Common objections

Contents

Doesn’t the possibility of a city-assembly going astray mean the whole idea can be disregarded?

The official in Acts 19 makes it obvious that the city-assembly that had formed in Ephesus was not a good one. It was disorderly and confused, and he called it unlawful – and yet, it was still, repeatedly, referred to as an “ekklesia.”

This makes it clear that the Roman concept of a city-assembly was not based on it’s order and lawfulness, or even on how well it functioned according to its purpose, but simply on who assembled (the city’s citizens), how they assembled (physically all together), under whom they assembled (in the name of their ruler), and to a limited extent, why they assembled (for some city-wide cause). And we find the same to be true of a city-assembly of Jesus. It is obvious that many of His city-assemblies in the writings of the apostles are not united and doing what they were built for, and yet they are still repeatedly called city-assemblies as long as they continued gathering all together in the name of Jesus and it was indeed the same Jesus and gospel they proclaimed.

In fact, we must consider the city-assemblies of Jesus like the rebellious city-assemblies in Ephesus, Sardis, and Laodicea in Revelation 2 and 3. We have to consider the city-assembly mentioned in 3 John, which had a leader so distorted that he led those in the city-assembly to put out the faithful who John sent to them. Even in that situation John still recognized it as the city-assembly of Jesus in that city.

"I wrote to the city-assembly, but Diotrephes, who loves to have the preeminence among them, does not receive us. Therefore, if I come, I will call to mind his deeds which he does, prating against us with malicious words. And not content with that, he himself does not receive the brethren, and forbids those who wish to, putting [them] out of the city-assembly." (3 John 1:9-10)

If today Jesus established a city-assembly for Himself in some city and then it became wicked, we can be confident that He will judge that city-assembly of His just like He approached the city-assembly in Ephesus and threatened to remove its lampstand altogether:

“Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lampstand from its place—unless you repent." (Revelations 2:5)

Like John did in 3 John, we should continue to recognize the title held by the city-assembly of Jesus in a city and simply wait for it with patience to be corrected by the Lord Jesus. This is what Paul said began to happen in Corinth to those who were “not discerning the Lord’s body”:

"For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this reason many [are] weak and sick among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world." (1 Corinthians 11:29-32)

Even the pagan emperors of Rome would have held one of their city-assemblies accountable for bad governance, so surely Jesus will do the same and even more.

For whom the Lord loves He chastens,
And scourges every son whom He receives.” (Hebrews 12-6)

Paul also likens each city-assembly to a temple (1 Cor. 3:16-17, 1 Cor. 6:19, 2 Cor. 6:16, and Ephesians 2:21), and we know how long the temple of God was defiled by wicked rulers! But even then the Father didn’t direct prophets to simply build another. Instead he led them in praying for it and God’s honor to be restored in the land. This is surely the same call to us today if the city-assembly is truly established in our town but then turns aside from the way.

Isn’t the city-assembly model irrelevant because of huge cities like New York City?

Having one city-assembly of Jesus in New York City, which would gather all the followers of Jesus there together in one place, might seems absurd, but just as many people gather nearly every weekend there for things like concerts and sporting events. For the people of God in New York to gather all together in one massive assembly for things of eternal significance like teaching, sharing testimonies, using spiritual gifts, worshipping, and praying would not only be incredible for those attending but for the city as a whole that would look on in wonder.

Jesus said that the oneness of His followers is something that causes the world to entrust to Him, and since the world is a world of sight, how much more helpful will it be for them to see God’s people gathering all together. 

 “I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will entrust to Me through their word;  that they all may be one, as You, Father, [are] in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one  in Us, that the world may entrust that You sent Me.” (John 17:20-21)

How much more love do we show for one another when we are willing to endure the same hassle as attending a major sporting event or concert or Christian conference? (If you have ever attended a Christian conference, what excuse do you have?)

There’s no reason we should assume that just because New York is large it must be divided into smaller city-assemblies. In fact, the first city-assembly had more than 3000 followers (rather large for that time), and the Jesus’ single city-assembly in Rome was surely large as well since Rome was a megacity whose modern parallel would be even larger than Tokyo. The political city-assembly, which the city-assembly of Jesus was based on, was often quite large. The political city-assembly of Ephesus made room for 25,000 men to attend. So size or population shouldn’t be the determining factor, especially since with larger size and population often comes advances in technology that enable larger gatherings.

But, on the other hand, there is nothing in the bible that tells us New York City is really one city. The people there could conclude that it is actually multiple cities. In most cases, larger cities are simply combinations anyway of much older cities and towns that used to be separate. The people there may have even retained separate civic identities from when the cities/towns were separate, and so having separate city-assemblies might make more sense. In fact, New York City is better defined as a conglomerate of boroughs which have semi-separated governments and operate more like cities do elsewhere.

In either case, we must take our queues on the matter from Jesus Himself. Jesus gave His disciples this direction when they were sent out to preach:

"Now whatever city or town you enter, inquire who in it is worthy, and stay there till you go out." (Matthew 10:11)

And Jesus said this about himself: 

"but He said to them, 'I must preach the kingdom of God to the other cities also, because for this purpose I have been sent.'" (Luke 4:43)

Obviously cities were very important to Jesus and his disciples and were fixed points for their travelling and preaching, so they should be just as important to us as well. And although the words “city” and “town” seem to be pretty obvious even today, ultimately this matter is something the Lord will have to lead. The most important thing is that each city-assembly is tied to a specific earthly community and distinct geographic locality instead of things like a specific worship style, Christian pedigree, or culture.

Notice how the city-assemblies the apostles wrote about were sometimes referenced by the city they were in, but also by the people they were of, a specific community. If we are dedicated to tying the city-assembly to a specific earthly community with a defined geographic border without fear of the result including too many or too few people, the answer will no doubt present itself. And, of course, if we’re unsure, we can always ask the lost in the area – they usually know what greater community they belong to. It is, after all, the only one they have.

Don’t a few bible verses show a city can have more than one “ekklesia”?

By definition, there can only be one “ekklesia” in a city, as it means “city-assembly.” But to further support that definition being correct, as one would expect, there is no evidence in the writing of the apostles of any city ever having more than one “ekklesia.” This is true for even massive “ekklesias” like the one in Jerusalem that we read about in Acts 2 and numbered more than 3,000.

“...continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart” (Acts 2:46).

Does any “ekklesia” mentioned in the bible have more right to model for us what Jesus expected his “ekklesias” to be like than the first one in Jerusalem? Right from the beginning the “ekklesia” in Jerusalem had a huge number of new followers, and yet their approach was not to break into smaller “ekklesias” throughout the city (because that’s not how “ekklesias”/city-assemblies work), but instead to meet all together as one city-assembly somewhere that could hold them all, which happened to be the temple, or, more specifically, in Solomon’s Porch as we see in Acts 5:12. And then when they weren’t all together, they would still meet with each other in smaller numbers among the houses.

Although the followers who met altogether as the city-assembly also met among their houses, there is no biblical precedent for the modern innovation of “house churches,” where many autonomous and separate groups will meet in various houses in the same city. There is simply no reference in the bible to multiple “ekklesias” in a single city – every reference to an “ekklesia” in a place is either a reference to one city-assembly in one city or to multiple city-assemblies in multiple cities. If this wasn’t a fundamental expectation of what “ekklesia” meant, why would the “ekklesia” in Jerusalem endure the hassle of gathering so many people all together? They had more than enough mature followers (at least 12) who could break out and gather with 400-some people each…but they didn’t. That would have been the perfect time, according to our modern wisdom, to initiate a division into house churches…but they didn’t.

Now, for those who think (like the writer of this page once did) that there are four special passages which contain evidence of multiple “ekklesias” in a single city, this is simply not true. We will call these the four “special” passages. Let us look at the four special passages now, which can at first appear to contradict the civic nature of the “ekklesia”:

“The [ekklesias] of Asia greet you. Aquila and Priscilla greet you heartily in the Lord, with the ekklesia that is in their house” (1 Corinthians 16:19) 
“Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus, … Likewise [greet] the [ekklesia] that is in their house…” (Romans 16:3, 5a).
“Greet the brethren who are in Laodicea, and Nymphas and the[ekklesia] that [is] in his house” (Colossians 4:15).
“…to the beloved Apphia, Archippus our fellow soldier, and to the [ekklesia] in your house…” (Philemon 1:2).

(Take note that any translation that has the phrase “that meets” in the above passages has done so without any support from the original Greek.)

Two assumptions are usually made when reading these four verses. The first assumption, because of the way these verses are translated, is that what is being described is a whole “ekklesia” meeting all in one house. This is, technically, one possible translation, but as we will see is by far the least natural.

The second assumption is that for all of the “ekklesias” in these passages, the cities in which they were found would have had too many followers in the city for them to all meet in one house. Like we see in Jerusalem, this is actually a very real possibility, especially in Rome whose long list of notable followers we read about in Romans 16. We must keep in mind, however, that the homes of the wealthy in that time period were known for being quite accommodating to large numbers, and people were more comfortable with close quarters than we are today. So there is no reason to think that in smaller cities like Colossae or Laodicea the followers were too numerous to fit in a large home. In fact Romans 16:23 tells us that the whole city-assembly of a certain city, probably Colossae, was being hosted by one man presumably in his home.

If both of these assumptions are correct, that each city had hundreds of followers too numerous for a home and that these verses are talking about a whole ekklesia meeting in a home, then there would have to be more than one ekklesia in a city. But that is not the correct conclusion, because only one of these assumptions is reasonable. It is likely that at least some of the cities, like Rome, had too many followers to fit in a single home, but it is not reasonable to interpret these verses to mean that an entire ekklesia was meeting in a home. When it says “greet the ekklesia that is in their house,” the most natural interpretation is actually “greet the ekklesia that is spread into their house.” Let’s look at why this is the case.

Event or People

The “ekklesia” means city-assembly, but specifically it means the people in the city who assemble. The city-assembly isn’t a place and it isn’t a time. The people of the city-assembly must have assembled at some point to be considered the people of the city-assembly, but once they have assembled the first time, they are still those assembly people even when they aren’t assembled (see Acts 8:3). This is not disputed, but it’s very important to review anyway because when that agreed-upon information is inserted into any English translation, it gives a very different sense. For example, what do you first think when you hear this alternate but still accurate translation of Philemon 1:2?

“…to the beloved Apphia, Archippus our fellow soldier, and to the people of the [ekklesia] in your house…” (Philemon 1:2).

When you hear it this way, is your instinct to assume that all of the people that compose that city’s ekklesia are present in Philemon’s house? Or is your instinct that this is saying only some of the people that compose the ekklesia are spread into or distributed into his house? We will find that not only is this second interpretation the most natural in English, but it is also the most natural interpretation from the Greek.

Whole or Portion

When we hear someone today say something like, “greet God’s people who are there with you,” we know that the writer isn’t implying every one of “God’s people” is gathered in one place. But why? I mean, the person did just say “God’s people” and then say “who…”, right? And that means God’s people, all of them, without exclusion, right? Obviously not.

In the same way, when we hear Paul greeting “the ekklesia” in the house of Nymphas, it can be accurately translated that he was greeting “the people of the ekklesia” in the house of Nymphas and even more specifically “a portion of the people of the ekklesia.” We feel free to reference things this way, using the term for the whole when we only mean a part of the whole, because whenever a part of something is in a place, then the whole is in that place too, by extension. To use another example, if you were to put your arm inside of a box, it would be completely normal for someone to ask “why are you in that box?” Not all of you is in the box and yet they would use the word “you” on its own because you have spread yourself into the box. They won’t feel the need to specify “your arm.”

In the same way, there’s no reason to assume that the four special passages are talking about a whole “ekklesia”, especially since the context points to otherwise. And in fact, Paul tends to use a specific word whenever he wishes to clarify when he is referring to a whole “ekklesia”; not surprisingly, he uses the word “whole“:

“Gaius, my host and the host of the whole [ekklesia], greets you. Erastus, the treasurer of the city, greets you, and Quartus, a brother.” (Romans 16:23)
"Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole [ekklesia], to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas who was also named Barsabas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren." (Acts 15:22)
"Therefore if the whole [ekklesia] comes together in one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those who are uninformed or unbelievers, will they not say that you are out of your mind?" (1 Corinthians 14:23)

Whenever it is not obvious from the context that a whole “ekklesia” is in view, Paul uses the word “whole” to clarify. When he is referring to a portion of the “ekklesia” or to the institution of the “ekklesia” broadly, he does not use the word “whole.” If in the four special passages Paul was referring to a whole “ekklesia,” especially to avoid ambiguity, we can expect that he would have used the word “whole”…but he didn’t…because an “ekklesia” is a city-assembly.

Inside or Spread Into

There are three main Greek words that are translated “in” in English. These words are “en,” “eis,” and “epi.” The word “en” is usually translated “in” and most closely aligns with the English word “in”; it is the word most often used to indicate one thing is in the state of being entirely within another thing. The word “eis” is most frequently translated “into” and indicates direction. The word “epi” is usually translated “on” or “upon.” So which one do you think is used in the four special passages when it says “the ekklesia that is in their/his/your house”?

The answer: none of them. The Greek word that is translated “in” at those points of the passages is “kata,” which most often means “according to,” “against,” “through,” or “down into.” It is very rarely translated “in,” and when used to indicate something spatial it isn’t used to indicate one thing is entirely within another, but instead it has the same sense as “intersecting,” “distributed,” or “spread into,” where a larger whole is cutting through or pervasively overlapping some smaller area. For example, during the story of Jesus feeding the five thousand there is a verse that uses “kata” in it’s main spatial sense: 

“So they [, the multitude,] sat down in ranks, [kata] hundreds and [kata] fifties” (Mark 6:40)

Is the whole multitude sitting down in a single rank of one hundred? Are all of them in one group of fifty? No, the whole is the multitude and it is only called a “multitude” as a whole (v. 34). Jesus taught the multitude as a whole, but for this activity of eating, they were spread out into distinguishable portions of the whole, which are here called “ranks,” meaning “plots” or “groups.” It is similar to how a person’s body is made up of various parts and how some of those parts that reside close together can be grouped together and called a portion of the body. Let’s look at the verse again with “spread into” as a replacement for “kata”:

“So they [, the multitude,] sat down in ranks, spread into hundreds and spread into fifties” (Mark 6:40)

This makes perfect sense! In English this verses is usually translated “sat down in ranks, by hundreds and by fifties,” but it can also be translated “sat down in ranks, in hundreds and in fifties,” which shows us how the English word “in” covers this distributive sense of the word “kata,” though the specific meaning would be less clear. And to give us even more clarity on the meaning of “kata,” we actually find that in another Greek manuscript, the word “kata” is replaced with the Greek word “ana,” meaning “into the midst,” “amidst,” and “among,” and it carries the idea of apportionment just like we have been talking about. If the Greeks saw apportionment as such a major sense of the word “kata” that it could be replaced with a word that means “among,” we should too.

En or Kata

…But if we want to make sure that “kata” doesn’t simply mean “entirely inside something,” we should compare its usage with the word in Greek that is used the most often to mean “inside something,” the word “en.” Fortunately there are verses that are both relevant to the discussion and clearly show the contrast between “en” and “kata” – we actually find the contrast in one of the four special passages:

“Greet the brethren who are [en] Laodicea, and Nymphas and the ekklesia that [is] [kata] his house.” (Colossians 4:15)

The word “en” is used in this verse when Paul is referring to the sum of brethren who are entirely within in the boundary of Laodicea. Then he uses the word “kata” to refer to the ekklesia that is spread into the house of Nymphas, like a road that intersects with or travels through a place. If Paul meant to say that Nymphas had an entire ekklesia who met within the boundary of his home just like there was a group of brethren who were entirely within the boundary of Laodicea, he would have used the same preposition…but he didn’t….because an “ekklesia” is a city-assembly.

Acts 2:42 is another very relevant verse that can show the distinction between “en” and “kata.” We’ll first look at a more standard translation and then a more literal one:

 "So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart," (Acts 2:46)
 "So continuing daily with one accord en the temple, and breaking bread kat house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart," (Acts 2:46)

This verse shows yet again how the word “kata” is most naturally interpreted to indicate apportionment. Since this is the exact same context we find in the four special passages of followers assembling and “houses,” we can be even more confident that this is the most natural interpretation. If we see the word “kata” in the context of the ekklesia, especially in the context of houses, we can be confident that the larger category, the people of the city assembly, is being spread into the smaller category, one or more houses.

And in case you might wonder if “kata” is just the type of “in” word always used with “ekklesia,” it is not. Here we see an ekklesia not spread into something, but instead entirely inside of something.

"Then news of these things came to the ears of the ekklesia en Jerusalem, and they sent out Barnabas to go as far as Antioch." (Acts 11:22)

Not suprisingly the word “en” was used in this context instead of “kata” because the whole ekklesia was entirely within the city, Jerusalem.

House or Household

So who was Paul talking about in the four special passages when he asked the recipients of his letters to greet the ekklesia spread into these houses? The answer is we don’t know; but one possibility is that he was asking them to greet a number of disciples who all formally lived together, that is, those who were both part of the city-assembly and part of the household in question (oikon can either be translated “house” or “household”).

Alternatively he could have been asking them to greet the people who had a habit of meeting together in the homes specified. It shouldn’t be surprising to imagine households sharing all things in common, or breaking bread from house to house in these cities, since that is what we are told the saints did in Jerusalem (Acts 2:44-46), and knowing the habit of people, it wouldn’t be odd to find these followers forming tighter bonds with some more than others .

A small number of followers in a city can always come together for various purposes such as breaking bread or prayer, and of course, they are free to make a habit of it. And if this were to go on long enough, it would certainly become known to the people in the city. This is very similar to the concept of “small groups” today which are (or at least should be) very dynamic and flexible, even if they typically involve the same people.

But in either case it is clear that he was not referring to a whole ekklesia meeting in the house. Such gatherings are not the ekklesia or the ekklesia coming together, although they are intentional and allowable portions of the ekklesia in the city. Notice the contrast in the following verses between the ekklesia and “many” of the saints that points out the distinction we are seeing in the four special passages:

“Peter was therefore kept in prison, but constant prayer was offered to God for him by the ekklesia. … So, when he had considered [this], he came to the house of Mary, the mother of John whose surname was Mark, where many were gathered together praying.” (Acts 12:5, 12)

Conclusion

The word “ekklesia” indicates a people who have assembled all together, but who are not always assembled all together and are often spread into various places in their city. Because of this, when it would otherwise be unclear, the writer of the four special passages, Paul, uses the word “whole” when he is referring to the whole ekklesia instead of a portion. These two facts coupled with the nuances of the word “kata” and “oikos” (“house” or “household”) make it plain that Paul’s greetings in the four special passages were not intended to imply the whole ekklesia of those cities were assembled in any one house, but actually the opposite, that the ekklesia in those cities had spread into various homes or households.

Although the word “in” in English conveys partial inclusion, it does not in the four special passages convey the specific nuances of the Greek mentioned above and leaves room for confusion, so a better translation of the passages would be as follows:

“The ekklesias of Asia greet you. Aquila and Priscilla greet you heartily in the Lord, with the ekklesia that is spread into their house” (1 Corinthians 16:19) 
“Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus, … Likewise [greet] the ekklesia that is spread into their house…” (Romans 16:3, 5a).
“Greet the brethren who are in Laodicea, and Nymphas and the ekklesia that [is] spread into his house” (Colossians 4:15).
“…to the beloved Apphia, Archippus our fellow soldier, and to the ekklesia that is spread into your house…” (Philemon 1:2).

Don’t certain bible verses show there is a “universal” “ekklesia”?

No, and it is an idea that is quite easy to refute. 

“Gaius, my host and the host of the whole ekklesia, greets you. Erastus, the treasurer of the city, greets you, and Quartus, a brother.” (Romans 16:23)
"Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole ekklesia, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas who was also named Barsabas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren." (Acts 15:22)
"Therefore if the whole ekklesia comes together in one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those who are uninformed or unbelievers, will they not say that you are out of your mind?" (1 Corinthians 14:23)

The idea of a “universal” ekklesia that spans the whole world is found nowhere in the bible except its final chapters when the world is made new and only has one city. Then and only then will there only be one city-assembly. Until then many cities can and hopefully will have a whole ekklesia established. If the idea of a “universal” ekklesia were true then only it, the “universal” ekklesia, would be the whole and every other instance would be a subpart, but that is not the case.

And if that is not enough evidence, consider the number of times the plural of “ekklesia” is used. If the modern habit of saying “the church” singular when referring to all of God’s individual people as a whole was at all founded in the bible, the apostles would have done the same…but they didn’t. Here are the 35 verses in which the apostles used the plural of “ekklesia”:  Act 9:32, Act 15:41, Act 16:5, Rom 16:4, Rom 16:16, 1Co 7:17, 1Co 11:16, 1Co 14:33, 1Co 14:34, 1Co 16:1, 1Co 16:19, 2Co 8:1, 2Co 8:18, 2Co 8:19, 2Co 8:23, 2Co 8:24, 2Co 11:8, 2Co 11:28, 2Co 12:13, Gal 1:2, Gal 1:22, 1Th 2:14, 2Th 1:4, Rev 1:4, Rev 1:11, Rev 1:20, Rev 2:7, Rev 2:11, Rev 2:17, Rev 2:23, Rev 2:29, Rev 3:6, Rev 3:13, Rev 3:22, Rev 22:16.

The term people are looking for when they want to refer to the people of God as a whole is the “family” of God. The word “ekklesia” means a city-assembly and is not at all synonymous with all the saints or the family of God. In fact, although Paul uses the term “ekklesia” many times in his first letter to the Corinthians, in his introduction of the letter he also includes a greeting to a separate group:

"To the ekklesia of God which is at Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours" (1 Corinthians 1:2)

This larger group of “all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ” is called many things, but never an ekklesia. It is called the family of God, the saints, the saved, the elect, etc. And if we think about the other ways the ekklesia is described, this makes sense:

"but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in a house of God, which is an ekklesia of the living God, a pillar and ground of the truth." (1 Timothy 3:15)

The ekklesias are supposed to be like houses, and just like with real houses, family members do not always dwell in the same house. Sometimes they move to a different town and have a different house, but all the while the family remains singular. This is the same way it is with God’s people and the ekklesias.

And as an added proof that we cannot refer to the family of God as “the ekklesia,” we must consider the circumstances where people are sent out of the ekklesia in their city. Sometimes this happens for righteous reasons (1 Corinthians 5:11, 2 Thessalonians 3:14-15, Galatians 6:1), and other times it happens to righteous people for unrighteous reasons:

"Therefore, if I come, I will call to mind his deeds which he does, prating against us with malicious words. And not content with that, he himself does not receive the brethren, and forbids those who wish to, putting [them] out of the ekklesia." (3 John 1:10)

If “ekklesia” is synonymous with the whole family of God, then this verse is saying that the righteous brethren whom John had sent were being sent out of the family of God! How could sinful people send righteous children of God out of His family? Obviously there is a difference between the ekklesia and the family of God. An ekklesia is a city-assembly created for the purpose of accountability and it can go astray, while the family of God is the number of all of God’s people who He Himself leads directly.

Don’t certain bible verses use “ekklesia” in a universal sense?

Although it is by no means the norm, “ekklesia” can be used in a generic way, like when Jesus said, “I will build My ekklesia” in Matthew 16:18. However, this was not Jesus establishing an invisible singular ekklesia. He was simply using general language to refer to each ekklesia He would build or, in other words, the one institution He would build.

If someone was writing about American politics, would it not be acceptable for them to write, “The town-meeting under George Washington was a great example of early American wisdom”? It says “the town-meeting,” singular, but are we to interpret that to mean one invisible town-meeting that included all citizens across the nation? Of course not! The natural reading would be to understand that the author is talking about each instance of the town-meeting wherever it is instituted even though the author used the singular form, “the town-meeting.” When Jesus said He would build His ekklesia, ekklesias were and always had been tied to cities, and the pattern in the bible shows Jesus didn’t intend on changing that.

If this is not true then at least one of the verses that use “ekklesia” in a generic way will have problems when interpreting it as an institution. Anywhere “ekklesia” is mentioned in a generic way, we should be able to tack on the phrase: “instituted in various places.” So let’s do that to see how it fits:

"And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My ekklesia [instituted in various cities], and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:18)
"Even so you, since you are zealous for spiritual gifts, let it be for the edification of the ekklesia [instituted in various cities] that you seek to excel." (1 Corinthians 14:12)
"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the ekklesia [instituted in various cities] and gave Himself for her" (Ephesians 5:25)
"And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My ekklesia [instituted in various cities], and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:18)
"And if he refuses to hear them, tell [it] to the ekklesia [instituted in various cities]. But if he refuses even to hear the ekklesia, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector." (Matthew 18:17)
"Now I rejoice in what I am suffering for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the ekklesia [instituted in various cities]."(Colossians 1:24)

There are a number of other scriptures that speak of the ekklesia in a general way, but none of them would make this insertion awkward. Unless a specific city is already mentioned, this institutional sense is the only natural interpretation.

Think about it. Is there any generic reference in the writing of the apostles that talks about the state of “the” ekklesia as if it is one thing that fluidly changes throughout time? Is there any scripture that says something like “I look around the world, and the ekklesia is in shambles”? Nowhere. The ekklesia when referred to generically only references ideals – what it should be or how it is formed – aspects of a model, not an instance.

And if all the saints in the world were all a part of one ekklesia, wouldn’t we expect the pattern of generalizing God’s people to continue such that all the saints in Asia, for example, would have been called “the ekklesia of Asia”? But instead, because it is neither a reference to the model nor an instance of the model in a specific city, we find the plural: “the ekklesias of Asia” (1 Corinthians 16:19).

No, we don’t see any singular use of the word “ekklesia” applied to any literal scope accept for a single city. When multiple cities are in view, the plural of ekklesia is used; when one city is in view, the singular, ekklesia, is used; and when the ideal model or institution is in view, the singular is used in the generic sense. At no point is a single ekklesia that literally includes all the followers ever mentioned.

Doesn’t the bible show there is one universal city-assembly when it says the city-assembly is the body of Christ and that there is only one body?

It is true that the ekklesia is the body of Christ:

"And He is the head of the body, the ekklesia, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence. … I now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up in my flesh what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ, for the sake of His body, which is the ekklesia," (Colossians 1:18, 24)

But it is also true that an ekklesia is “a” body of Christ. When writing to the ekklesia in Corinth, Paul writes:

"Now you are a body of Christ, and members individually." (1 Corinthians 12:27)

(Note that most translations put “the” body of Christ without support from the Greek. There is no “the” in the Greek for this verse.)

This distinction between “the” ekklesia and “an” ekklesia goes back to the difference between the institution of the ekklesia in general and an instance of the ekklesia specifically. To put it simply, it is true that the institution of the ekklesia is the institution of Jesus’ body and that any instance of the ekklesia is an instance of His body. So there is a direct correlation.

And it is also true that Paul talks about there being “one body.” Let’s look at the references to this in the two chapters that deal with it the most:

"so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and individually members of one another." (Romans 12:5 )

"For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body - whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free - and have all been made to drink into one Spirit." (1 Corinthians 12:13)

It is true that Paul taught plainly there is one Christian body, but contrary to the way most people assume in modern times, it is not true that this one body is referring to a universal instance of the ekklesia. That’s not how ekklesias work but even apart from that, it is clear from Paul’s writing that that is not what he is trying to say.

First of all, the 1 Corinthians passage cited above is the same chapter in which we find Paul calling the ekklesia in Corinth “a” body. For those who read the chapter with the assumption he is describing a universal instance of the ekklesia, this should at least cause them to wonder if they understood correctly. The fact that the chapter is dealing particularly with the practical concepts of fellowship and bearing with one another should also give reason to pause, since those kinds of activities are not possible to do to this depth with people outside of your own city.

But the verses that should entirely eliminate the confusion on this topic are the verses that come before each of the above verses:

"For as we have many members in one body, but all the members do not have the same function, so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and individually members of one another." (Romans 12:4-5)
"For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body - whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free - and have all been made to drink into one Spirit." (1 Corinthians 12:12-13)

Paul in these passages is making an analogy so we must ask ourselves, how does it work in the thing he is using as the analogy? How does it work with human bodies? We know that each human body it has its own set of body parts (members), so it’s easy to understand that he is saying the spiritual body has people as it’s body parts. But what about the whole body? What does the analogy tell us about that? Is Paul assuming there is one universal instance of the human body? Or is he assuming there are many separate instances of the human body type? In either case, whatever we put in the set up for the analogy, we must also put on the spiritual side of the analogy – these are simply the rules of analogies. Let’s look at which way works:

"For as we [you all and me] have many members in one body [instance], but all the members do not have the same function, so we [you all and me], being many, are one body [instance] in Christ, and individually members of one another." (Romans 12:4-5)
"For as the body is one [instance] and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body [instance], so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body - whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free - and have all been made to drink into one Spirit." (1 Corinthians 12:12-13)

When he says “as we have many members in one body” is he suggesting he and his audience are a human collage, a monstrosity with countless arms and legs? That is exactly what us being one body instance would mean in the physical sense! And when he writes “for as the body is one and has many members,” does he mean he and his audience are all conjoined into one gigantic universal human body? That is exactly what the human body being one instance would look like!

No. Obviously this is not what he meant. But just to be sure, let’s look at the other way of interpreting these passages. Remember that however you interpret the set up for an analogy, you must do the same to the other side!

"For as we [you all and me] have many members in one body [type], but all the members do not have the same function, so we [you all and me], being many, are one body [type] in Christ, and individually members of one another." (Romans 12:4-5)
"For as the body is one [type] and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body [type], so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body - whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free - and have all been made to drink into one Spirit." (1 Corinthians 12:12-13)

This works! No monster human collages here, just ordinary speech that we might even hear today. It’s clear that Paul is saying “we have many members in one body [type]” and that the human “body is one [type] and has many members.” And because that is clear it is clear he is saying the same thing about the spiritual body of Jesus; it is always the same body type but there is a separate instance of His body type in whatever cities it is established.

So whenever we read we are “one body,” we must remember how Paul set up that analogy. He didn’t set up the analogy with something that exists in a single instance over all the world, like the sky, but instead used something that has a certain type that is repeated over all the earth, like the human body. And this tells us that while each city-assembly is separately a body, it is always the same type of body, the body of Jesus. Each city-assembly of Jesus, even today, shares the same body type found in Ephesus, Corinth, Colossae, etc., but each city-assembly is a separate instance of that Jesus body type.

And this, of course, fits perfectly with the way the term “ekklesia,” which is equated to “the body”, is used by the apostles to refer to either a general institution when no specific locality is in view, or to a specific instance of that institution when some certain city is in view. Whenever a specific locality is in view that has multiple cities, like the whole world, the plural is always used.