning was
not critical for its adoption by Paul.
 Dunn : .

 EDNT i: . He understands la lhq as a technicus terminus based on Qumran usage, but this
seems very unlikely. See also Donfried : . Fitzmyer a:  similarly notes the use of
la lhq in QM : and comments: ‘A Palestinian Jewish religious use of qahal, even implying a
relation to the OT expression of “the congregation of the people of God” (Judg :), is thus seen
as the background to the Christian use of the Greek ekklēsia.’ However, although the use of qahal
and then in the LXX is very important, there is no reason to argue for the influence of
usage at Qumran here.
 Schrage : .  Becker : .  See also Dunn : .
 The assembly – ,
However, in the case of the Hellenists, it is very unlikely that the term’s
political overtones were significant since in their context in Jerusalem there
was no civic polis; in Jerusalem has much stronger biblical
and textual connotations, rather than contemporary and political ones.
So while it seems clear that Paul took the use of over from the
Hellenists and in his contexts it may take on additional political overtones
(although there is surprisingly no direct evidence for this), taking the
Jerusalem context of the Hellenists seriously means that we cannot explain
its adoption there by invoking the usage of in the Greco-Roman
polis (no matter how Hellenised some Jews were in Judea). In arguing that
the usage of in the Greco-Roman city was a crucial factor in its
adoption by Christians, Becker thus overlooks the strong connection of
the term in Christian use with Jerusalem and Judea.
It is more likely that the use of in the LXX was the most
crucial factor. But we have noted that both and are
regularly found with reference to the ‘assembly’ or ‘gathering’ of the people
of Israel in the LXX. Given this usage, it seems clear that the Hellenists
could have chosen either or as a self-designation for
their meetings and for their group, in order to express their continuity with
the OT ‘assembly’. The key question becomes why the Hellenists chose
rather than .
Why did the Hellenists choose over against (( ?

Various explanations of this choice have been offered. First, it has been sug-
gested that the Hellenists chose rather than because
of the way the former was used in the LXX. However, the two terms are
more or less synonymous.
Secondly, what about the use of either term with or ? If
the Hellenists wished to emphasise that they were a gathering ‘of God’,
which term would they use? is found with only in Ps :
(LXX) where we read: ‘God stood in a gathering of gods ( ( &
34 ,)’. Here the reference is to the ‘council of God’ in heaven
and not to an earthly ‘gathering’. * is only found in Neh. ::
‘it was found written that no Ammonite or Moabite should ever enter the
 For discussion see Tcherikover : –; Schūrer, Vermes, Millar, and Black : , –,
–.
 Cadbury : – suggests with regard to that it was: ‘its LXX associations of dignity
and of intimate relation with God rather than the usages of secular Greek, or any memory of
etymology, that gave the term its appropriateness’. But this does not explain the use of
over , since both terms had associations of ‘intimate relation[s] with God’, and if
anything, since was used from Gen–Deut :, it was stronger in this regard.
Origin of the Christian usage of 
assembly of God ( *)’. So neither term stands out with regard
to its use with .
When it comes to use with , is found seven
times (Deut :, ,  (twice), ;  Chron :; Mic :), and
is also found seven times (Num :; :; :; :; Josh :–
(twice); in Num : it is < ), so there is almost nothing
to choose between the terms in this regard. It seems unlikely then that a
factor in the choice of over was the particular phrases
in which either term was used in the LXX. As du Toit notes ‘there seems to
be, theologically speaking, no convincing reason why the one was preferred
to the other’.
Thirdly, Schrage suggested that the early Christians did not adopt the
term because of the particular associations of that term in
contemporary Judaism, especially with regard to the centrality of the law
and law observance in the contemporary Jewish ‘synagogue’. However,
itself as a term is closely associated with the law in its use in the
LXX (e.g., Deut :, :, :, , , ; Josh :;  Chron :; Neh :;
:). If the early Christians had wished to find a term for their ‘assembly’
that did not have strong connotations with regard to the centrality of the
law, then we can suggest that they would have avoided altogether.
It seems much more likely that we should seek a simpler explanation
for the Christian use of rather than : they adopted
because the more prominent term in the LXX – –
was already in use. While others have noted this view, it has not been
argued for in detail, nor has all the evidence for this explanation been
considered. In addition, the implications of this choice have not been fully
explored.
But we should not think that was unattractive as a term
for the Hellenists. P was used in eschatological contexts in the
LXX, in a way that was not (with the single exception of Joel
:). Thus in Ezek : is used: ‘And I prophesied just as he
 See Schrage : .  Du Toit : .
 See Schrage : –; see also TDNT vii: .
 See Berger :  and n; also Beker : . See also Philo, Post. ; Her. ; Decal. 
(where is associated with Torah by Philo); Josephus, Ant. :–, .
 Strecker :  n comments with regard to the use of : ‘Since, however, at
the time of Paul this expression had already been practically monopolized by Hellenistic Judaism,
the Christian community had to use the less precise ekklesia.’ However, I do not think that
was any ‘less precise’. Note also Stendahl :  with regard to the use of :
‘And, after all, the alternative synagoge was otherwise occupied.’ See also Beker : –; Thrall
: –; McCready : .
 See Schrage : –.
 The assembly – ,
commanded me. And the breath came into them, and they lived and stood
upon their feet, a very great gathering (< < ).’ Also
Isa :–: ‘I will bring them into my holy mountain . . . said the Lord,
who gathers ( ") the dispersed of Israel – for I will gather to him
a gathering (R "% L #( ).’ A range of other texts
could be cited. The reason for this eschatological use in the LXX is not
inherent in the meaning of but rather is caused by the fact that
is used in the translations of the Prophets in the LXX, to the
virtual exclusion of . We can suggest that such eschatological
use of could have been a very positive feature of the word for
the Hellenists, adding force to the need to find an explanation for why
they did not use it.
I will now seek to show that was already in use by contem-
porary Jewish communities and will suggest that this led the Hellenists to
use the other term that was found in the LXX – .
Contemporary Jewish communities were already using ((

As I have noted, is found  times in the LXX to speak of a
‘gathering’, ‘congregation’, or ‘assembly’, as a translation of hd[ and lhq.
It is used especially for ‘the congregation of Israel’ (see, e.g., Lev :; Deut
:;  Chron :), and in phrases like the ‘whole congregation of the sons
of Israel’ (see Exod :, , ; :–, ; :; Lev :; Num :; :). It is
very closely associated with the covenant people in Exodus, Leviticus, and
Numbers, and in the Prophets. I have also noted that and
are basically synonymous in the LXX.
While debate continues about the origin of the ‘synagogue’ building,
it is clear that with the meaning of ‘gathering’ or ‘congrega-
tion’ was used before it had the sense of ‘building (in which we gather)’.
 See also Isa :; Jer :, ; Ezek :, ; PsSol :–. Schrage (: ) notes that the lack
of use of in the NT is made even more surprising by the fact that some of these verses,
which use in an eschatological context, are actually quoted in the NT; thus Ezek :
is quoted in Rev : and Isa : in Mark :.
 In the Prophets, is only found in Joel :, Mic :, and Lam :. There are other
uses of that may well have made the word very attractive to someone like Paul; see,
e.g., the phrase ‘< ,’ in Gen :; :; :; cf. Rom :; see also Schrage :
. However, that Paul does not use the term, despite such promising usage in the LXX, can be
explained by its contemporary use by Jewish communities, as I will argue below.
 Many texts could be cited; see, e.g., Exod :, ; :, , , , , , ; Lev :–, ; Num :,
, ; :, , , , , , –; Deut :; :; Isa :–; Ezek :.
 On the origin of the ‘synagogue’ see Binder ; Runesson ; Olsson and Zetterholm ;
Catto . ' was the earliest term used for ‘the building’, and hence for a physical
‘synagogue’, in the third century bce in Egypt; see JIGRE : (– bce; Claussen :
). On the range of terms used for the ‘synagogue’ building see Binder : –.
Origin of the Christian usage of 
P with the sense of ‘congregation’ is found throughout the LXX
including later texts such as  Macc :; :; :; :; Sir :; :; :;
:; :; :; :; :; :; Sus , as well as in the Pseudepigrapha
in texts such as TLevi :; Ps Sol :; :, –. P is not used
for a place of assembly in the LXX or the Pseudepigrapha. While Philo
uses with reference to a building as we will shortly see, he
also uses the term of ‘the congregation’ of Israel four times, in quotations
of Num :– in Agr.  and Post. . Four inscriptions from the
Bosporus Kingdom, dating from  ce to the second century ce, call the
congregation and the building ' .
Alongside this Jewish use of for a ‘gathering’ or ‘congrega-
tion’, which is by far the earliest use and goes back to the LXX, we have
the growing use of the term for a building. Around  ce Philo writes of
Essenes calling their sacred places : ‘For that day [the seventh]
has been set apart to be kept holy and on it they abstain from all other
work and proceed to sacred spots which they call synagogues (G
). There, arranged in rows according to their ages, the younger below
the elder, they sit decorously as befits the occasion with attentive ears.’
Clearly refers to ‘synagogue’ buildings here; we have good rea-
son to think that there were Essene communities in and around Jerusalem,
so there could have been Essene ‘synagogues’ in this area.
The Theodotos inscription (CIJ .) uses with the clear
sense of a building, with reference to Jerusalem. Kee had suggested a mid
to late third-century ce date for this inscription, but Kloppenborg has
argued convincingly for a pre- ce dating. The inscription describes
 On see TDNT vii: –; Binder : –. Binder (: ) thinks the one
possible exception is Sus  in OG.
 Josephus writes of a ‘ ’ of books in Ant. : and of water in Ant. :. He also uses
the term of buildings as we will shortly see.
 See IJO . BS  ( ce); IJO . BS  ( ce); IJO . BS  (late first–early second century ce (?));
IJO . BS  (first–second century ce); see Noy, Panayotov, and Bloedhorn : –, –;
BS  is from Phanagoria and BS – from Panticapaeum.
 Prob. ; see also Binder : ; Kloppenborg : –. Philo also uses ' ; see, e.g.,
Flacc. , –. In Somn. . and Leg. – Philo uses ; see Binder : –
who argues that it was a term used of the Jewish meeting place by outsiders.
 See CD :; Philo, Prob. ; Hypoth. :; Bauckham (b: ) notes ‘I think it likely that there
was an Essene locality in the southwest corner of Jerusalem’, which explains the name ‘Gate of
the Essenes’ in Josephus J.W. :; he gives a full discussion of the debate on –. For other
evidence for Essenes in Jerusalem see Philo apud Eusebius, PE :; Josephus Ant. :–; B.J.
:; see also Binder : –; Capper : –.
 Kee : ; on Kee’s work see Kloppenborg : –.
 See Kloppenborg : –. His case is cumulative and involves the provenance of the inscrip-
tion, references to datable people and palaeography. He notes (): ‘The nature of the archaeo-
logical evidence makes it extremely difficult to imagine the presence of a building on the south
 The assembly – ,
Theodotos, who seems to have rebuilt and enlarged the synagogue, as ‘son
of an archisynagōgos and grandson of an archisynagōgos’ and ends by
speaking of the ‘synagogue’ ‘which his fathers founded (g []
) []#*) with the elders and Simonides’. The
building then was founded a number of decades prior to the time when the
Theodotos inscription was written. Kloppenborg notes therefore that the
inscription ‘attests a synagogue building in Jerusalem, probably constructed
in the early first century ce or perhaps the latter part of the first century
bce’.
Further, CJZC  from Bernike, Cyrenaica, dated – ce, uses G
of both the congregation and the building. A little later, Jose-
phus uses of a building in Ant. :,  (Dora); B.J. :,
 (Caesarea); B.J. : (Antioch). The Gospels also give evidence for
used of buildings (e.g., Mark :; :, ; :–; Matt :;
Luke :; :; :), as does Acts (: and probably :). Although it
has been argued that this usage is anachronistic (particularly by Kee),
this has not been generally accepted, and in a number of these passages
clearly refers to a building. In others, such as Acts :, the
sense of ‘gathering’ or ‘community’ continues (cf. :).
Binder concludes his discussion of this evidence:
synagōgē came first to signify the larger congregation of Israel, then individual
congregations, and, last of all, the buildings wherein the congregations met. Exactly
when synagōgē was undergoing the metonymic process is unclear. Given the
numerous uses of this word for a building in the first century ce, a dating of about
a century earlier seems most likely for Syro-Palestine. Outside of that region,
end of the eastern ridge of the Ophel [where the inscription was discovered] at any time after 
ce.’ See also Binder : –; Riesner : –; Runesson, Binder, and Olsson : –.
On the debate about whether pre- public assembly halls in Judea and Galilee are ‘synagogue’
buildings see Dunn a: –; Kloppenborg : –; Runesson, Binder, and Olsson
: –. Note that the first century bce or ce buildings which were probably ‘synagogues’ at
Modi’in and Qiryat Sefer (Runesson, Binder, and Olsson : –, –) are reasonably close
to Jerusalem. On the debate between White and Runesson about the dating of the important
Ostia synagogue see Catto : – and the literature cited there; the building was probably
originally constructed as a synagogue in the second half of the first century ce.
 See Kloppenborg :  and n.  Kloppenborg : .
 See Kloppenborg : –.
 On these see Binder : –, who argues that they reflect the situation pre- ce. Claussen
:  n: ‘It is worth noticing that Josephus nearly always uses when he refers to
synagogues in Israel. The only exception is the ' in Tiberias (Life , , ).’ See
also Kloppenborg : –. Jewish War was written in the mid-s, Jewish Antiquities in the
mid-s (see Kloppenborg : ). Note that BJ : refers to the second century bce.
 See Kee : .  See Claussen : –; Dunn a: ; Catto : –.
 Mark :; Luke :; :; :.
Origin of the Christian usage of 
synagōgē appears to refer to a building only beginning in the first half of the first
century ce, though an earlier date cannot be ruled out.
With regard to Jerusalem and Judea then, it seems clear that by the s ce
was regularly in use by Jewish communities of their ‘gathering’
or ‘congregation’ but almost certainly also of their buildings. Particular
local evidence for this is the Theodotos inscription and Philo’s mention of
Essene ‘synagogues’.
The choice made by the Hellenists to use

I suggest that as time went on, a collective label with the meaning of
‘gathering’ or ‘community’ was needed by the early Jewish Christians –
probably the Hellenists – in order to speak of themselves as ‘a group’;
this would simply be a linguistic necessity, and it was probably among the
Hellenists that the sense of being a separate group, with an identity that
was quite distinctive in comparison with the wider Jewish community,
first developed. Of course, the Hellenists will still have seen themselves as
within that wider Jewish community, and will have continued to think of
themselves as Jews; I will suggest that those who chose to use the designation
of saw themselves as part of two groups simultaneously –
and . Given that the Jewish Christian Hellenists
saw themselves as part of and in continuity with Israel, the most obvious
place to look for a collective label with the meaning of ‘gathering’ was the
LXX. I suggest that the strongest contender for a ‘collective group label’
in the LXX was . It was the most common way in the LXX of
speaking of Israel ‘gathered together’. However, was already in
use by ‘non-Christian’ Jews of their ‘gathering’, with the meaning of both
‘the community which gathers’ and ‘the building in which they gather’.
Hence I suggest the Hellenists opted for – the somewhat less
common term in the LXX, although still found quite extensively.
But why did the Hellenists in Jerusalem not use as well as
and alongside the ongoing Jewish use of ? They could certainly
have done so, particularly by adding some form of additional designation.
Recall Acts :: ‘Then some of those who belonged to the synagogue of the
 Binder : –. See also Runesson, Binder, and Olsson :  who note that
(when compared to ' ) ‘appears to have held the widest currency inside Palestine during
the Second Temple period’. Note that is very rarely used for Christian communities;
see T. Benj. :–; Ign. Pol. :; Justin, Dial. :; see Lieu : .
 The argument of Schrage : – that the influence of the LXX was minor, and that
* * was primarily a Christian creation (rather than being based on the LXX) has
not proved convincing; see, e.g., du Toit : –.
 The assembly – ,
Freedmen (as it was called), Cyrenians, Alexandrians, and others of those
from Cilicia and Asia.’ We also have a number of examples of ‘named’
‘synagogues’ in Rome; Lampe suggests that in the first century ce there
were five such including the of the Hebrews, and
of the Vernaculi. Hence the Hellenists could have called themselves ‘
of the Lord Jesus Christ’, or ‘ of the believers’ or
some such label.
But as far as we are aware, this route was not taken, with Jas : being
the single exceptional use of for a Christian assembly. It
seems that ‘sharing’ was regarded as problematic in a way
that sharing the use of some other self-designations (such as ‘brothers and
sisters’) was not. It is relatively easy to see why this was the case. Given
that came to function as a public and proper name in a vicinity
for both a group and a building, it would be important for the Hellenists to
be able to distinguish themselves from such a group and so joint use of this
self-designation would be problematic. The Jewish Christian Hellenists
would want to say, ‘We are “us”, (although we are also part of “them”)’,
and the collective noun used needed to express this distinctiveness. Further,
one can designate oneself internally as ‘ ’ without claiming that
you are the only ones who can use that label. Joint Jewish Christian use
of with Jewish communities is thus non-problematic – the
designation was not functioning as a public, proper name among Jews at
the time. But it is more problematic when had come to be
used as a public, collective noun in the way that our evidence reveals.
The Theodotos inscription indicates just this sort of ‘public’ use of
as a name in Jerusalem. We are told that Theodotos ‘built
the assembly hall (< ) for the reading of the Law and for
the teaching of the commandments and the guest room, the chambers,
and the water fittings, as an inn for those in need from foreign parts, (the
synagogue) which his fathers founded with the elders and Simonides’.
This makes it clear that the whole complex was a very public building, which
offered accommodation for Jews who lived beyond Jerusalem’s immediate
environs. Further, as Kloppenborg notes: ‘Although the first portion of
the inscription describes various portions of the building, the final relative
 See Lampe :  and n; the other three were of the Augustenses, the Aprippenses, and the
Volumnenses.
 On this see section . below.
 Note the very limited use of in the Apostolic Fathers; see Ign. Pol. :; Herm. Mand.
:, , ; see also Irenaeus, Haer. ..–.
 Translation from Kloppenborg : –.
Origin of the Christian usage of 
clause (hēn ethemel[iō]san . . . ) treats all these features collectively, as part
of the synagōgē.’ We can suggest that functions here as a
public and prominent proper name – travellers would go looking for ‘
’, part of which offered accommodation. And as noted earlier,
the inscription gives evidence for a ‘synagogue’ building which was almost
certainly constructed prior to Jesus’ lifetime.
We can suggest then that a term which was as public and prominent
as would be well recognised in Jerusalem – people would
know of its current use, and current reference to particular ‘gatherings’
and to particular places. Philo’s mention of Essene , which
probably included buildings in the vicinity of Jerusalem, reinforces this,
as does the reference to the synagogue in Jerusalem in Acts :. We can
understand, then, why Hellenists in Jerusalem would want to use a term
that was different from such a public collective term as .
Of course other (non-Christian) Jews could have used for
their gatherings, as well as ; it simply seems that, as far as we
know, none of them were using with reference to a contemporary
‘assembly’ in the way they were using , and thus that
was ‘free’.
Accordingly, I suggest the Hellenists in Jerusalem chose
because the main alternative term, , was already in public use
and because was the most obvious alternative collective self-
designation. It had the same sort of positive features as –
primarily a strong LXX background. But it also had the key advantage that
 Kloppenborg :  n.

 Not all Jewish communities seem to have used since other terms were used too; but
that was used in such a public way, including in Jerusalem, is our concern here.
 Even if (as seems unlikely) Acts : refers to a community and not a building (see TDNT vii:
; Catto : – for discussion of this), it is still relevant here since the location is clearly
Jerusalem and ‘the synagogue of . . . ’ seems to be a known title. Note that Acts : and :–
show that Luke clearly thought that in Paul’s time there were several ‘synagogue’ buildings in
Jerusalem.
 In the Greco-Roman world was used by groups other than Jews; see LSJ: ; TDNT
vii: –; New Docs : ; New Docs : . But this wider use would be much less significant in
Jerusalem than the Jewish use of .
 does not feature among the terms used by Jewish communities for themselves and their
buildings discussed by Binder : –; see also von Harnack :  n. With reference
to the present, Josephus uses of ad hoc ‘assemblies’ rather than as a name for ‘the
community’, in the way was used; see Ant. :; J.W. :, , ; :, , ;
:; Life .
 Another option here may have been , but it did not have the sense of a ‘gathering’ or ‘assembly’
that was present with both and , so may have been discounted because of
this.
 The assembly – ,
it was ‘not in use’, apart from in the polis. Further, it became a way to
distinguish themselves from , which we can understand was
both desirable and necessary.
There are two NT passages which suggest that was chosen as
an alternative to and in order to avoid . These are
not connected with the Hellenists, and reflect Luke’s usage (probably in
the s), but that in these passages is found, when
was the obvious word to use, adds weight to my argument. First, in Acts
: Luke has Stephen saying: ‘He [Moses] is the one who was in the
congregation in the wilderness ( 34 34 ) with the
angel who spoke to him at Mount Sinai, and with our ancestors.’ As I have
noted, in Stephen’s speech, Luke is developing a typological relationship
between Moses, who is rejected by the people (:–, –) but who is
to be ruler and deliverer (:), and Jesus, who is similarly rejected (:) but
who is ‘Leader and Saviour’ (:). This involves developing a typological
relationship between the wilderness ‘assembly’ on Mount Sinai with Moses
(Acts :), and Christ and the ‘assembly ()’, first mentioned in
Acts : and then regularly from Acts :. But the LXX only uses
and & together in  Chron :. By contrast, and &
are found together in the LXX in Exod :, , ; :; Num :; :,
; :, ; :, ; :; Sir :. In addition, the first occurrence of
in the LXX is in Deut :, with being used right
through Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, with a total of  occurrences
in these three books. It would seem that Luke has introduced in
this context in Acts :, when the LXX would normally use
with regard to the time in the wilderness. Why? We can suggest that Luke
does not want to use at this point; this would be to use the
word Jewish communities were using for their contemporary ‘gatherings’,
and in the passage in Acts  he is drawing a typology between Moses and
Jesus. So Luke must use and avoid , and thus make
a connection with the Christian use of . This is evidence in
favour of our proposal therefore.
 That was known in the Greco-Roman world and so was a familiar term to new Gentile
converts (see, e.g., Klauck : ; Stegemann and Stegemann : ) may have facilitated
its use in the Pauline mission, and elsewhere, but I have argued above that because the term was
adopted in Jerusalem by the Hellenists, the LXX is the most important background. But this very
familiarity in the Greco-Roman world could lead to confusion (which ‘assembly’ are you talking
about?) and Paul’s usage of the term in the address of his letters can be seen to be implicitly
addressing this at times; see further Donfried : .
 See du Toit : .  See Seccombe : –.
 Schrage in TDNT vii:  n hints at this: ‘It is of interest that though is not used in
Ex.-Nu. the wilderness community is in Ac ..’ I suggest this reflects Luke’s deliberate
choice against the term . See also Seccombe : .
Origin of the Christian usage of 
There is a second and similar example in Acts :. Here, Luke has
Paul say: ‘Keep watch over yourselves and over all the flock . . . to shepherd
the assembly of God ( < * *) that he obtained
with the blood of his own Son.’ The strongest OT parallel is Isa :, with
its image of God redeeming Israel. But there is also an allusion to Ps :,
‘which significantly follows a verse in which Israel is likened to a flock’. Ps
:– (MT) reads: ‘Why does your anger smoke against the sheep of your
pasture? Remember your congregation (^td[ rkz), which you acquired
long ago, which you redeemed to be the tribe of your heritage.’
However, in the LXX, Ps : reads: ‘ ’.
It seems clear that, while Luke has made an allusion to Ps : (LXX), he
has amended to . We may again suggest that this is
because of a deliberate choice against the word ; it was currently
used by the Jewish community, so Luke needs to change to
the Christian alternative, , when he is discussing the ‘gathering’
that was obtained by Christ’s blood. In so doing, he made a link with the
ongoing Christian use of , but he also avoided the term currently
in use in Jewish communities. Of course, what we are seeing here is Luke’s
usage, but this suggests that a Christian author writing towards the end of
the first century might have had the same sorts of reason for the choice
of as the original Hellenists. This comparative evidence thus
backs up the suggestion that the Hellenists used so as to avoid
.
Implications of the use of and the avoidance of ((

That both and were terms from the LXX for the
‘assembly’ of Yahweh is crucial here. The Jewish Christian Hellenists could
use to claim theological continuity with the OT people of God,
without thereby saying that other Jews were not the OT people of God.
If there had been but one LXX term for ‘the assembly/gathering’, then the
Hellenists, in taking over that one ‘proper name’, could have been making
the claim that ‘we are the true assembly of God; you (other “Jews”) are not’.
But given that there were two terms with very similar backgrounds, the use
by the Hellenists of the term that was not currently in use in Jerusalem
as a name for a Jewish community (as far as we can tell) was a way of
distinguishing themselves from without claiming to replace
‘the synagogue’ as ‘the people of God’, either textually or historically. They
were simply adopting an alternative term. I suggest that this sort of logic
 Marshall : ; see also Barrett : .

 See Binder :  n; see also TDNT vii:  n.  Cf. Lohfink : .
 The assembly – ,
may well have been crucial in adopting in the first place. This
also means that the adoption of by the Hellenists did not involve
taking a polemical stance over against the Jewish use of . This is
in accordance with the recognition that there is no evidence for a polemical
use of by the early Christians, which in turn suggests the adoption
of the term was not contentious.
The use of in this way by Jewish Christian Hellenists also does
not mean that those who used as a self-designation were no longer
part of . can be used as an additional designation –
we are part of ‘ ’ but we are also part of ‘ ’ which
is forming within it. The use of a different collective noun is crucial at
this point. It is quite straightforward for a person or a group of people
to belong to two groups with different self-designations simultaneously.
This is clearly what Paul wants to do. Since there are two different (but
strongly connected) collective names for the two groups, he can do this in
a quite straightforward way. We can suggest that the Hellenists saw things
similarly. So we should not think that the evolution of another public and
collective label for ‘the Christian group’ suggested the early Christians only
belonged to one group.
5.7 ephesians
is found nine times in Ephesians (:; :, ; :, , , ,
, ), and ‘the assembly’ or ‘the church’ can be seen as the central theme
of the letter, with much of its content related to this topic.
is always used with the sense of ‘the universal church’, rather than with
reference to a congregation, although this is understandable if the letter
was written to a general Christian audience rather than to a group of
congregations, as seems likely. As Best notes, ‘In doing this he [the
 See Dunn : ; Beker : –. Schrage (: –) notes that the only OT passage
containing that is used in the NT is Ps : (LXX :) quoted in Heb :, and there
the emphasis is not on but on ‘/ / ’.
 Rom – indicates this most clearly, where Paul shows that he still sees himself as part of ‘Israel’
(the designation he uses most often in the passage, e.g., :, , , ; :, ; :, , , ,
, ), whilst clearly belonging to the ‘Christian group’. In  Cor :– he also shows that he
continues to see himself as ‘a Jew’;  Cor : with its mention of the thirty-nine lashes from the
Jewish also indicates this. One could also imagine that Paul might have hoped a whole
would accept his message, at which point they could be called both and
; see Seccombe : .
 See Best : . On the ‘church’ in Ephesians see TDNT iii: –; Best : –, and
the literature referred to there.
 Muddiman : , .  See Best : .
The Pastorals 
author] might have conceived of the whole church as the sum total of
a number of local communities; instead he thinks of it as the sum total
of believers.’ This dimension of universality is also emphasised by the
fact that the author always speaks simply of , and never adds
a genitive or dative expression. Accordingly, we do need to write of ‘the
church’ in this section, rather than ‘the assembly’, since the latter does
not have the sense of universality which is clearly implied by the usage in
Ephesians.
The church is Christ’s body in Ephesians (:–; :) but Christ is also
the Head of the church (:) and he fills the church (:). There is thus
a very close association between Christ and . In Eph :–, the
church is conceived of as a ‘third people’, consisting of believing Jews and
Gentiles, reconciled to God in one body (:), which is the church (:).
The church is also Christ’s wife or bride (:–), as well as a building
(:–). The Spirit is at work in the church and gives it its unity (:–;
:; :; :–).
It is through the church that ‘the wisdom of God in its rich variety
might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly
places’ (Eph :). The church, which is an agent of revelation, has a cosmic
dimension (see also :), and in Eph : believers are said to be already
sitting in the heavenly places in Christ. In Eph : and : we see that for
the author, the membership of the church includes heavenly beings.
There is considerable development here compared with the undisputed
Paulines, with becoming a strongly theologically charged term.
As a self-designation, it emphasises participation in a universal entity that
has cosmic significance.
5.8 the pastorals

is found three times in the Pastorals. In  Tim : and :, we
still have the local sense of ‘the assembly’, called ‘the assembly of God’ in
:. Here is a synonym for ‘the community’.
In  Tim : we have a more developed image: ‘if I am delayed, you
may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which
is the assembly of the living God (Z + * A,),
the pillar and bulwark of the truth’. The image of the assembly as ‘the
household of God’ is a hugely important one in the Pastorals, and has led
 Best : .  See Schweizer : ; EDNT i: .
 See Best :  and Chapter , section ..  See Banks : –.
 The assembly – ,
to (or reflects) the development of the leadership of the assembly, based
on the household model. It is certainly a more structured concept than in
the undisputed Paulines, and conceiving of the assembly as ‘the pillar and
bulwark of the truth’ is a much more static and less dynamic understanding
than earlier in Paul. Its key role is now to be a guarantor of belief. This
is understandable, given the threat posed to the Pastor by other teachers,
but it is a change from the undisputed Paulines.
Would members of the communities addressed by the Pastorals have
said: ‘We are the assembly of God’? Or would they rather have said: ‘We
belong to the household of God, which is the assembly.’ This latter option
seems more likely, and hence the letters show a somewhat more developed
and institutionalised conception of ‘the assembly’, and a different use of the
same self-designation. The sense has developed from that of ‘the assembly/
gathering’ (even when this self-designation refers to the community itself )
towards that of ‘institution’.
5.9 matthew
The term is absent in the Gospels, apart from three occurrences in Matthew:
Matt :: ‘And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my
church (. < ), and the gates of Hades will not
prevail against it.’ And Matt :: ‘If he [your brother] refuses to listen to
them, tell it to the assembly (.7 34 ); and if the offender refuses
to listen even to the assembly (! 7 + ), let such a one
be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.’
In Matt : refers to ‘the whole company of God’s people’,
while in Matt : the term refers to a particular ‘assembly’ or ‘community’.
Many scholars have argued that both passages emerged in a post-Easter
setting. A key argument in this is that is not found in the
Gospels, apart from in these two passages.
There is no question that Jesus called a community of followers
together. Dunn discusses Jesus’ call to Israel, including the call to ‘return’
to God in Jesus’ preaching, the choice of the Twelve, Jesus’ allusions to Israel
as Yahweh’s flock (Matt :/Luke :; Matt :; :; Mark :/Matt
:; Luke :), and language of a new covenant (Luke :), and
then concludes that in view of this evidence, ‘the likelihood cannot be
 See Banks : ; EDNT i: .  See Schweizer : .
 On this see Trebilco : –.
 But we should not think this institutionalising process has gone too far; see Trebilco : –.
 Barrett : .  See Fitzmyer a: ; Meier : –.
 See further in Chapter .  See Dunn a: –.
Hebrews 
excluded that Jesus did speak on occasion of the assembly of Yahweh, and
that he thereby intimated his hope to gather around himself the core of
a reconstituted Israel. Perhaps even the thought would have been implicit
that as those who gathered to hear Moses speak to them from God were
his qahal/ekklēsia, so too those gathered to hear Jesus speak from God were
a renewed qahal/ekklēsia. Any memory of Jesus on the point has evidently
been elaborated by Matthew.’
It is possible then that Jesus did use (at least some of ) the language given
in these two passages in Matthew. But if Jesus did actually use it
is hard to explain why none of the other Gospels report its use. Meier
points out that Luke studiously avoids using in his Gospel; given
Luke’s desire to underline the continuity between his first and second
volumes, would he not have used in his Gospel to connect with
the regular use in Acts, if it had been used by Jesus? We can suggest that
the content of these verses may well go back to Jesus, but the actual use of
is due to Matthew’s explanation for contemporary readers and
reflects the use of that we have been discussing here. This also
confirms that the origin of the use of in the NT goes back not
to Jesus, but to the post-Easter community, as we have argued.
5.10 hebrews
is found twice in Hebrews, firstly in :, a quotation from
Ps : (LXX :), a Psalm that was widely influential in the NT.
Given, for example, the quotation of the beginning of the Psalm in Mark
: and Matt :, it was natural that the crucified but now exalted
Christ should be heard speaking at the end of the Psalm, by which point
the Psalmist has turned from lament to public thanksgiving. Hence in Heb
: the Psalm is given a Christological interpretation, and Christ is said to
quote the Psalm: ‘I will proclaim your name to my brothers and sisters, in
the midst of the congregation ( ) ) I will praise you.’ Bruce
suggests: ‘Following the Septuagint, our author uses the word for
“congregation” . . . The employment of this word in synonymous paral-
lelism with “brothers” in a Christian context indicates that those whom
the Son of God is pleased to call his brothers are the members of his
assembly.’ This reflects the fact that the author of Hebrews knows
 Dunn a: –. Recall the use of in Deut :; :; :; :–, ; :.
 See Fitzmyer a: .  Meier : –.
 The quotation follows the LXX of Ps : except , replaces .
 See Bruce : .  Bruce : .
 The assembly – ,
is in use as a designation or name for the ‘assembly of ’
in which God’s name is proclaimed (:). We also note that in early Chris-
tian tradition, as recorded in the Gospels, Jesus ‘declared God’s name’ in
the synagogues. We suggest that the author of Hebrews chooses to use
from the Psalm in the LXX at this point to align with the Chris-
tian use of in his day, and because of the ongoing Jewish use of
.
The second occurrence of is in Heb :–: ‘But you have
come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly
Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, the assembly of
the firstborn ( ) who are enrolled in heaven, and to
God the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect.’ Here,
clearly refers to an ‘assembly’ of believers that is eschatological and
in heaven. But for the author of Hebrews ‘Christians in their conversion
have already come to that heavenly assembly.’ This usage is quite different
from that in Paul then.
Hebrews also uses – ‘gathering’ or ‘assembly’ – in
Heb :: ‘not abandoning our gathering (< <
< I,), as is the habit of some, but encouraging one
another’. The ‘local gathering’ of Christians as a worshipping community
is being referred to here. In view of Heb :, it is clear that the author
uses both and as designations for the ‘gathering’
of the readers. The use of is interesting: it is clearly closely
related to , but as a different term it distinguishes the Christian
gathering from the Jewish one. It can function in the same way as we have
suggested for then.
5.11 james
James uses once in :: ‘Are any among you sick? They should
call for the elders of the assembly (8 M) ) and
have them pray over them.’ The sense is of the community of Christians
in a particular place – the elders of the ‘group’ or ‘community’ are to come
together to pray for the sick.
In Jas : is used of the Christian group: ‘For if a per-
son with gold rings and in fine clothes comes into your gathering
 Koester : ; e.g., Matt :; :; Mark :, ; :–. Cf. EDNT i: .
 See TDNT iii: ; also Berger : –; Attridge : .  O’Brien : .
 See Berger : .  See Attridge : ; Koester : , , .
 See Johnson : .
Revelation 
(. < 6,), and if a poor person in dirty clothes also comes
in.’ The sense of is ‘gathering’, or ‘place of meeting’, although
the two senses are very closely related.
It is revealing that James can use in : and in
:, with no sense of opposition between the two terms; in fact, the two
terms seem to be used interchangeably. has not become the
technical term for ‘the Christian assembly’. Further, given all we have said
about the use of in Jewish texts and for Jewish buildings, the
author apparently is willing to share the use of with the Jewish
community. Perhaps this is indicative of less conflict with that community,
at least in view of the author.
5.12 3 john
is found three times in  John: of the elder’s community (v) and
twice of the dominated by Diotrephes (vv–). In each case the
term clearly refers to a local assembly. The sense of being the
name of the community is clear in  John : ‘I have written something
to the assembly (h E9" 34 ).’  John  reveals a level of
formality: ‘And not content with those charges, he refuses to welcome the
friends, and even prevents those who want to do so and expels them from
the assembly ( M").’
However, does not occur at all in John’s Gospel or in  and 
John; it is a word which  John shares with much of the rest of the NT,
but which is not found elsewhere in the Johannine literature. Whilst its
absence in John’s Gospel is understandable in the light of its absence from
Mark and Luke, that it is absent in the Gospel and in – John but present
in  John can be seen as part of the wider phenomenon of new and different
language usage in  John.
5.13 revelation
In Revelation , which occurs twenty times, is used in the local
sense to refer to ‘gathered assemblies’. In Rev : John writes: ‘To the angel
of the assembly in Ephesus (C ) 1E) )’.
 On the textual variant (. < ) see Johnson : .
 See Marshall –: ; Riesner : .  See Chester and Martin : .
 See Johnson :  n.  See Campbell : ; Brown :  n.
  Cor :,  is somewhat similar, but does not use the more institutionalised language of  John .
 See Lieu : –, , –; Trebilco : –.
 The assembly – ,
John addresses the book as a whole ‘to the seven assemblies that are
in Asia (/ I! / 34 ;)’ (:; see also :, ).
It is clear that John could have written to other assemblies in Western
Asia Minor – to Colossae (Col :; :), Hierapolis (Col :), Troas (Acts
:f ), Magnesia (Ign. Magn. :), and Tralles (Ign. Trall. ). Schol-
ars have debated why John chose these particular assemblies, and we
need not enter into that debate. However, it is clear that the num-
ber seven is symbolic for John and signifies completeness; the seven
churches ‘stand for all the churches’. In writing to seven assemblies,
John is in fact addressing the whole ‘Church’, including communities
not explicitly mentioned. He therefore has a concept of ‘the church at
large’, or ‘the whole church’, and of the interconnectedness of individual
assemblies as a larger whole, even if he only uses of the local
‘assembly’.
This is also communicated by the way each of the letters ends. In Rev
: we read: ‘Let anyone who has an ear listen to what the Spirit is saying to
the assemblies (/ ).’ Each letter is addressed to one assembly,
but what is said has relevance to all the others, and the Spirit’s words
through each particular letter are to be heeded by all. This testifies to
the connection of one Christian assembly with the others in John’s view.
Similarly, in Rev : we read: ‘And all the assemblies ( )
will know that I am the one who searches minds and hearts.’ Again, John
clearly sees a connection between individual congregations, and ‘all the
assemblies’; what happens to Jezebel in Thyatira is of significance for all.
However, John always uses the singular to refer to one particular
assembly, and the plural when he is thinking of more than one
assembly; he does not write of ‘the assembly’, with the meaning of ‘the
universal church’. Whilst John does have a concept of ‘the church at large’,
his linguistic usage gives priority to ‘the local assembly’.
What can we say then about self-designations? John would seem to
support individual communities saying ‘We are ’. But through
the use of that term he would also want to emphasise that assemblies were
interconnected.
 See Charles : . The assemblies in Magnesia and Tralles were well established when Ignatius
wrote to them, so it seems very likely that they were in existence at the time John wrote.
 See Charles : –; Court : –; Trebilco : –.
 Bauckham : ; cf. Aune : .
 Court : : ‘they are also the first of the book’s symbolic sequences of sevens, symbols of the
whole Church’. See also Schūssler Fiorenza : ; Sweet : .
 See Caird : .
Conclusions 
5.14 lack of usage elsewhere

The term is not found in Mark, Luke, John,  Timothy, Titus, – Peter,
– John, and Jude. Its absence in Mark and Luke indicates it was probably
not a term used by the historical Jesus, although clearly the concept of ‘a
community’ was present in his ministry. We have already noted its absence
from the Johannine literature, apart from  John. The term is clearly less
important in the Pastorals than in the other Paulines, although arguably
the concept of the ‘church’ as the household of God remains vital in the
Pastorals.
 Peter is written to a range of ‘assemblies’ in Asia Minor, but it is interest-
ing that in  Pet : the author addresses readers as ‘ –
elect exiles’ rather than as . A range of other designations from the
OT are used in the letter – ‘a spiritual house’, ‘a holy or royal priesthood’,
‘a chosen race’, ‘a holy nation’, ‘God’s own people’ ( Pet :, –). Again,
the concept of community is strongly present, but the term is
lacking. Perhaps  Peter shows that, although was widely used
by the early Christians, it had not become the one and only technical term
for ‘the Christian community’ and so could simply be overlooked or not
used in a letter.
5.15 conclusions
is a widespread term in early Christianity, although it is not
used in all NT books. I have suggested that the usage in the LXX is
the key background for understanding its NT usage. In wider usage it
means ‘assembly’ or ‘gathering’ and this is the way it is used as a group
designation in Paul. By extension it can also be used by Paul with the sense
of ‘the community which assembles’. In Colossians, the sense of ‘the whole
church’ emerges. It can be used by Paul in a variety of expressions, with
the common phrase * * stressing God’s initiative. The role
of Christ is also spelled out through other additions.
Luke’s usage of in Acts continues the sense of local ‘assembly’,
although he can also use the term of the whole ‘church’. By also using
 See TDNT iii: .

 Usage in the Apostolic Fathers is  Clem: ;  Clem: ; Ign: ; Pol: ; MPol: ; Did: ; Barn: ;
Herm: ; Diogn: ; see also TDNT iii: –. It is regularly used of the local assembly (e.g., Ign.
Magn. :), and of ‘the Universal Church’ (e.g., Ign. Phld. :). The significant use of
by the Apostolic Fathers shows that this term was becoming embedded as a (or perhaps the) key
corporate concept in the post-NT period.
 The assembly – ,
of Israel in Acts :, he underlines the theological continuity of
the Christian with Israel. He seems to avoid using the term in
the earliest period, which suggests that it was not a term used immediately
after the resurrection.
I have argued that the origin of the use of can be traced back
to the Hellenists in Jerusalem and that its use ‘aligned the Jesus movement
with the coveted tradition of Israel as the people of God’. was
used as a collective name for their ‘assembly’ because of its use in the LXX
and because the main alternative, , was already in use by the
non-Christian Jewish community (with the sense of both ‘community’ and
‘building’). was then used by the Hellenists to distinguish the
Christian assembly from that of without suggesting that they
were no longer part of . That both terms were used in the
LXX for ‘the assembly of Yahweh’ (and in many other expressions in both
cases) was a great advantage – members of the could express their
continuity with the OT ‘assembly’ without claiming that they alone were
the heirs of that people. But we should also note that over time, as well as
in the history of the church, came to be used in direct opposition
to . This does seem to be happening in Rev : and :, but
via the use of the term ‘synagogue of Satan’. But this opposition is not
necessarily inherent in the use of itself in Revelation.
We can trace the continuation of the use of with the sense of
local ‘assembly’ in books like James,  John, and Revelation. In Ephesians,
building on the use in Colossians, the term is only used of ‘the Univer-
sal Church’, and has cosmic import. There is considerable
development with regard to its significance as a self-designation here then.
In Hebrews, we have the use of and , and in
James and . This shows that for these two authors,
has not become the technical term for ‘the assembly’, but can
be used alongside another, similar term. In Hebrews we can suggest that
is used to distinguish the Christian ‘gathering’ from the
Jewish , in the same way that we have argued was the case
for . By contrast, in James the shared use of with
the ‘Jewish synagogue’ suggests that for this author there was not felt to
be the need to express such a clear differentiation at group level from
. It is also interesting that we have three such similar terms
being used.
 Du Toit : .
Conclusions 
That is not used in a range of books, including  Peter (who
uses a range of alternative terms), also shows that it had not become the
one and only technical term for ‘the Christian community’ and so could
simply be overlooked.
For all our NT authors, is a collective term which cannot
be used of an individual and so the concept of is thoroughly
‘corporate’. Dunn’s comment with regard to Paul is applicable to the
whole NT: ‘It is not as isolated individuals that believers functioned as “the
church of God” for Paul. Rather, it was only as a gathering, for worship and
for mutual support, that they could function as “the assembly of God”.’
 Dunn : .

Assembly

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Assembly

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

c h ap t er 5

The assembly – , 

5.2 was  used as a self-designation?

5.3.1 Greco-Roman context

5.3.2 Jewish context: the MT, LXX, Philo, and Josephus

5.3.3 Usage at Qumran

5.4 paul’s usage

5.4.2 What does Paul mean by  as a self-designation:

 Individual book usage is Romans: ;  Corinthians: ;  Corinthians: ; Galatians: ; Philippians:

5.4.3 A second and related meaning: the community

5.4.4 A variety of expressions

Assemblies of God and Assemblies of Christ/in Christ

, idiolects, and language usage

 See Dunn : – with usage on  n.

5.6 origin of the christian usage of 

5.6.1 Signs of the early use of ,  in Paul and Acts

 Roloff in EDNT i: .

5.6.2 Who used it first, and where? 

5.6.3 Why did the Hellenists call themselves , ?

 Dunn : .

Why did the Hellenists choose  over against  (( ?

Contemporary Jewish communities were already using  ((

The choice made by the Hellenists to use 

 Kloppenborg :  n.

Implications of the use of  and the avoidance of  ((

 Marshall : ; see also Barrett : .

5.8 the pastorals

5.14 lack of usage elsewhere

 See TDNT iii: .

 Du Toit : .

 Dunn : .

S-ar putea să vă placă și

The assembly – ,

5.2 was used as a self-designation?

5.4.2 What does Paul mean by as a self-designation:

, idiolects, and language usage

5.6 origin of the christian usage of

5.6.1 Signs of the early use of , in Paul and Acts

5.6.3 Why did the Hellenists call themselves , ?

Why did the Hellenists choose over against (( ?

Contemporary Jewish communities were already using ((

The choice made by the Hellenists to use

Implications of the use of and the avoidance of ((