(Third Revised
Edition)
George Davis, Michael Clark
& Kirk Pearson
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 1 - THE KING'S NEW BIBLE
CHAPTER 2 -
TWISTED SCRIPTURES
Deacons
Office
Bishoprick
Elders
Presbytery
The House of God
Rule
Over
Obey
Submit
A Lesson from our
Past
CHAPTER 3 - TWO MODELS OF LEADERSHIP
Love's Gentle Persuasion or Forced
Orthodoxy
What is this thing called "The Church"?
CHAPTER 4 - THE EXAMPLE OF CHRIST
A Shake-up in Judea
CONCLUSION - “LET THIS MIND BE IN YOU”
***
Acknowledgments ***
We would
like to acknowledge and thank the following people for their input, constructive
criticism, editing and encouragement.
Jay Ferris, Douglas Weaver, Bud Heringer, Pepper Skeen, Kevin Paul,
Lynn and Barb Troyer, Nathan
Sanglap and Dorothy Clark.
Four
authors, other than Tyndale, that have greatly influenced this book are listed below. We highly recommend
them.
Dr. Norman
Park, It Shall Not Be So Among You
Frank
Daniels, Non-Ecclesiastical New Testament
John
M.Bland, Men Who Would Be Kings
Alister
McGrath, In The Beginning
All scripture quotations are
from the King James version unless otherwise specified.
Introduction
This book was written as an expose' of an 1800 year old conspiracy.
It is intended to define the conspiracy, leaving you to judge for yourself.
Consider it a primer, covering only the basic elements of the subject. It is not
intended to be exhaustive, since the total truth of this matter could not be
told in such brevity. It is written with the utmost confidence that its readers
will be its perfecters. It is the result of a million prayers, asking, "Why? Why
Lord, is the Church before me so unlike the one I read about in the Bible? Why O
God is there so much failure and defeat in what is supposed to be the
representation of you in the earth?” This book may present more questions than
answers, but questions are not to be feared. God is not like the haggard
parent who resents the seemingly unending barrage of questions proceeding from
the inquisitive child. God is eager and attentive to them all.
While not written for everyone, this book is dedicated to those
analytical ones who have dared to ask the forbidden question, "What is wrong
with the church?" It is dedicated to all those who are willing to pay the price
to see Christ's Ekklesia restored.
The reformation is not over. In fact it is just begun, and this book is
dedicated to all reformers everywhere. It is dedicated, as we are, to the
restoration of all things. It is written to those who willingly suffer the loss
of all things for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ. It is written in
the deepest respect and honor for those of whom the world is not worthy, who
laid down their very lives to expose this conspiracy. What qualifies us to write
such a work? Nothing, except perhaps an indescribable burden, a passion that can
only be characterized by the heart of a Father yearning to see His children set
free from their oppressors, and a desire for the final deliverance of His family
from the conspirators’ hands.
George Davis and Michael Clark
Chapter 1
The King’s
New Bible
History is
brimming with men whose hearts were forged in times of religious tyranny. The
abuses increased until someone came forth with God’s cry for freedom. Men like
Peter Waldo, John Wycliffe, John Hus,
Savonarola, Martin Luther, Huldreich Zwingli, and John Calvin, to name a
few. Some of these gave their very lives for that declaration. These were men
crying for reformation. The word reformation implies that the church to
be reformed was deformed or malformed. What was in need of reformation? What was
wrong? Some things seemed obvious, but average people had no way of proving or
disproving their suspicions. If they did speak up their lives would be
endangered by the very institution that claimed to speak for the God of love.
The terror that plagued the hearts and minds at the very mention of the word heretic kept them silent, for the end of
everyone who was given the title was the same--burning at the stake.
There was one that would not keep silent. His keen mind had been
honed in the finest schools of 15th century England. William Tyndale was a
graduate of Oxford and Cambridge, a Greek scholar. He was a man moved by
compassion for the plight of the people of England. He despised the tyranny of
the papal Church, showing his contempt by referring to its priesthood as scribes
and Pharisees.
"Moreover, because the kingdom of heaven, which is the scripture and
word of God, may be so locked up, that he which readeth or heareth it, cannot
understand it: as Christ testifieth how the Scribes and the Pharisees had so
shut it up (Matt 23) and had taken away the key of knowledge (Luke 11) that
their Jews which thought themselves within, were yet so locked out, and are to
this day that they can understand no sentence of the scripture unto salvation,
though they can rehearse the texts everywhere and dispute thereof as subtly as
the popish doctors of dunce's dark learning, which with their sophistry, served
us, as the Pharisees did the Jews…” (Tyndale’s New Testament,
preface 1534)
Furthermore, he accused them of altering the scriptures to suit their
own purpose.
"I thought it my duty (most dear reader) to warn thee before and to
show thee the right way in, and to give thee the true key to open it withal, and
to arm thee against false prophets and malicious hypocrites whose perpetual
study is to leavn the scripture with glosses, and there to lock it up where it
should save thy soul, and to make us shoot at a wrong mark, to put our trust in
those things that profit their bellies only and slay our souls."(Ibid,
Preface)
Later George Fox wrote:
“Master Tyndale considered this only, or most chiefly, to be the
cause of all mischief in the Church, that the Scriptures of God were hidden from
the people's eyes; for so long the abominable doings and idolatries maintained
by the pharisaical clergy could not be espied; and therefore all their labor was
with might and main to keep it down, so that either it should not be read at
all, or if it were, they would darken the right sense with the mist of their
sophistry, and so entangle those who rebuked or despised their abominations;
wresting the Scripture unto their own purpose, contrary unto the meaning of the
text, they would so delude the unlearned lay people, that though thou felt in
thy heart, and wert sure that all were false that they said, yet couldst thou
not solve their subtle riddles.” Foxe,
pp. 141-142.
Tyndale's assessment of the problem was that the scriptures were
hidden from the eyes of the people.” As a result, the people could not solve the
priest’s subtle riddles. The clergy covered up their abominations and idolatries
by hiding the scriptures from the people's eyes and darkening the right sense of
the scriptures by their fallacious arguments. This went well beyond mere verbal
deceit to tampering with the scriptural text.
Tyndale set himself to solve this problem by producing the world’s
first English New Testament, translated from the original Greek into the common
vernacular of the people. In doing so, he exposed what we call the great ecclesiastical conspiracy that
was at the heart of all the abuses. The church had something to protect and
protect it they did, and in their usual manner they began to plot the death of
the heretic.
Michael Scheifler tells of the general sense of ill will toward
Tyndale by those of the papal church, and why.
"Sir Thomas More, had this to say about Tyndale- he calls him 'a
beast', as one of the 'hell-hounds that the devil hath in his kennel',
discharging a 'filthy foam of blasphemies out of his brutish beastly mouth'...
“So what had Tyndale done in his translation that was so heretical?
According to David Daniell, Tyndale had translated the Greek word for 'elder' as
'elder' instead of 'priest', he had translated the Greek word for 'congregation'
as 'congregation' instead of 'church', the Greek word for 'repentance' as
'repentance' instead of 'penance' etc. Why were such differences important to
the church? The Roman Church has priests, not elders. A congregation implies a
locally autonomous group of believers guided by the Holy Spirit and not a
hierarchical unified church subject to a Pope. The Roman Church is built on
penance and indulgences to the priest and Church, not repentance to, and
forgiveness from God. In trying to faithfully render the Greek into English,
Tyndale's translation exposed the errors of the church to the people which
quickly brought the wrath of the church down on him.” (Michael Scheifler William Tyndale -
Heretical Blasphemer?)
Even the casual reader of history will discover that there was in
fact an attempt by the Church of Rome to adulterate the scriptures. An attempt
to replace the Greek and Hebrew text with Latin to keep the true meaning of the
scriptures from the people, concealing them in a dead language that only
scholars knew. It was a conspiracy conceived in hell.
Let us digress for a moment.
By 600 AD Latin was the only language allowed for scripture. The
scriptures were thus subject to Papal interpretation and were most certainly
altered to suit the church’s ecclesiastical paradigm. This explains the hatred
for the Hebrew and Greek texts, since the original texts exposed their façade.
Albert Gilmore explains,
"The languages of the early Bibles, Hebrew and Greek, were no longer
of interest. So marked did this lack of interest become that when, after the
Renaissance, Cardinal Ximenes published his Polyglot edition with the Latin
Vulgate between the Greek and Hebrew versions of the Old Testament, he stated in
his preface that it was 'like Jesus between two thieves" (Gilmore, The Bible: Beacon Light of
History, Boston: Associated Authors, 1935, p. 170).
Tyndale was right. They were wresting the scriptures unto their own
purposes. How far had the church fallen from its original norm? Suffice it to
say that it was nothing like its founder (Jesus) intended. Amazingly enough, the
Bible itself was the primary tool for deception. By the adulteration and
misrepresentation of the scriptures, ambitious men justified their jobs in a
system ruled by despotic pontiff kings and their hireling bishops. This is no
less than a conspiracy that continues to this very day.
The following questions may help us see the depth of this
conspiracy.
How did the Greek word Ekklesia, meaning a called out assembly, come to be
translated church, a word that is
neither Greek or English but is of doubtful Latin or perhaps Scottish origin and
implies temple worship? Some believe it to be of pagan origin. Regardless, what
is a word that is neither Greek nor English doing in a Greek to English
translation?
Why did the Greek words “presbytery (the elderly), apostle (envoy or sent one), and deacon (servant) remain untranslated
into their Anglicized form? Why was the Greek word presbuteros (older or elderly)
translated priest? Why indeed! There
is little doubt that these words remained untranslated so the clergy could
redefine them, interpreting them with the strongest institutional and
hierarchical connotations. Was this mere ignorance, or a means of creating a
ruling class of super saints? It is clear to us that down through the years the
scriptures have been subjected to papal tampering. There even remains evidence
that some of the early manuscripts were altered.
“But almost all authorities on the text agree that they preserve a
better text than the standardized 5th century one, which shows clear signs of
having been edited.” (Erdmans handbook to
the Bible, pp. 73)
It is also clear that this tampering was to promote and justify a
system of church government ordered after the government of "the kings of the
Gentiles," which Christ had strictly prohibited, saying, "But you shall not be so." (See Luke
22:25-26). Whatever happened to the servanthood that Jesus and the early Church
modeled? How did these servants of the first century give way to the pontiff
kings of the fourth and fifth centuries? Had Christ’s declaration, “But you shall not be so,” been
forgotten?
The early believers followed the Lord's example and instructions on
this all-important matter, and they viewed servanthood as the highest vocation.
But by the close of the first century, the subtle signs of the rise of the
bishops began, ever so cunningly, to corrupt the simplicity of the faith and to
defile the example of the lowly Christ. As absolute power tends to corrupt
absolutely, so the corruption began. Like a dead corpse rotting away, in time
the Church bore only a vague resemblance to what was once living and vibrant.
In the third century, the wound worsened by the full marriage of this
apostate church to paganism. This new "Christianity" became the imperial
religion of the Roman Empire. It was there at Constantinople that the very first
Christian temples were constructed. They were merely christianized pagan
temples. The priesthood was fashioned after a mixture of the Old Testament and
pagan priesthoods. Finally, Rome had done it. If they could not add Christ to
the pantheon, they would bring the pantheon to Christianity. The Romans had long
since tried to further unite their empire by uniting all its gods in one temple,
the pantheon. There the worship of the Son was mixed with the worship of the
sun, so much so that a third century mosaic from a tomb found under Saint
Peter’s in Rome depicted Christ as the sun god in his chariot. It was not until
the fifth century that the worshipers in Rome stopped bowing to the sun before
entering Saint Peter's basilica.
"Pope Leo 1, in the middle of the fifth century, rebuked worshippers
who turned around to bow to the sun before entering St Peters basilica." (Erdmans’ handbook to the history of
Christianity pg. 131)
The deception reigned unchecked for 925 years, until William Tyndale
challenged this religious institution with the light of the truth. He revealed
part of the conspiracy that had enslaved the family of God in this twisted,
abnormal thing, which the pharisaical clergy called the church.
Although he revealed some of the conspiracy, changing history
forever, it none the less remains. The light sent it scurrying into the shadows
only to return in a more subtle, congenial form, an anglicized form. It now
smiled as it placed the dagger between the forth and the fifth rib. A tame beast
is still a beast, and though defanged and declawed, it can still cripple and
maim.
After Tyndale was martyred for his efforts, and all but two of his
Bibles destroyed, several important events occurred. First, Henry VIII evicted
the Catholic Church from Englandbecause the Pope refused to annul his marriage
with Catherine of Aragon and
sanction his illicit relationship with Anne Boleyn. The break with Rome came in 1534, when Parliament
passed the Supremacy Act, making Henry head of the Church of England.
Henry was somewhat sympathetic to Luther's views, which opened England as never
before to Protestant influences, including translating, printing and importing
Protestant Bibles. Some men, such as Coverdale, were inspired to continue in the
spirit of Tyndale's work. There was also the Geneva Bible, which effected great
changes throughout Europe. In the tradition of Tyndale, these Bibles no longer
promoted the divine right of kings and ruling bishops, but instead recognized
the priesthood of all believers. To kings and bishops who exercised absolute
authority over the masses, this was intolerable. More than anything else, this
set the stage for the translation of a new Bible. The king's new Bible was
translated to solidify the station of both king and bishops, preserving and
advancing a system of Church government that stood in antithesis to Christ's
example and teachings and continues to do so until this very day.
We believe in the inspiration and accuracy of the koine Greek texts of the New Testament.
However the translations that have followed are not as reliable for a number of
reasons, not the least of which is ecclesiastical ambition. Historically, this
love letter from God that we call the Bible was shaped into a scepter of power
in the hands of popes, kings and would-be kings to further consolidate their
power over the masses. Undoubtedly this very ambition has tainted the
translations from Jerome onward. This reached new heights at a time when bishops
sought the approval of kings to authorize translations that had been
purposefully skewed toward their ecclesiastical paradigm.
It is ludicrous to many that the Protestant Church could be guilty of
carrying on any of the traditions of the Catholic Church that it so loudly
objected to. To some, the idea of an ongoing conspiracy is even more
unbelievable, because they already possess the unadulterated truth. They hold it
in their hands, professing that it is the ultimate authority, the only true
Bible, the authorized Bible, the King James Bible. Authorized by whom? No less
than King James himself! King James did his part in preserving the conspiracy.
An understanding
of the political climate of the early 16th century is crucial if we
are to comprehend the motives and logic behind the king's new translation. King
James was a staunch advocate of the divine right of kings, as facilitated by
puppet bishops. This was the Anglican answer to papal succession, in which
active resistance to pope or king was considered a sin worthy of eternal
damnation. In his Basilicon Doron, in
the second sonnet entitled "THE ARGUMENT OF THE BOOK" (written to his son), we
catch a glimpse of James' exaggerated appraisal of kingship.
"GOD gives not Kings the
style of Gods in vain,
For on his throne his Scepter do they sway:
And as
their subjects out [sic] them to obey,
So Kings should fear and
serve their god again."
for kings are
not only God’s lieutenants upon earth and set upon
God’s throne,
but even by God himself they are
called gods."
True to his words, James dissolved Parliament and
for ten years thereafter he ruled England without it.
Considering
James' overstated view of kingship and his disregard for the parliamentarian
style of leadership, it is understandable that he would also have apprehensions
regarding Presbyterianism. This style of church government was developed by
Calvin in Geneva, and had no place for kings or bishops.
In his excellent
book titled In the Beginning, Alister
McGrath tells of a particular event that took place in Scotland, which shaped
James' views on this matter.
"His views on this matter were shaped to no small extent by some
unpleasant experiences with Scottish presbyteries, particularly under Andrew
Melville, a Scottish Presbyterian who had taught at Geneva Academy, and formed a
close personal relationship with Calvin's protégé, Theodore Beza. At a heated
encounter between the king and senior churchmen at Falkland Place in October
1596, Melville had physically taken hold of James and accused him of being
"God's silly vassal." Melville pointedly declared that while they would support
James as king in public, in private they all knew perfectly well that Christ was
the true king of Scotland, and his kingdom was the Kirk - a kingdom in which
James was a mere member, not a lord or head. James was shaken by this physical
and verbal assault, not the least because it suggested that Melville and his
allies posed a significant threat to the Scottish throne." ("In The Beginning" -
Pg. 140)
James also
developed a dislike for the Geneva Bible, which was widely read and promoted by
the Puritans. At that time it was in fact the most popular Bible in England.
James' disdain for the Geneva Bible was not so much due to the translation
itself but primarily because of its marginal notes that promoted the notion that
all believers comprised the New Testament priesthood and that they, not the
king, were God's anointed.
The Geneva Bible
notes on Psalms 105:14-15 read,
Psalm 105:14 He suffered no
man to do them wrong: yea, he reprove kings for their sakes;
(g) That is,
the king of Egypt and the king of Gerar, (Ge 12:17,20:3)
Psalm 105:15 [Saying],
Touch not mine h anointed, and do my i prophets no harm.
(i) Meaning, the old fathers, to whom God
showed himself plainly, and who set forth his word.
The anointed that should not be touched were not kings. In fact, God
reproved kings for their sake. The anointed consists of ALL those whom God has
sanctified to be His people, not a king or a special breed of ruling ministers.
The Geneva Bible notes on Luke 22:24 reads,
Luke 22:24 And there was also a strife among them,
which of them should be accounted the greatest.
(8) The pastors are not called to rule but to
serve.
Gary DeMar comments further,
"In 1620 the Pilgrims arrived at Plymouth with their Bibles and a
conviction derived from those Bibles of establishing a new nation. The Bible was
not the King James Version. When James I became king of England in 1603, there
were two translations of the Bible in use; the Geneva Bible was the most
popular, and the Bishops' Bible was used for reading in churches.
"King James disapproved of the Geneva Bible because of its
Calvinistic leanings. He also frowned on what he considered to be seditious
marginal notes on key political texts. A marginal note for Exodus 1:9 indicated
that the Hebrew midwives were correct in disobeying the Egyptian king's orders,
and a note for 2 Chronicles 15:16 said that King Asa should have had his mother
executed and not merely deposed for the crime of worshipping an idol. The King
James Version of the Bible grew out of the king's distaste for these brief but
potent doctrinal commentaries. He considered the marginal notes to be a
political threat to his kingdom.
"At a conference at Hampton Court in 1604 with bishops and
theologians, the king listened to a suggestion by the Puritan scholar John
Reynolds that a new translation of the Bible was needed. Because of his distaste
for the Geneva Bible, James was eager for a new translation. 'I profess,' he
said, 'I could never yet see a Bible well translated in English; but I think
that, of all, that of Geneva is the worst.'" (The Geneva Bible: The Forgotten
Translation by Gary DeMar)
This helps us to better understand why the Geneva Bible was so
despised by King James. It is not an overstatement to say that much of James'
conduct as king of England was reactionary, done to counter an unacceptable turn
toward egalitarianism. There is little doubt in our minds but that a clandestine
scheme lay at the heart of James' decision to translate his new Bible.
After James came to England and was
crowned king, a bishop by the name of Richard Bancroft, soon to become
archbishop, sought to save the church and the nation of England from the puritan
"false prophets." Bancroft was aware of James' exalted view of kingship and used
that knowledge to promote his own agenda. In presenting the Puritans as a threat
to the crown, Bancroft solicited the king's help in suppressing this greatest
threat to his position and power and in so doing made himself the highest
authority in the Church of England, second only to the King himself. There can
be little doubt but that the true motive behind Bancroft's intrigue was a desire
to preserve the power of the unbiblical bishoprick.
Alister McGrath
explains Bancroft's strategy.
"Bancroft's strategy for coping with James was simple. He would
persuade James that the monarchy was dependent upon the episcopacy. Without
bishops there was no future for the monarchy in England." ("In The Beginning" -
Pg. 152)
This political cunning played a
significant role in the decision to translate a new Bible, an Authorized Version that would make all
other versions unauthorized. From all appearances, the new translation was a
calculated initial step toward ridding England of the despised Geneva Bible and
its marginal notes. This new Bible would preserve and promote the divine right
of kings and bishops to rule. Bishop Bancroft was placed in charge of the
translation. This move was akin to a CEO entrusting the company finances to a
known embezzler! There is little doubt that Bancroft stacked the translation
panel with a goodly number of translators who shared his views.
Mr. McGrath
explains,
"A further point that helped win Bancroft over to the new translation
was that he was able to secure for himself a leading personal role in selecting
the translators, and then in limiting their freedom. Bancroft had realized that
it was better to create a new official translation that he could influence than
to have to contend with the authorization of the Geneva Bible. It was decidedly
the lesser of two evils. He was in a position to exercise considerable influence
over the new bible, by laying rules of translation that would insure that it
would be sympathetic to the position and sensitivities of the established church
of England. And finally he would be in a position to review the final text of
the translation, in case it needed any judicious changes before publication…"
("In The Beginning" - Pg 164)
Determined to
ensure that the translation process was prudently guided, Bancroft limited the
freedom of the translators by drafting fifteen rules of translation, which were
approved by King James.
Two of these rules are of special importance.
1.) “The ordinary Bible read in the church, commonly called the
Bishops Bible, was to be followed and as little altered as the truth of the
original will permit.”
3.) “The old Ecclesiastical words to be kept, vis. The word
Church not to be translated Congregation &c.”
The Bishops
Bible was a revision of the Great Bible, which was expressly translated in hopes
of replacing the Geneva Bible.
Archbishop Matthew Parker commissioned this revision. A company of bishops
did the translating - thus the name "The Bishops Bible." Archbishop Parker faced
considerable opposition from the Puritans for his insistence upon the use of
robes and his writings that held to the old line.
Ironically the
Bishops Bible, which until that time had been ineffective in accomplishing its
original purpose of replacing the Geneva Bible, would now, in the hands of
another ambitious bishop, be used to that very end. In order to preserve their
precious power base, King James and Bishop Bancroft took a giant step backwards
in order to negate the Tyndale, Coverdale, and Geneva Bibles.
Rule number three
was clearly designed to insure that Tyndale’s translation of the Greek word ekklesia as congregation instead of church would not be used in the King’s
new Bible. Tyndale had
translated the Greek word ekklesia as
congregation, and revealed his
contempt for the word “Church” by
using the word “churches” in acts 19:37 to refer to heathen temples. Could he
have been trying to tell us something?
Clearly, an accurate translation was not the objective of Bancroft
and his team. As if that were not
enough, when the translation was complete, Bancroft took the final draft into
his home and further altered it before giving it over to the king to be
published.
Alister McGrath
explains,
"Having completed their recommendations for revision (of the work of
the translators of the Kings new Bible), the text was passed on to Miles Smith
and Thomas Bilson, who were charged with the adding of the finishing touches. It
is not clear whether their role was to review the overall text of the
translation, or simply to comment on the specific changes proposed by the
editorial committee that had met at Stationers' Hall. Then, in an apparently
unscripted development, Richard Bancroft reviewed what had been hitherto
regarded as the final version of the text. It would be one of his final acts;
Bancroft died on November 2, 1610, and never lived to see the translation over
which he had held so much sway (by order of the king). Smith complained loudly
to anyone who would listen that Bancroft had introduced fourteen changes in the
final text without any consultation. Yet we remain unclear to what those alleged
changes might have been." (In The
Beginning - Pg. 188)
This is only a sample of the kind of political jockeying that was
going on behind the scenes and the ambition that sponsored the translating,
editing and publication of the king's new Bible, which could not escape being
tainted by such ambition.
King James prohibited his translators from removing the old
ecclesiastical words that had taken generations to weave into the text. He had
to make a special emphasis in order to keep them, since any honest translator
would have translated them out. Bancroft and King James intended to keep them no
matter what the translators discovered.
"I am convinced that the King James Translators, laboring under an
'institutional church' mentality, selected the strongest words possible which
conveyed the idea that the people must submit to the authority of the clergy. In
this way King James could control the people through the Church, of which he was
Supreme Ruler." (Dusty Owens - quote
taken from "It shall not be so among you"
by Norman Park)
Chapter
2
Twisted
Scriptures
Now let us begin to look at a few of the passages that we believe
were altered to advance the authority of king and clergy, some of which are not
translations at all but are either paraphrases or outright fabrications!
Deacons
Although the KJV is called a translation, we should note that in some
places it is not a translation but a paraphrase. We should be leery of all such
portions of scripture. A word for word translation would have left the readers
to decide the truth for themselves, but that was unacceptable. This brought
about use of entire phrases to redefine one Greek word, in order to promote the
ecclesiastical paradigm. One such case is found in 1Timothy 3:13.
"For they that (1247) have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good
degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus."
The words have used the office
of a deacon were all used to define one Greek word, diakoneo, which is defined as:
"To be a servant, attendant, domestic, to serve, wait upon…"
(Strong's)
The words have used the office of a deacon are a paraphrase of one
Greek word - (diakoneo), which simply
means, to serve. It is only
translated have used the office of a
deacon in first Timothy 3:13. Throughout the rest of the New Testament, Diakoneo never implies office or rule, but the service of a slave to
his master. The words have used the
office of a deacon were clearly an attempt to redefine what was once
descriptive of the loving service of a slave and make it a hierarchical office.
W.E. Vine explains,
"…the R.V. rightly omits “office” and translates the verb diakoneo to
serve."
Lets take a look at how the Greek word diakoneo is used in other scriptures in
the New Testament, as it will give us a better understanding of its true
meaning. Here are a couple of examples.
Matthew 8:15: And he touched her hand, and the fever left her: and
she arose, and ministered (diakoneo) unto them.
Matthew 20:28: Even as the
Son of man came not to be ministered (diakoneo) unto, but to minister
(diakoneo), and to give his
life a ransom for many.
Lets use the KJV definition of the Greek word diakoneo in 1st Timothy 3:13 - have used the office of a deacon in the
above scriptures.
Matthew 8:15: And he
touched her hand, and the fever left her: and she arose, and used the office of a deacon unto them.
Matthew 20:28: Even as the
Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to use the office of a deacon, and to give
his life a ransom for many.
You can substitute this definition throughout the scriptures wherever
the Greek word diakoneo is found and
it will sound just that silly. Why? Because the act of serving is not an office,
it is not a clerical job, nor a seat of authority, but the labor of love, of a
life laid down.
Romans 16:1 is one of the most revealing passages.
"I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant (diakonos) of the church which is at
Cenchrea…"
To translate the Greek word diakonos as servant when applied to a
woman–Phebe--when it was normally
transliterated deacon when applied to
a man reveals the translators' bias. For to them a woman could not hold an office, and the idea of serving being an
office was what they were trying to
justify. The Greek word diakonos
should be translated servant in
every instance.
Office
Throughout the entire New Testament, the word office is found nowhere in the Greek
text in connection with the ekklesia.
Yet it is so used five different times in the KJV.
One instance in which the King James translators tried to preserve
their old Ecclesiastical words and imply office rather than service is Romans11:13.
"For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the
Gentiles, I magnify mine office." (diakonia).
Nowhere else in all of the New Testament is this word (diakonia) translated mine office.
Let us look at a few other passages in which the Greek word diakonia is used, as this will give us a
greater sense of its meaning.
In Luke 10:40 diakonia is
translated as “much serving.”
"But Martha was cumbered about much serving (diakonia), and came to him, and said,
Lord, dost thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone? bid her
therefore that she help me."
Was Martha magnifying her office, or was she just serving? What
was the nature of her service? Was it domestic or clerical?
Diakonia is translated my service in Romans 15:31, to do you service in 2
Corinthians 11:8 and service In Revelation 2:19. As you can
see, diakonia speaks of service to
others, not official tenure.
Another instance is found in Romans 12:4.
"For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not
the same office:"
The Greek word that was translated office here is praxis, which has absolutely nothing to
do with office. Praxis means a doing, deed and the above passage is
descriptive of the functioning of the individual members of the body of Christ.
Not every member has the same function. Praxis in no way implies an elite cast
of official ministers defined by title or office. This was a very clever
mistranslation designed to overwrite relational body ministry with
hierarchy.
This is the only instance in which praxis is translated office. We find this extremely
interesting, especially considering that this obvious mistranslation is in the
context of the every-member-participation of the Body of Christ.
Praxis is correctly
translated in Romans 8:13.
"For if you live according
to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds
(praxis) of the body, you will
live." (NKJV)
Again, the word office is
never used in relationship to the ekklesia. Neither the Greek noun hierateia (a priest's office, Luke 1:9;
Heb. 7:5), nor the Greek Verb hierateuo (to officiate as a priest,
Luke 1:8) are used regarding the community of Christ in the original text. The
concept of office or a special priest cast is alien to the purpose and nature of
the body of Christ, where differences are defined by function, not by managerial
positions. The arm has a different function than the leg but does that make one
better than the other, thus ruling over the operation of the other?
According to the teachings of the New Testament, the old covenant
priesthood has been discarded, and in its place is the priesthood of ALL
believers - a priesthood that functions relationally rather than hierarchically.
True first century serving was not done in the context of a religious
service; it was done in the context of life in general. In the homes and on the
streets, wherever the needs were, there the faithful in Christ served. There was
no altar, pulpit or pew, no starting time or final benediction. There were no
clergy, and no laity or spectators, but a royal priesthood consisting of all
believers. They were not building a church; they were serving Christ, and
encouraging others to do so, and in that, Jesus built the church.
We do not deny that there were those whose lives were set aside to
serve the saints in the first century church. However, when they said the word
diakonia it meant something different
to them than it does to us today. They were simply following the example of
Jesus who "made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a
servant…" (Philippians 2:7). They had seen it with their own eyes--God on his
knees washing human feet. Jesus came to serve and leave us with a supreme
example. We cannot, even with a wild stretch of the imagination, believe that
the early believers saw their service to be official or hierarchical.
Another instance of the baseless use of the word office can be found in 1Timothy
3:1.
"This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good
work."
What in the world is a
bishop? We thought it was a piece on a chessboard! There is that word office again! Does it make you
suspicious? Us too! Here once again, the King James translators, in obedience to
Bancroft's fifteen rules of translation, were preserving the old ecclesiastical
words, even the ones that were not in the original Greek text, such as office"
W.E. Vine explains,
“…the word “office” in the phrase “the office of a Bishop,” has
nothing to represent it in the original.”
John Bland further explains:
"The translators, under the king's injunction to keep the main terms
of the Church of England's ecclesiastical form, make two main errors. The first
is adding a word to the text that doesn't appear in the Greek, i.e. "office".
There is neither a word in the text for office NOR the idea of office outside
their own paradigm. The second is an error in translation. The word translated
"Bishop" is episkopos. The word means
to "oversee", to "tend". Vine defines it thus: "EPISKOPOS, lit., an overseer
(epi, over, skopeo, to look or watch), whence Eng. "bishop"..." The passage in
1st Timothy actually reads, "If a man wants to oversee, he desires a good work"
(John M. Bland "MEN WHO WOULD BE
"KINGS")
The expression to oversee
does not imply office in the sense of one being superior to another. It is a
job description, not an office title. It describes those who have the God-given
ability to see the needs of others and to tend to those needs. They are
caregivers, not overlords.
The literal Greek stresses “a good work” of serving the community of
Christ, not an illustrious office called Bishop. Please note this
difference: the latter is spawned out of the desire to be first, the former is
motivated by love. Which do you think was the meaning of the author who laid his
life down, in service and in martyrdom, for Christ’s sake and the sake of his
body, the ekklesia? If Paul had
sought to promote an office and himself as an officer, early church history
would be a much different. The truth is that he loved not his life unto death,
and thought little about his own promotion. He had a job to finish, a course to
run, and his thoughts were preoccupied with its faithful completion. History
bears this out.
The meaning of the Greek word episkopos, in a Christian context, is watch over, not as a superintendent but
as a caregiver. Episkopos does not
refer to an authoritarian position within the church but is a description of the
function of those who have advanced in maturity, both naturally and spiritually.
That maturity is manifest in their selfless and godly care for all believers. We
should listen to such individuals, but this does not mean they are our lords and
we are to render them unquestioned obedience. Such men and women are not
distinguished by titles and robes, but by their loving devotion and service to
Christ and His Body.
Where then did we get the concept that bishops are rulers? Perhaps a
lesson in history would help the modern reader to better understand how it is
that we inherited the current hierarchical system of church leadership.
From the first century until now, the political mindset of each era
of history was adopted by the church of that particular era. Hence the concept
of ruling bishops evolved, with each generation and nation adding its own
peculiar twist. When the church falls to the level of a mere institution it will
always adopt the political style of the nation where it resides. Generally
speaking, the bent of the natural man was to make the word bishop a title of a ruling position
instead of the function of a caregiver and servant, such as the godly elderly of
the early church. It was somewhat due to the influence of Ignatius in the
2nd century that this concept arose. It was Ignatius who held the
concept that the Bishop (overseer)
was a different person from the elder (which means an older wiser one). Ignatius
was received well because of his affiliation with the Lord's aged disciple John.
He over-emphasized obedience to bishops and stressed the unbiblical clergy-laity
distinction, which was already spreading throughout the world.
Eventually the
concept of a head Bishop over the other bishops in each city began to evolve,
which developed further into a mother church concept in that a bigger city held
reign over its smaller surrounding cities and villages. This eventually led to
the invention of such grandiose titles as archbishop, cardinal, and pope. None
of these titles are found in the scriptures or in the writings of the early
church fathers. After this the local character of the ekklesia was lost because there was now
one worldwide hierarchy, with the pope at the top. The concept of one Catholic
(meaning universal) church was
brought into full swing, divided into administrative districts known as
dioceses, another concept that was borrowed from the Roman government.
Then there was the European influence. The prevailing political and
economical system of Europe was the feudal system. The lands were all owned by
either the king or his lords. The common man was permitted to live on that land
that surrounded the castle of each lord, and the peasants were taxed on what
they produced as well as paying rent to the lord. In exchange, the serfs could
run to the shelter of the castle and its moat if there was an invasion of the
land by another army, or they could turn to the gerefa, the scirgerefa (sheriff, who also doubled as
tax collector) to keep the thieves at bay and maintain order.
The Roman model of the church coat-tailed on this system. The bishop
or archbishop reigned from a cathedral. These were very political positions
often occupied by members of the ruling class. The right of primogeniture was
part and parcel of the feudal system. The king and his lords gave the entire
inheritance to the oldest son. As a result the younger sons, disgruntled and
rejected, often sought power and identity by gaining office in the church. These
two systems worked hand in hand to maintain control over the serfs. One used the
threat of an army and sheriffs; the other threatened the heavenly displeasure of
God Himself. The very possibility of being branded a heretic and having to face
the torment of the church's inquisitors and their various methods of torture
often kept would-be dissenters at bay. After all, the church could always depend
on the armies of the kings to back it up in time of need, just as Herod and
Pontius Pilate came to the aid of the Jewish Sanhedrin when it came time to
crucify Jesus.
It is interesting to note that the cathedrals had a second desired
effect besides giving the bishop and his servants a place reign from. These
structures were an engineering feat and very intimidating. Compared to the
thatched roofed mud huts of the common serf, these giant structures that
dominated the skyline were like putting a man on the moon in terms of the
technology of the day. The common man was humbled by the very structure itself
and was prone to think that the one who was the "pilot" of such a building as
this must be like unto God Himself.
The American
Church is an amalgamation of all of the above influences, and adds its own
unique cultural bias to the mix. Hence the American church is run like a
corporation and its leadership is modeled after the entrepreneurial CEO.
None of
these influences can be found in the Lord's teachings or the example of the
early church. The presence of such societal values in the church indicates that
the world has been more influential in shaping the church and its leadership
than has the Spirit of the lowly Christ, who said, "my kingdom is not of this
world.”
Bishoprick
Now let us consider another old
ecclesiastical word that has been used to advance this notion of office.
BISHOPRICK is a strange sounding word that appears only once in the New
Testament, in Acts chapter one, verse twenty.
"For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be
desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick (episkopes) let another take."
One of the definitions of episkopes is visitation, which we feel comes closest
to capturing its true meaning. Visitation speaks of a work, not an
office. Nevertheless, the term bishoprick sure sounds official.
It is important
to note here that the word visitation
throughout the Old Testament primarily applies to the judgment of God upon the
nations. Even Jerusalem, the city of peace, would know such judgment. Standing
on a hill, overlooking this beloved city, Jesus wept as he spoke the following
words,
"If you, even you, had known
today the things which belong to your peace! But now, they are hidden from your
eyes. For the days will come on you, when your enemies will throw up a barricade
against you, surround you, hem you in on every side, and will dash you and your
children within you to the ground. They will not leave in you one stone on
another, because you didn't know the time of your visitation (episkope)." (Luke 19:42-44
WEB)
Jesus selected the apostles for this specific purpose. Just as He
stood before the high counsel as a divine testimony against them, so these men
He selected stood before the governors and kings of the nations for a testimony
against them.
"And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for
a testimony against them and the Gentiles." (Matthew10:18)
They were to attest to a New Kingdom with a new King. This could
explain why they were not long upon this earth. They were as ill treated as
their Savior was. They were not called to execute judgment upon the ekklesia but to lift the standard of the
gospel of the kingdom before all, including governors and kings. They filled up
the measure of Jesus’ sufferings. It was a thankless job, rewarded by stripes
and imprisonment and finally death. They had been called to suffering. The Lord
spoke to Ananias regarding this call on Paul's life saying, "For I will show him how
many things he must suffer for My name’s sake” (Acts 9:16 NKJV). Paul commented on this
further in 1Corinthians 4:9 saying,
"For I think that God has
displayed us, the apostles, last, as men condemned to death; for we have been
made a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men."
Jesus spoke about this to Peter in John chapter twenty-one.
"Most assuredly, I say to
you, when you were younger, you girded yourself and walked where you wished; but
when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and
carry you where you do not wish."
This He
spoke, signifying by what death he would glorify God. And when He had spoken
this, He said to him, "Follow Me."
(John 21:18; 19 NKJV)
They knew the fellowship
of his sufferings. They drank deeply
from his cup. Let everyone who
aspires to be an apostle fully understand the job description. It is not an
opportunity to be first and rule over God's saints, but to glorify Him in being
set forth as last, appointed to death, as the filth of the world and the
offscouring of all things, as a testimony and a witness. Do you still want the
job?
Elders
The Greek word translated elder by the KJV translators is Presbuteros.
According to W.E. Vine, Presbuteros is "an
adjective, the comparative degree of presbus, an old man, an elder....of age,
whether of the elder of two persons...the eldest...of a person advanced in life,
a senior..."
How is it that the Greek adjective presbuteros, ("older" or "elderly") mysteriously
became a noun, represented in the
English text by two official sounding titles, i.e., presbyter and elder? Among 54 translators in the KJV
panel, at least one of them should have known the difference between an
adjective and a noun.
They changed the translation of the Greek word presbuteros, which was formerly
translated priest by the papacy, to
elder, Tyndale's translation of the
word. They did, however, do all that was within their power to give the term elder the same priestly and hierarchical
connotation.
In his book entitled The Royal
Priesthood, Carl Ketcherside exposes this conspiracy, revealing how the
Catholic Church, through sophistry, sought to make presbuteros (elder) into a priestly office, aloof
from the rest of the believers.
"The original word which is mistranslated "priests" by the Roman
Catholic version is the Greek "presbuteros" which literally means "an aged
person." The word for priest is "hiereus." Nothing can be more palpably
misleading than the deliberate translation of a word to justify a practice; thus
changing the Bible to suit a human system, rather than changing such a system to
suit the Bible. To prove this grave charge I cite the very book of Acts, from
which Dr. O'Brien quotes. There were both "priests" and "elders" among the Jews.
Since Rome translates the word "presbuteros" (an aged man) by the term priests
in Acts 14:22, what does she do when the words for both "priests" and "elders"
occur in the same verse? Notice the Douay Version at Acts 6:23: "And being let
go, they came to their own company, and related all that the chief priests
(archiereis) and ancients (presbuteroi) had said to them." In Acts 23:14, the
Douay Version reads: "Who came to the chief priests (archiereusin) and the
ancients (presbuterois)." In Acts 25:15, "When I was at Jerusalem, the chief
priests, and the ancients of the Jews, came unto me." Why did the translators
from the Latin Vulgate not render the above by "chief priests and priests"? They
knew that it was obvious that there were both priests and elders among the Jews,
and an arbitrary translation of priests for "presbuteros" would be easily
detected. Therefore they translated it by the word "ancients," which can be and
is used in both an official and non-official sense in the New Covenant
scriptures. Why then did they not
translate Acts 14:22 in conformity with their translation elsewhere, to read:
"And when they had ordained to them ancients in every church, they commended
them to the Lord in whom they believed"? Rome had to get her priestcraft in,
even if she violated all laws of interpretation and forfeited all claims to
consistency. Of such fragile, fanciful tissue is the great fabric of priestcraft
woven."
The difference between the orthodox model of leadership today and the
first century model is that one says, Do
as I say, while the other said, "Do
as I do.” One is positional and the other is relational. The world is
starving for examples; people are desperately looking for heroes, someone to
show them the way. The first century elderly understood that the only power they
possessed to influence others was the power of love and of their example.
Perhaps you are asking, but doesn't the Bible say that elders are responsible to
rule OVER the flock?
It is amazing
how much one little word can change the meaning of a passage of scripture. Such
is the case with this word over. Take
for instance, Paul's words to the Ephesian elders in Acts 20:28 which reads,
"Take heed therefore unto
yourselves, and to all the flock, over (en) which the Holy Ghost hath made you
overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own
blood."
This is a deliberate mistranslation. It could be nothing else for it
required that the simplest Greek preposition, en (in or among), which is used 2,700 times in
the New Testament and is nowhere else translated over, should be translated over only here and that in the context
of leadership.
Peter instructed the presbuteros of his day regarding the
nature of their work, reminding them of the perimeters set by the Lord
Himself.
"Neither as being lords
over (katakurieuo) God's
heritage, but being ensamples to the flock." (1Peter 5:3)
The Greek word
katakurieuo translated lords over in the above passage is a
compound verb consisting of kata, down, and Kurieuo, to exercise lordship. Katakurieuo describes how a lord
typically relates to a minion. He relates down (kata) because he is thought to be above
or over. It is certain that Peter was remembering the words of Christ, who said
"You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over (katakurieuo) them … It shall not be so
among you…" Jesus forbids His followers to lord-down upon each other. Instead,
he reminds us that he who would be great must be a servant and whoever would be
first must be a slave, even as the Son of man came not to be served but to
serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. (See Matthew 20:25-28)
In his
commentary on 1 Peter 5:3, William Macdonald wrote,
"Elders should be examples, not dictators. They should be
walking out in front of the flock, not driving them from behind. They should not
treat the flock as if it belonged to them. This strikes at the very heart of
authoritarianism! Many of the abuses in Christendom would be eliminated by
simply obeying the three instructions in verses 2, 3. The first would abolish
all reluctance. The second would
spell the end of commercialism. The
third would be the death of officialism in the church."
The first century presbuterion were the elderly who
followed in Christ's example of servanthood and were recognized (See Philippians 3:17). These men were not
lords over or controllers of God’s heritage. They were, "…examples becoming (ginomai) the flock…"(Morris Literal Translation). Ginomai is the Greek word from which we
get our English word generate. It is
a primary verb, meaning to cause to
be ("gen"-erate) or bring into being. Ginomai speaks of
the power of example, the power to energize and inspire what they modeled. What
we are talking about is the power of a life laid down. “Greater love has no man
than this,” and as sacrifice begets greater sacrifice, the body of Christ is energized toward greater and greater
service. This is the example Jesus left us. He came to serve. Not to receive
service as a king, but to give service as a slave. In this up-side-down kingdom,
there is no thought of ruling over another; no thought of promotion, for if the
King came as a servant, what then are we to do?
Have you ever known someone who so inspired your admiration, that you
caught yourself taking on their manners, their gestures, even talking like they
talk? What you experienced, for good or bad, was the life altering power of an
example.
When I, Michael, was a young man, my aunt pointed out to me one day
that I laughed and smiled like my dad. One day in my adolescent years I even
caught myself walking like he did. That was strange, because my father had an
artificial leg that made him walk with a slight limp.
If Jesus, the ultimate example, the one who is altogether lovely, the
one who suffered the horrors of Calvary on your behalf, should stand before you
right now, you would become like him. You could not do otherwise. For it is in
seeing Him that we are transformed. The scriptures say that when He appears, we
shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is (2 Corinthians 3:18). When the
power (Ginomai) of example is gone,
all you have left is the tyranny of demanded conformity.
Because the true church is relational, not institutional, it makes
sense only in a social context, a family context. In every truly healthy family,
there is second and third generation communion. You have the grandchildren, the
parents, and the grandparents. In that context, the grandparents are the elders.
They possess the wisdom of years, and if godly, are in a position to teach by
their words and example as no other family member can. Satan has done all he can
possibly do to destroy the very concept of family, and to encourage the young in
disrespect for the elderly, ignoring their counsel. Thus, we have witnessed the
breakdown of the family and the church. The church is a family. It began in the
heart of a loving Father who sent his only Son to bring many sons to glory. Oh,
what manner of love the father has bestowed upon us that we should be called the
sons of God!
Paul wrote to Timothy, telling how he should relate to the elderly
(presbuteros) in the family of
God:
"Rebuke not an elder, (presbuteros) but intreat him as a
father; and the younger men as brethren; The elder (presbuteros) women as
mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity." (1Tm:5:1-2)
The context of this scripture is completely relational, not
institutional, and makes sense only in a family context. There is the mention of
father, mothers, sisters and brethren. This sounds like a family to
us. In the Greek, presbuteros is used
for both old men and old women. In an attempt to institutionalize, all of these
dear family terms became offices in
the papal church. And since they could not recognize any title without
ordination, everything that was once relational and family was displaced, and
all but lost in the institution.
Leadership gradually became more and more hierarchical until the supreme
leader of this fallen church bore both the temporal and spiritual swords,
sitting on a luxurious throne in extravagant robes wielding the kingly scepter
of power and rule. Such men have bequeathed to us much that is called Christian
leadership today.
I (Michael) am reminded of a story
that a brother in Christ told me. One day a pair of Mormon missionaries came to
his door and they introduced themselves as Elder Jones and Elder Smith (not
their real names). My friend said that the oldest one could not have been more
than twenty years old. Finally my friend, who was much older than them, asked,
"Elder to what?" They were totally flustered.
In the New Testament we have Timothy, who some call an apostle and
others call a pastor (the scripture calling him neither), being instructed to
relate to the elderly man as he would his father, with honor and respect. There
is something unnatural about the young rebuking the elderly. In an ecclesiastical, hierarchical
context, where authority is positional rather than relational, the issue of age
is irrelevant. It all depends upon who has the title and position. In today’s
institutional churches it would be perceived as a compromise of a pastor’s
authority to relate to any untitled individual as his senior. However, in the
family esteeming others as better or superior to yourself is normal, or at least
it should be. (Philippians 2:3) The church itself has become the greatest enemy
of the family by its institutionalized example. This was a masterstroke of the
enemy. God wants his family back!
Presbytery
Paul wrote to Timothy:
"Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by
prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery (presbuterion )." (1Tmothy 4:14)
Since it is one of the transliterated words we referred to earlier,
Presbytery should be suspect. For
what reason did it go untranslated? In what way would that make the passage
clearer?
Did Timothy receive a gift by prophecy, with the laying on of the
hands of the presbytery? Yes he did! But what in the world is the presbytery?
Oh, it has come to mean something to us through word association, as you can
teach a baby that a cat is a rat by simply calling the cat a rat. And if you did
it long enough, no one could convince him otherwise. Such is the power of
tradition.
In his Non-ecclesiastical New
Testament, Frank Daniels interpreted presbuterion as the elderly.
"Do not neglect the gift that is in you which was given to you
through prophecy with the laying on of hands of the elderly." (1Timothy 4:14)
We recognize that being elderly does not necessarily make one Godly.
There are old sinners as well as young ones. The elderly in reference here are
the godly elderly who laid down their lives for the flock, who followed in the
footsteps of the serving Christ.
Had the King James translators translated the Greek word presbuterion correctly it would have
been a direct violation of the King’s rules of translation. This was one of the
key dominos that, if tipped, would bring down all the rest. They did, however,
add their ecclesiastical translation in the margins as “council of elders.” If
the 16th century reader had known what a true elder was, that might have helped.
To them an elder was someone who advanced his own brand of orthodoxy at the
expense of the people. They knew nothing of the kind of love that motivated the
godly elderly of the first century.
“While older members (presbyters) owe a special responsibility to the
younger members in teaching and example, the church is without officers to rule
or make decisions. It is a body of loving interaction and full participation.“ (Dr. Norman Park "It Shall Not Be So Among
You")
The people of God are the ekklesia, not a church building or a system
of worship. The called out ekklesia
is the household of God. This brings us to a verse that is among the most
misleading passages in the entire New Testament.
"But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to
behave thyself in the house of God,(Oikos )which is the church (ekklesia) of the living God, the pillar
and ground of the truth." (1Tmothy 3:15)
There is a very simple conclusion that Bishop Bancroft and King James
hoped that the reader would make. House of God = the church = a temple with its
priesthood and ceremonies. The use of the term house of God, which was used exclusively of the
temple in the Old Testament, was very crafty on their part.
Although the Greek word oikos is often translated house or home, it most often refers to the
occupants of a house, i.e., the household or family. Oikos speaks of a family, not a
building, a household rather than a material house. If you look at its usage
throughout the rest of the New Testament, you cannot avoid this conclusion.
The literal translation of oikos is, Household, family, those who live in the
same house. (The Bible library CD) There is a great difference between the
houses that we live in and our households. There is an old saying, "a house does
not make a home." Neither does a church building make those who enter it the ekklesia of God. Our houses are
dispensable but our families are not. The important thing is the family. Let us
advance a new equation. Oikos = Household of God = congregation of God = family
of God. Oikos is always associated
with family, not a material building or temple. It does not refer to the place
or building where the Oikos or family
meet, but of the family itself, the household.
Where, in this new dispensation, is God’s house? The scriptures make
it quite clear; that God does not dwell
in temples made with hands. We, the body of Christ, are his temple made of
living stones, Jesus himself being the chief cornerstone as well as the
foundation (see 1 Corinthians 3).
If 1Timothy 3:15 were translated properly it would read as
follows.
"But if I am gone long, you may know how you should conduct yourself
among the household of God, his dwelling place, which is the congregation of the
living God, the pillar and the ground of truth." (Our own translation)
Below are a few of the passages where the Greek word oikos applies to family rather that a
physical house.
Acts 10:2: A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house
(oikos), which gave much alms to the
people, and prayed to God alway.
Acts 11:14: Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house
(oikos) shall be saved.
Acts 16:15: And when she was baptized, and her household (oikos), she besought us, saying, If ye
have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house (oikos), and abide there. And she
constrained us.
Acts 18:8: And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on
the Lord with all his house (oikos); and many of the
Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.
This brings us to the question of where the ekklesia of the first century
met.
Did they meet in temples? Did they meet in church buildings? Where did
they gather? Where is the logical place for a family to meet? Where does your
family gather on a daily basis? The family of God in the first century met in
homes. Where else would a family gather? Here are some of the verses that bring
this out.
Acts 8:3: As for Saul, he made havock of the congregation |1577| (ecclesia,) entering into every house,
and haling men and women committed them to prison.
Romans 16:5: Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Salute
my well beloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ.
1Corinthians 16:19: The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and
Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.
Colossians 4:15: Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and
Nymphas, and the church which is in his house.
Philemon 1:2: And to our beloved Apphia, and Archippus our fellow
soldier, and to the church in thy house:
Acts 12:12: And when he had considered the thing, he came to the
house of Mary the mother of John, whose surname was Mark; where many were
gathered together praying.
With the exception of Solomon's porch, where the early believers
gathered to hear the apostles teach and which was available to them for only a
short time, there is no mention of a routine gathering place other than their
homes.
"…how I didn't shrink from declaring to you anything that was
profitable, teaching you publicly and from house to house…" (Act 20:20 WEB)
Paul lists two primary places where he taught, in public and in
homes. In all of the New Testament there is not one mention of Paul or any other
apostle teaching or preaching in a church building. This came much later, as the
full apostasy of the church started to take hold.
Rule Over
You may be asking by now, "Don’t the scriptures say that elders are
to rule over the ekklesia?"
It is apparent that the selection of the English word rule was with design, to promote this
ecclesiastical conspiracy. The use of the words rule or have the rule over to lend weight to the
argument that the church is hierarchical was a masterstroke, that we are still
reeling from today.
What is the English definition of the word rule?
To exercise dominating power or influence…(The New Century
Dictionary)
(n.) The right and
power to govern or judge:
•
authority
• command
•
control
• domination
•
dominion
• mastery
•
might
• power
•
sway
• force
•
weight
• supremacy
Words that mean the
opposite of rule include the following:
• servility
(antonym)
• servitude(antonym)
• weakness (antonym) (The American heritage dictionary)
You will note here, that the English definition of the word rule is devoid of any connotation of
service, as the word servitude is listed among its
antonyms. This alone should arouse our suspicions, considering that Christ-like
leadership is servanthood.
The King James translators have Paul telling Timothy:
"Let the elders that rule
well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the
word and doctrine." (1 Timothy 5:17
KJV).
Referring to this Dr. Norman Park wrote:
"These writers made short shrift of the claim that elders have the
authority to 'rule.' They knew the history of the 1611 version and the
determination of King James to confer on both bishop and king the divine right
to rule: 'No bishop, no king.' Hence his demand that the Greek word proistmi be rendered 'rule,' though it
actually carried no connotation of authority, power, or governance. It merely
meant that elders should be 'foremost' in zeal, knowledge, quality of life, and
concern for the welfare of the church - a quality which rightfully should be
embodied in all saints. In a very real sense, then, 'ruling' was not the
preserve of the few, but the duty of all." (Dr. Norman Park "It Shall Not Be So Among
You")
How is it that
the word rule, which in the mind of
the English reader bore dictatorial overtones, found its way into the text? Paul
wrote:
"Not that we have dominion over (archo) your faith, but are fellow
workers for your joy; for by faith you stand." (2 Corinthians 1:24, NKJV).
Paul counted
himself as a fellow worker, not as one who ruled over the flock of Christ,
knowing that one stands by faith in God, not by the scaffoldings of domineering
men.
Now we will
examine three verses that are the favorites of those who desire to rule over the ekklesia of God:
"Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you
the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation."
(Hebrews 13:7, KJV).
It is important
to note that this verse is in the past
tense but has been translated to read as though it were in the present
tense. It is referring to
those who have died in the faith, not to living individuals presiding over the
body of Christ. The word over in this verse has nothing to
represent it in the original. So, as usual, we will dismiss this word and all
that it implies. The words, "them which
have the rule over" are a paraphrase of one Greek word - hegeomai (2233) - a verb - meaning
to lead, TO GO BEFORE as a guide. In a Christian context hegeomai is descriptive of the act of
guiding, going on ahead, leading the way as an example, not sitting as
overlords.
Hebrews chapters
eleven and twelve are filled with accounts of those who have gone before us as
examples, starting with Abel and ending with Jesus Himself, Godly examples of
those who have walked by faith. The reader is exhorted to remember such, to
reflect on their faith, calling to memory "the end of their conversation."
Hebrews chapter eleven is a
memorial to those exemplary guides who had gone before. By faith these heroes
overcame kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped lions'
mouths, quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, became strong
out of weakness, became mighty in war, made the armies of strangers give way.
Women received their dead again by resurrection, and others were tortured, not
having accepted deliverance, that they might get a better resurrection. Others
underwent trial of mockings and scourgings, and of bonds and imprisonment. They
were stoned, sawed in half, tempted, and killed by the sword. They went about in
sheepskins, in goatskins, destitute, afflicted, evil treated, "Of whom the world
was not worthy." They wandered in
deserts and mountains, and in dens and caverns of the earth. These were some of
the exemplary guides, the hegeomai
that were to be remembered. (See Hebrews 11:33-40)
Then there were the early Christian martyrs
such as Stephen and James, who loved not their lives unto death.
Regarding
Hebrews 13:7, Clarke's Commentary states:
"Remember them which have the rule over you.”] This clause should be translated, Remember your guides,