From Ecclesia to Church: How a Biblical Assembly Became a Christian Institution

The transformation from the biblical concept of the “assembly” (ekklesia) to the institutionalized idea of the "church" is one of the most significant distortions in the history of faith. The term "church," as it is commonly understood today, is an invention tied to the development of a religious institution far removed from the teachings of Yahusha and the early apostles. The reality is that the Messiah came to restore Israel, not to create a new religious institution, and the term "church" was never meant to define the assembly of believers.

In the New Testament, the “assembly” refers to a gathering of believers who adhered to the teachings of Yahusha, often called "the Way," and followed the doctrines of the apostles. These gatherings were not about creating a new faith separate from Israel, but about the fulfillment of the promises made to Israel. The seven assemblies mentioned in the book of Revelation, far from being the foundation of a "Christian" institution, were groups of Israelites, many of whom had been scattered, and Gentiles who had embraced the teachings of Yahusha and became part of the faith that was always meant to be rooted in Israel’s covenant.

The institutionalized "church" that arose centuries later, especially through the influence of the Roman Catholic Church, misrepresents the original intent of Yah’s assembly. The focus remains on Israel, both in the Old and New Testament, and the teachings of Yahusha are about restoring Israel and bringing the nations into the fold through the covenant promises made to Israel. The term “church,” with its institutional connotations, should never have replaced the biblical understanding of the ekklesia. The shift to this institutionalized view distorts the message of Yah’s plan for His people.

The Seven Assemblies in Revelation: A Focus on Israel’s Restoration

The seven assemblies mentioned in Revelation (Revelation 1:4, 2-3) are often misunderstood as references to the origins of "Christianity" as a separate religion. However, this interpretation misses the central focus of the book of Revelation and misrepresents the assemblies' true nature. The seven assemblies were not the beginnings of "Christianity" but gatherings of Israelites, many of whom had been scattered throughout the Roman Empire, and Gentiles who had embraced the teachings of Yahusha (the Messiah). The focus of Revelation is not the creation of a new religion but the restoration of Israel.

1. The Seven Assemblies: Israelites and the Diaspora

The seven assemblies in Revelation were located in Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey), which had been home to many Israelites in the diaspora, those scattered during the Assyrian and Babylonian exiles. These assemblies were not composed primarily of Gentiles or a separate "Christian" group but were made up largely of Israelites and Gentiles who had converted to the faith through belief in Yahusha. In Revelation 1:11, John is instructed to write to these assemblies, specifically named in the text: Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea.

Many of these cities were centers for Israelite communities who had been dispersed after the exiles, and they remained faithful to the covenant. This historical context is critical when interpreting the message of Revelation, as it demonstrates that the book is not speaking to a new, separate entity but to Israelite believers, those who were part of Yah’s people.

2. The Literal Restoration of Israel in Revelation

Revelation is filled with references that make it clear that its focus is on the restoration of Israel. The most prominent example is found in Revelation 7, where 144,000 individuals are sealed, each from one of the twelve tribes of Israel. This is not a symbolic number for the "church" but a literal representation of the twelve tribes of Israel. These tribes are named, further emphasizing the fact that the book is directly connected to Israel's prophetic restoration.

In Revelation 7:4-8, the specific enumeration of the twelve tribes shows that the 144,000 are from Israel, they are not symbolic of Gentiles or a church institution. They are a remnant of Israel that will be preserved during tribulation, marking the fulfillment of Yah’s promises to His people. This literal restoration of Israel is a major theme in the book of Revelation, not an abstraction or metaphor.

3. The Judgment of the Nations for Their Treatment of Israel

One of the key elements in Revelation is the judgment of the nations for their treatment of Israel. In Revelation 19:15, we see Yahusha returning to strike down the nations that have oppressed Israel. This aligns with prophetic passages from the Old Testament, such as Joel 3:2, which speaks of Yah’s judgment on the nations for scattering His people and dividing their land. Revelation consistently portrays the nations as being judged based on their treatment of Israel, reaffirming that Israel is central to Yah’s redemptive plan.

This judgment is not about a Christian "church" being judged but about the nations' treatment of Israel, the chosen people. The book of Revelation highlights the vindication of Israel and the restoration of their covenant with Yah as the central theme of Yahusha’s return.

4. The New Jerusalem: Israel at the Center

In Revelation 21, the New Jerusalem is described as coming down from heaven, and it is explicitly stated that the city has twelve gates, each named after one of the twelve tribes of Israel (Revelation 21:12-14). This is a clear indication that the restoration of Israel is central to the book’s ultimate vision. The New Jerusalem, which will be the capital of Yah's eternal kingdom, is founded on the twelve tribes of Israel.

The twelve tribes are not symbolic of Gentile nations or a new religious group but represent Israel’s full restoration. The entire structure of the New Jerusalem, including its gates and foundations, points to Israel’s pivotal role in the eternal kingdom, further emphasizing the restoration of Yah’s covenant people.

5. Gentiles Grafted In, Not Replacing Israel

While the Gentiles do play a significant role in Revelation, they are grafted into Israel’s promises, not replacing Israel. In Romans 11, Paul makes it clear that Gentiles are grafted into the olive tree of Israel, sharing in the same covenant promises. Revelation reflects this by showing Gentiles coming to the New Jerusalem and bringing their glory into it (Revelation 21:24).

However, this inclusion is not about Gentiles forming a separate faith or religion. The Gentiles who believe in Yahusha are grafted into the covenant made with Israel and are part of the restoration of Israel. They do not replace Israel but join Israel in the fulfillment of the promises given to Abraham and his descendants.

The Creation of the "Church": How Christianity Co-opted Biblical Ideas

The transformation of the assembly (ekklesia) into the "church" is not just a linguistic shift but an intentional redefinition of what it means to be God’s people. This change was not accidental but a strategic move by early Christian leaders, particularly those in the Roman Empire, to establish a hierarchical institution that could unify believers under a single religious authority. The term “church”, as we understand it today, is a construct that emerged long after the death of Yahusha, and it distorts the original biblical vision for God’s people.

1. The Co-opting of Biblical Concepts

In the New Testament, the term ekklesia referred to a gathering or assembly of believers, those who were called out from the world to worship and follow Yahusha. This assembly was not meant to create a new institution separate from Israel but was rooted in the restoration of Israel through the Messiah. The early assemblies, often referred to as “churches” today, were Israelite believers and Gentiles who joined Israel’s faith through belief in Yahusha. These assemblies were bound together by the covenantal promises made to Israel.

However, as Christianity began to spread across the Roman Empire, Greek thought and the Roman desire for control began to shape how the movement was organized. The institution of the "church" emerged, initially through the Roman Catholic Church, which substituted the original biblical assembly with a centralized institution. This new "church" was not a gathering or assembly of believers but a hierarchical religious institution with specific leadership roles like bishops, priests, and later, the pope.

Christianity’s attempt to institutionalize the faith through the term "church" was a powerful tool to separate the emerging movement from its Israelite roots. By replacing the ekklesia with "church," which is derived from the Greek word “kuriakon” meaning “belonging to the Lord”, early Christian leaders redefined the assembly of believers and made it a distinct institution outside of the context of Israel. This shift allowed Christianity to claim ownership of the biblical promises and establish its authority as the true heir to Israel’s covenant.

2. The Church and the Rise of Institutional Authority

The creation of the church was further institutionalized by hierarchical roles that began to emerge during the early centuries of Christianity. Early leadership roles like bishops and deacons, terms drawn from Greek thought, became titles that conferred institutional authority. This was a dramatic departure from the Israelite model of leadership, which was more communal and service-oriented.

In Israel, leadership was rooted in service and spiritual guidance (e.g., the role of the high priest or judges), whereas Christianity’s institutional church developed a model of leadership based on dominance and authority. The bishop (from the Greek episkopos) originally meant an overseer of the community but eventually became someone with jurisdiction over multiple congregations. The deacon (from diakonos), originally a servant within the assembly, also became a formalized role within the new structure, often linked to church authority rather than communal service.

The key issue here is that these titles and roles were used to establish a new institution, separate from Israel, that distorted the original concept of leadership in the Bible. The roles of servants, overseers, and elders in the assemblies of Yahusha’s followers were meant to serve the community, not lord over it. However, the rise of the church and its institutional leadership reshaped these roles, turning them into positions of power and control, often tied to political and imperial influence rather than spiritual service.

3. The Emergence of the Papacy and the Centralization of Power

One of the most profound shifts that the term "church" underwent was the development of the papacy, particularly with the Roman Catholic Church. The pope became the supreme authority in this new institution, effectively replacing the leadership model of servant-leaders in the ekklesia with a single authoritative figure. This model sought to unify the scattered assemblies under a centralized church hierarchy, with the pope at the head.

This move to centralize power was a significant break from the original understanding of Yahusha’s assembly, where there was no single head of the movement besides Yahusha Himself. The early apostles led the assemblies in a shared leadership model where authority was not centralized but rather distributed among the community. In contrast, the church’s structure was an attempt to bring about unity and control, but it did so by creating division between the true assembly of believers and the institutional church.

4. Christianity's Claim to Israel's Promises

One of the most problematic aspects of the church’s rise was its claim to Israel’s promises. As the church institutionalized and spread, it gradually began to claim that Christianity had replaced Israel as the true inheritor of the covenant. This replacement theology led to the belief that the church had superseded Israel and now held exclusive rights to God’s promises. This notion was used to justify the church’s authority over the faithful and even to disinherit the Israelite people from their covenantal role.

However, the Bible never teaches that the church replaced Israel. The promises made to Israel were never revoked but were instead fulfilled through Yahusha and extended to the Gentiles through faith. The true restoration of Israel is still at the heart of the biblical narrative, as seen in the book of Revelation, where Israel is central to Yah’s eternal kingdom.

By institutionalizing the term "church", Christianity effectively erased Israel’s central role in the narrative of redemption and restoration. The true Israel, according to Scripture, includes believers from both Israel and the nations, but Israel remains at the center of the promise.

5. The Importance of Reclaiming the True Meaning of "Assembly"

In light of this distortion, it is critical to reclaim the true meaning of the assembly (ekklesia). The ekklesia was never meant to be a new institution or a replacement for Israel but rather a restoration of the faithful who adhere to the covenantal promises made to Israel.

The true assembly is a community of believers, Israelites and Gentiles, united through faith in Yahusha. This assembly is not about institutional power but about spiritual service and obedience to the teachings of Yahusha. By reclaiming the ekklesia, we return to a faith that is deeply rooted in the promises to Israel and emphasizes community, service, and spiritual growth.

Christianity’s shift from the biblical assembly (ekklesia) to the institutionalized "church" represents one of the most significant departures from the original vision set forth by Yahusha. The creation of the church as an institution, complete with hierarchical roles like bishops and deacons, was a misrepresentation of the biblical intent for a community-oriented faith. By replacing the ekklesia with the term "church," Christianity created an institution that distanced itself from the restoration of Israel and the covenantal promises that were always meant to be fulfilled through Yahusha. Understanding this shift and reclaiming the original meaning of the ekklesia is vital to returning to a biblically accurate faith that remains rooted in the promises to Israel and is centered on Yahusha as the true foundation of God’s people.

Greek Influence and the Institutionalization of Roles

As Christianity began to spread throughout the Roman Empire, Greek thought began to influence the structure of leadership within the growing assemblies. The shift from the communal, service-oriented leadership of the early Hebrew tradition to a more institutionalized structure shaped the way roles like bishop, deacon, and pastor were understood and applied. This influence, particularly after the spread of Hellenism following Alexander the Great, brought a more hierarchical and formalized approach to leadership roles, changing the nature of the assembly.

Greek Influence on Leadership Titles

Greek thought, especially influenced by Hellenism, emphasized institutional authority and organization. In Greek society, roles were clearly defined, and leadership was typically structured hierarchically. When the early assemblies of believers, primarily of Israelite descent, began to grow, they adapted the Greek concepts of leadership to manage the increasing number of believers, but this often led to an over-institutionalization of roles that were originally more fluid and communal.

The term "bishop", derived from the Greek word "episkopos", originally referred to an overseer, someone who guided and served the community, much like the role of elders in Israelite society. However, as Christianity expanded, the role of bishop became more hierarchical, with episkopos evolving into a title for those with jurisdiction over multiple congregations. This shift represented a departure from the Hebrew model of leadership, where authority was rooted in service and guidance, not in institutionalized control.

The term "deacon", from the Greek "diakonos", originally referred to a servant; someone who served the assembly by taking care of practical needs, such as distributing resources and caring for the poor. As Greek thought began to shape early Christianity, the role of deacon became formalized, and the title carried more institutional weight, moving away from its original focus on service and practical care.

Restoring the Hebrew Context of Leadership

In the original Hebrew context, leadership was more communal, with a focus on service and spiritual guidance rather than formal authority. Yahusha Himself rejected the idea of hierarchical leadership and emphasized servanthood as the hallmark of true leadership:

• Mark 10:43-44: “But it shall not be so among you; but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.”

In Yahusha’s model, leadership was not about dominance or power but about service and care for the people. This is the model that should guide our understanding of the roles of bishop, deacon, and pastor; all positions that, in their original context, were meant to serve the community and fulfill the mission of spreading Yahusha’s teachings, not to establish an institutional hierarchy.

Restoring the Original Intent of Leadership

The transition from Hebrew leadership structures to Greek-influenced roles like bishops and deacons reflects the larger shift from a community-oriented faith to an institutionalized religion. The early assemblies of believers did not establish hierarchical positions of authority as seen in later Christianity but rather emphasized spiritual service and community care. Understanding this shift from Hebrew thought to Greek influence helps reclaim the original purpose of the assembly, which was always about serving others, guiding the community in faith, and fulfilling the covenantal promises to Israel.

The roles of elders, overseers, and servants were not intended to create an institution but to build up and serve the body of believers in a manner that reflects Yahusha’s teachings on leadership. To truly understand the early church and the assembly of believers, it is essential to return to the Hebrew context of leadership as service, where leaders guide, teach, and serve; not rule.

Conclusion: Reclaiming the True Meaning of Yah's Assembly

The shift from the biblical understanding of the ekklesia (assembly) to the institutionalized concept of the "church" is one of the most significant theological missteps in history. This change was driven by the desire to institutionalize faith through a hierarchical structure that distanced itself from the original biblical assembly that was meant to be led by the Israelites. The term "church," as we know it today, was not part of the original vision established by Yahusha. Instead, it represents an attempt to redefine what was once a community-oriented gathering of believers united in the promises made to Israel.

In the New Testament, the ekklesia was not about creating a new religion but fulfilling the promises to Israel. It was about restoring Israel and grafting in Gentiles who chose to embrace the covenantal faith of Israel. The seven assemblies in Revelation were primarily composed of Israelites, many of whom had been scattered across the Roman Empire, and Gentiles who joined them in following Yahusha. These assemblies were not the foundation of a new religion but part of Israel's restoration.

The creation of the church, especially under the influence of Greek thought and the Roman Empire, co-opted the concept of the assembly. It transformed what was originally a faith community rooted in Israel into an institutionalized religious system with hierarchical leadership. The terms "bishop," "deacon," and "pastor" were all influenced by Greek and Roman ideas of authority and governance, which deviated from the communal, servant-leadership model seen in the original Israelite traditions.

As the "church" evolved, it gradually adopted replacement theology, claiming that Christianity had replaced Israel as the true heir of God’s promises. This view, however, is contrary to the biblical narrative. The promises to Israel were never revoked; they were fulfilled through Yahusha, and Israel remains central to Yah’s redemptive plan.

To understand the original intent of the assembly, it is crucial to reclaim the true meaning of the ekklesia, a community bound together in faith and service rather than a hierarchical institution. The roles of elders, deacons, and overseers were intended to serve the community, not to rule over it. By returning to the Hebrew context of leadership as service, we can re-establish the true purpose of Yah’s assembly, one that is centered on Yahusha, the restoration of Israel, and the covenant promises that remain unbroken.