Quote:
|
The Greek word Ekklesia is a prime example of the error of etymologizing. Prof. James L. Boyer exemplifies the logical process which embodies this error. He writes, “We may illustrate the [flawed] etymological approach to the study of words...The Greek word ‘church’ in the New Testament is ekklesia. This word is formed of two parts, the preposition ek meaning ‘out of’ and the root connected with the verb kaleo, ‘to call.’ Therefore, the etymology of the word suggests ‘a called-out assembly.’ From this point on the [interpretive] process...may go as far as the interpreter's sense of good judgment will let him. It is a select group, called out from among the rest of the world. Therefore also it is a separatist group. It is composed of those who are called, so it is involved in the doctrine of election. Since the calling involved a caller, and an actual call issued, therefore the church is an official constituted body rather than a heterogeneous mass of separatists. Perhaps you can go on further.”
|
Nigel Tomes uses
ekklesia as a primary example of the failed principles of etymolological word meanings, but I still don't see the "problem" here. Is not the church called out of the world? Is not the church an assembly? So what's the problem? Obviously, at times, the emphasis in the usage of this word is on the "assembly" aspect. But like any word, multiple meanings are available to be determined by the context. Tomes study here seems to be saying, "here is an exception, so let's throw out the rules." I see no revolution here, rather academics trashing old research, just to sell their new books.
I have used "little" Kittel for many years. He never obsessed over etymologies, rather he compiled exhaustive uses of each word in the whole of Greek literature. That's why his initial work is ten volumes. What's the big deal about his being an anti-Semite? So was Luther, the first MOTA.
This forum has discussed Lee's errors at great length. Using word-studies is not one of them. Tomes has not only "pulled the rug out" on Lee, but on the whole evangelical body of Christ. He seems to overly value contemporary scholarship, at the expense at that which has been thoroughly vetted and time-tested by the body of Christ.
One of the things Tomes' study seems to be missing is that the NT writers needed to "
convey spiritual things with spiritual words," (I Cor 2.13) by using existing Koine vernacular and at times expanding its semantics. Another missing item is God's sovereignty, inspiring the writers and perhaps preparing a foundation of words long before the coming of His Son. Consider John's Gospel's opening line, "
In beginning was the Logos." Was this not inspired by the Spirit of God? Centuries earlier this word had been introduced into the Greek language, and decades after Jesus walked on earth, John initiated something absolutely new by calling God's eternal Son, who walked on earth with him,
the Logos. How does
logos synchronicity adequately explain to us what that means?
Of course, we have discussed the tendencies of Lee to use hyperbole and allegorize without limitation, but to move to extremes in the opposite direction does the same disservice to the body of Christ.
It's too bad the author never comes on board to discuss his papers with us.