Kent, the word ‘assembly’ refers to any group of people anywhere meeting for any purpose. Ekklesia had pretty well that meaning in the secular Greek literature. When Jesus and the apostles began to use it, they used it for a very specific assembly with specific rules and functions.

I really can’t believe we are actually discussing this point. Surely you know this?

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

I don’t have a problem with every word in the NT being “repurposed.” All of it is sanctified in a way that it wasn’t before it came into scripture. Of course, there is the point of the words being forever settled in heaven, in the mind of God before the foundations of the world—so which actually came first?

Regarding ekklesia, you say “retain portion of the meaning.” So the part about “assembly,” the actual meaning, leaves? That’s unprecedented. The word means assembly but when it appears in scripture it means unassembly? Jesus could have used a number of different Greek words for His institution and He chose congregation. There were other words available that would have communicated what you’re saying. For instance, oklos could have been used or deemos, and more Ekklesia is very, very specific. You don’t use it and then gut it of its basic meaning — that’s not how it works. Other words aren’t even used to describe ekklesia. There isn’t a usage that gives you pause or reason to think that it doesn’t mean how it was used previous to the NT.

I should tweak what I said above about the repurposing of logos. John used it in a way that retained portions of the old meaning, shed others, as well as adding new meaning. That last is quite important to this discussion, I think.

D4, right, I would agree. I like the term “repurposing”. It says so succinctly what I have been saying verbosely.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer33.3

No need to wait for me at all.

It just seems to me that appropriating a term that describes an impersonal divine mind to Jesus is not the correction of error so much as a repurposing of the term. Using it in a way that retains portions of the old meaning but shedding others. Does it correct an error of pagan philosophy, ‘yes. Is that the intent? I don’t think so.

That’s all I was pointing out. Which, imo, opens up other terms to be examined for repurposed usage.

Well, true enough. They were confronting false teachers. I’ve just not been convinced that it was Gnosticism per se. But then, that’s just my uninformed opinion.

I’d say we should probably wait for d4 to chime in before pursuing this rabbit trail more. And a lot of my resources on John are still packed up.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Hi,

This is your blog and your post, so you are welcome to shut down anything I say, but in my reading and in my listening to preaching and in my study for years, I have seen in both the Johanine epistles and the Pauline epistles a dealing with forms of Gnosticism. Just as an example, Paul in Colossians said that in Christ dwells all the fulness of the godhead bodily. So would you say that there was no answer to Gnostic ideas there? They would have said that there was no way Christ could be fully God in the flesh, and Paul says, yes, He was fully God in the body? I have no problem admitting that there is no archaeologial evidence for Gnosticism, but the ideas of the Gnostics — those were prevailing all over the world. They didn’t arise suddenly with Gnostic manuscripts that are only preserved from a later date, I don’t believe. Wasn’t Paul and John answering false teachers?

Ok, now you are getting closer to accuracy. Most commentators use the incipient word. Personally, I don’t buy it. There may have been some seeds of it, but it wasn’t anywhere near full blown Gnosticism at that point. I actually think John was communicating his own idea more than he was refuting current philosophy.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Hi,

So you don’t think that docetism and dualism and a belief that said that flesh is evil and spirit is good, those kinds of thing, weren’t refuted by John? Those would be gnosticism at least in incipient form.