(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