 |
 |
How Does the Eternal Govern Through Humans?
“Ordination”? Proof It’s A Spoof!
Part 2 Preview: (Part 1?) Here is the most exhaustive study on “Church” Government that you will ever encounter. I was surfing for an article that was both “death” on the word “church” as well as Biblically thoro on the subject of “Church Government”. This covers the latter, and I happen to know the writer. If you have questions about the role (or lack of it) of ministry in your life, there will be Biblical answers here! You can quit reading this as soon as you stop finding exceedingly uncommon truths that the churches don’t want you to know about (you won’t )! A major bonus of this “booklet” is the definition of “ordination”. You don’t know what it really means, but you really need to know!
“Ordination” Was Forced Into the [KJV]
You have probably never heard a sermon or read an article that explained the doctrine of “ordination” from the Bible. (If you have, this writer would very much like a copy of it.) To know what “ordain” or “ordination” means, we must go to a dictionary—or the literature of a church organization. Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (Tenth Edition) states:
1: To invest officially (as by the laying on of hands) with ministerial or priestly authority. 2 a: to establish or order by appointment, decree, or law, enact. b: destine, foreordain: to issue an order.
The second definition is usually used for the Eternal or those in high office. (e.g.: “The Eternal ordained that the Earth should orbit the Sun”; “Ford management ordained new safety regulations to be adopted by all factories.”) This second definition does not find too much controversy in day-to-day religious practice. Few people will argue about whether the Eternal “ordained” that the Earth orbit the Sun, decreed that it would, or simply did it. It is only a matter of semantics.
Definition one, however, is often very important to Church government. It is such a vital part of most church organizations, that most people take it for granted and feel no need to try to establish the doctrine from the Bible. In the minds of many people, “ordination” includes even more than the definition above. Most people believe (and most churches teach) that an ordained person is qualified to do things that an un-ordained person is not—such as perform marriages, baptisms, counseling, and other ordinations. They believe that this ordination is retained for life, unless the same church organization revokes it. Also, many have the idea that there is an unbroken line of ordinations from the apostles to the founder of their church organization to the minister in their local congregation. Many people would say that “ordination” is a spiritual event recognizing those who are chosen in Heaven, and men just carry out the ceremony here on Earth. The combination of the two definitions for ordination make it a very powerful concept: If the Eternal “ordains” the sky to be blue and “ordains”a man to lead your congregation, how can anyone possibly speak against either one?
But is it really the Eternal who actually performs “ordinations” or is it merely human church organizations?
We will cover the [Bible verses] on this in the next few pages, but first, it is important to see the contradictory manner in which organizations actually treat “ordained people”. While church organizations “ordain” men as “ministers of Christ”, in reality they are largely ministers in that organization. Why? The following reasons show why “ordination” is an organizational practice, not something only “from God”:
1) Organizations usually “ordain” men after some training or because of a need for an “ordained” person in a certain place. They rarely ever “ordain” people based on recognition of spiritual gifts mentioned in Scripture.
2) Organizations, in general, will not accept a minister from another group to serve in their own organization—even though they believe that members in other organizations are part of the “true Church”. They will accept members from other groups—along with their baptisms and weddings—even though ministers of another group performed them. However, organizations will not accept ministers from other groups without some kind of additional training, approval, or sometimes “re-ordination”.
3) Most organizations have no official process for ensuring that the scriptural qualifications for leaders in the congregation are met (1 Tim 3; Titus 1). If an organization needs ministers, they will “ordain” young, unmarried men right out of college, or they will ordain long-time men in the congregation without asking people who know them whether they live as described in these chapters.
4) Organizations sometimes revoke “ordinations”of ministers who leave a group to start their own congregation. But how do they know whether or not the Eternal wants the man to start a new group? Furthermore, if people are baptized or married by a “minister gone independent”, but then decide to join the original organization—the organization will often accept that baptism and marriage—even though it was done by someone from whom they “revoked” their ordination.
5) Organizations that do recognize ministers in other groups still often have internal rules that allow them to hire only ministers ordained by their own group. Some groups even pay their ministers (or lay them off when necessary) based on how long they have been “ordained”, their type of “ordination” or both. Indeed, some have multiple levels of “ordinations” through which aspiring ministers can hope to advance their career—like positions in the corporate ladder or government civil-service jobs. The bearing of spiritual fruit or works often has little part in such decisions. Yes, “ordination” is more often a job placement than it is an appointment from the Eternal.
The actual implementation of “ordination” varies among church organizations, but nearly all of them rely upon some form of “ordination”for their organizational structure. If “ordinations” really were from the Eternal, one would think that people would want to know if there were any miracles or signs that accompanied them. If “ordinations”were “of God”, it seems that all organizations would recognize other groups’ “ordinations”, just as they recognize other group’s members—as long as the people were actually bearing spiritual fruit. But this is not the way it is. “Ordinations” are most often a tool of organizations used to control their ministry and membership.
Organizations that claim to be the one and only “true Church” do not have some of the above logical inconsistencies because they claim that their “ordained ministers” are the only true ministers in the world, and all other “ordinations”are false. However, they have an even bigger problem with which to deal: If they believe they are the “one Church” because all of their doctrines are correct, ask them to historically document the group that held their same doctrines for the last 1000 years. If they believe they are the “one Church” because their leader was ordained in a succession of ordinations since the early apostles, ask them if they have a historical list of these hierarchical leaders. This writer has never seen any group (except the Roman Catholic Church) attempt to answer either one of the above questions. They can neither prove that their current leadership nor their list of doctrines are the ones that have been “in Christ’s church” for hundreds of years. In essence, you must simply take the word of the group that they are the “one true church“.
Yes, there are leaders in the Bible. There are biblical leaders who appoint other leaders. We can recognize these leaders by their fruits (Matt 7:15-20), not by their ordination certificate. What does the Bible says about ordination? If you have not studied this before, you will probably be surprised!
Is there a word in the original Hebrew and Greek languages that has the modern concept of “ordain”? This writer knows of no other concept that has suffered so much in the process of Bible translation. The King James Bible contains the word “ordain” and variants 23 times in the Old Testament and 20 in the New. The New International Version (NIV) uses it 28 times in the old and only once in the New Testament. If we compare the KJV and the NIV, they almost never agree on where “ordain” should be used! The only verse where both translations contain “ordain” is Psalm 8:2. Young’s Literal Translation, uses “ordain” only 3 times. The New English Bible (NEB) does not use “ordain” at all! A new translation due in 1999, The Original Bible (intended to convey the meaning of the original Bible) will not contain the word “ordain” either.
Explanation of Tables: We have included the extensive tables on pages and so that you may see the “shotgun” approach to the use of “ordain” in seven significant translations. The first five translations are some of the most widely used translations today. Young’s and Green’s literal translations were included because their translation philosophy placed a greater emphasis on correct word-for-word renderings rather than on easy-to-read English phrases.
These tables contain all uses of the words “ordain”, “ordained”, and “ordination” in all seven translations. The tables are grouped by the Hebrew and Greek words so that their definition did not need to be repeated. The word definitions were summarized to fit the available space from Strong’s Concordance as a general guide to meaning. Consult a Hebrew or Greek lexicon for a better definition. The Hebrew and Greek words appear in the order of the first scripture that uses them in the table. This provides a general sense of going through the Bible.
These tables do not show cases where these same Hebrew and Greek words are not translated as “ordain”. If they did, the tables would be larger than this entire paper. Nearly every Hebrew and Greek word in these tables is used in dozens or hundreds of verses where it is not translated “ordain”. You can use The Englishman’s Hebrew Concordance and The Englishman’s Greek Concordance, or a computer Bible program to find those thousands of occurrences. Simply look up the Strong’s number of each word in the concordance or computer Bible.
The only places where any translations exhibit any degree of consistency is with the Hebrew millu (Strong’s 4393). It occurs 15 times in the Old Testament, and is rendered “ordination” 11 times by the NIV, NRSV and NASB translations (see table). These usages are all related to installing or consecrating the high priest. The other four times, millu is rendered “mounting”, “set,” or “inlaid” because it refers to stones being installed in something (Ex 25:7; 35:9,27; 1Chr 29:2). A high priest was “installed” in his position much like a stone might be “installed” in its setting. This is the only case where any single Hebrew or Greek word was translated “ordain” more than half the time. This Old Testament usage gives no credence to the common understanding of “Church ordination”. The high priest of Israel was an inherited office chosen by the Eternal. There are no scriptures that say that the Old Testament priests were replaced by the New Testament ministry or leadership—the Bible teaches that all believers are priests (1Pet 2:5,9).
There are two Greek words which are translated “ordain” half the time. The Greek diatage (Strong’s #1296) appears twice in the New Testament. In Acts 7:53 it refers to the law given by “angels”, so the NRSV and NASB use “ordain”. But the same word is also used in Rom 13:2 where it refers to the Eternal’s choosing of secular rulers. Most Bible-believers agree that the Eternal determines our world leaders, but they would certainly not say he “ordains” them. Hence, diatage (Strong’s #1296) cannot be a Greek word representing the modern concept of ordination.
Another Greek word, cheirotoneo (Strong’s 5500) is also used twice in the New Testament. The KJV translates it “ordain” in Acts 14:23 where elders are being chosen for the various congregations. The Greek grammar indicates that Paul and Barnabas are doing the choosing, but it is unclear whether they were picking people by their own understanding or if they were conducting an election (more about that later). Nevertheless, cheirotoneo is also used in 2 Corinthians 8:19 when a congregation chose a person to accompany a donation to see that it was used properly. The fact that a group chose the person and that it was a temporary job is very much different than today’s concept of ordination.
Young’s Literal Translation deserves some credit for consistency—the word “ordain” only appears three times in the whole version, each occurrence being translated from the Greek horizo (#3724). However, horizo also appears in five other places where it is translated “define”, “determine”, or “declare”. Apparently, the translators simply decided to write “ordain” in some verses where the Eternal was the One doing the “determining”.
With the exception of the cases noted in the above paragraphs, nearly every other use of the word “ordain” in nearly every translation is a decision made based on the translators’ perception of Christian doctrine. If the Eternal was doing something important, or if church responsibilities were being handed out, they sometimes wrote the word “ordain” instead of the more normal meaning of the Hebrew or Greek. This writer could not find any lexicon or commentary that claimed that any rendering of the word “ordain” came about due to idiom (combination of words with a special meaning) or other linguistic reason. There is no combination of words or particular tense or case of Greek or Hebrew words that are uniformly rendered “ordain”.
The translators felt a need to use it because it was such a big part of “Christian doctrine”—they fit it in the best that they could. The KJV is by far the worst example of forcing this word into the text. The translators used 12 different Hebrew words and 14 different Greek words to translate into “ordain”—the majority of those words are translated “ordain” only once in Scripture. Other translations have followed the King James practice, but to a much more limited degree. You can easily see this by looking at the number of black boxes on the charts. There is not one verse where all seven of these translations agree. In fact, there are only four verses where a majority (4 out of 7) of the translations agree to use “ordain” (Num 28:6; Psalm 8:2; Acts 10:42; Gal 3:19).
This complete disagreement among translators about when to use the word does not make sense for a doctrine that is so specific. This writer once attended a conference of a church group that was re-forming after having departed from a larger church group. They asked every “minister”there if and exactly when he was “ordained”. They were not interested in people who had been “chosen”, “appointed”, “asked”, “determined”, “called”, or even “inspired” to lead a congregation in the past. They wanted to know when they had been “ordained” and who “did it”. They did not necessarily accept “ordinations” from people who were not closely related to their former group. One shudders to think how the questions and answers during this part of the conference could have progressed if the English language had a dozen words, all of which could sometimes mean “ordain”, but usually did not.
From all of this, we must conclude that the modern concept of ordination is not taught in the Bible. There are no Hebrew or Greek words used in the Bible that express the concept understood by today’s meaning of “ordain”. The Bible mentions people who receive the laying on of hands, who serve as leaders of congregations, and who command and teach others. But the idea that “there are a class of ordained men who are the only ones authorized for certain spiritual functions, and that only this class of men are allowed to approve others for positions of service in the congregation” is not in the Bible.
Look over the two tables (pages and ). If you could speak Greek or Hebrew, were transported back to the first century, and decided to tell the apostles about the people who were “ordained” in our century, what Hebrew or Greek word would you use? Would you have to use a word that is not in the Bible? If you were going to use a biblical word, could you use any from the two tables without being unambiguous? You could use the Hebrew millu which was used for the consecration of the High Priest, but neither it nor a Greek equivalent is even used for “ordaining” New Testament leaders. The Greek hagiazo translates “to set apart for a holy purpose”—that sounds closer to the modern concept of “ordination”. But this word is usually translated “sanctify” and is often used to apply to all who are believers. It is not the Greek equivalent of today’s meaning of “ordain”. However, this writer knows of no other biblical Greek word, phrase or idiom, that is closer in meaning. If there is no way to talk to a first century believer about the “doctrine of ordination” by using biblical languages, can anyone believe that this doctrine existed when the Bible was written?
The Bible certainly mentions spiritual gifts of leadership given to some brethren, and public recognition of authority. But we must realize that the concept of “ordination” as generally understood today is not in the Bible. There simply is no word or group of words with this meaning. When we see the rules given the King James Bible translators, it seems evident that the sporadic inclusions of “ordain” in the translation was part of Rule 3, to retain the “old ecclesiastical words”—whether or not they were a good translation of the Hebrew and Greek! Today, if you were to study church government using the New English Bible, you could not explain “ordination” to anyone. The word is not there, nor will you find any similar word with that concept. (This Bible was not produced by some radical anti-organization group, but by many church groups of the United Kingdom. Its translators just happened to be honest in this particular area.) You would fair little better trying to explain “ordination” from the NIV New Testament—it appears only once—simply stating that the Eternal has “ordained” young people to praise Him (Matt 21:16).
In a later section, this paper will examine most of the scriptures that discuss the various leadership positions within the Church—the spiritual body of believers. This paper will cite translations that attempt to accurately translate the meaning of the original Greek, rather than insert “old ecclesiastical words”. Hopefully, the reader will try to drop the “old ecclesiastical ideas” for this study and take a fresh look at what the Scriptures actually say.
Is “Laying on of Hands” the same as Ordination?
The laying on of hands was used simply as a manner of blessing (Matt 19:13-15, Rev 1:17), to request granting of the Holy Spirit at baptism (Acts 8:17-19; 9:17; 19:6; Heb 6:2), for healing (Matt 9:18; Mark 5:23; 6:5; 7:32; 8:23,25; 16:18; Luke 4:40; 13:13; Acts 9:12,17; 28:8) and to request the imparting of spiritual gifts (1 Tim 4:14; 2 Tim 1:6). While the subject is not specifically mentioned in James 5:14-16, these verses on healing say that elders should anoint the sick, a process that requires placing one’s hands on another’s head.
Also, the laying on of hands was used to pray for people being given a special function in the church—a public recognition of their responsibilities. In Acts 6:6, seven men, who were already full of the Holy Spirit, were chosen to serve tables, and the apostles laid their hands on them. But in the next two chapters, two of the seven (Stephen and Philip) were preaching on a massive scale. Hands were laid on Barnabas and Paul for a preaching mission in Acts 13:2-3, but that was not their “ordination into the ministry”—they had both preached extensively in previous chapters. There is no indication that it was any kind of new “title”or “rising” in “ministerial rank”. Finally, Paul cautioned Timothy to “not lay hands on anyone hastily” (1 Tim 5:22). While the reason is not specifically given, the context is dealing with leaders and problems in the congregation.
The first two paragraphs in this section contain all of the references to the laying on of hands that are in the New Testament (except as noted in the box). There are references to the “laying on of hands” in the Old Testament, but most of them are about placing one’s hands on a sacrifice to confess sin (Lev 1:4; 4:15; etc.). There is at least one example of conferring a blessing (Gen 48:13-20) and commissioning a person with a new responsibility (Num 27:23). Kings and prophets were frequently commissioned by a command from the Eternal to anoint—a sort of “oily laying on of hands”. However, it is important to realize, that there was no organizational system in the Old Testament were leadership was passed from one man to the next by a continual line of laying on hands or anointing. Unless the Eternal specifically interfered:
1) Kings were succeeded by their sons or the person who killed them.
2) Priests were succeeded by their sons.
3) Judges and Officers were appointed by the people in each city—the same people who gave offerings (Deut 16:16-18).
4) Prophets were chosen directly by the Eternal.
There is no mention of church leaders being succeeded by their sons anywhere in the New Testament. So if we want to assume that any methods of choosing leaders were borrowed from the Old, it would be method #3 or #4, above. We can probably learn much more by looking at the New Testament scriptures:
The exhaustive list of New Testament scriptures, at the beginning of this section, shows that the greatest mention of “laying on of hands” is for healing. Receiving the Holy Spirit is second and recognition of responsibilities in the congregation is third. Let us notice some things that the Scriptures do not say about the “laying on of hands”:
1) That it is a part of “ordination”.
2) That it imparts a permanent position or gift. (Are healings or blessings permanent? John 5:14).
3) That it separates the “ministry” from the “laity”.
4) That it is required for a person to be any kind of church leader.
It is interesting to note that the Scripture says little about who should lay hands on others. While most of the scriptures show that Christ, the Apostles, and Timothy laid hands on others, there are exceptions. James 5:14-16 indicates that “elders” did it. Prophets did it in Acts 13:1-3. A “disciple” named Ananias laid hands on Paul in Acts 9:10-17. Finally, Mark 16:17-18 indicates that it is one of the things that “believers” will do. Some theologians teach that Philip baptized, but was not a “high enough rank” to lay on hands, therefore the apostles had to come and do it for him (Acts 8:12-23). However, this Scripture does not say that Philip could not do it or anything about why he did not, but simply that “the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them” (v 16). It is this writer’s opinion that the Eternal wanted a face to face meeting of Simon the Sorcerer and Peter. Also, if we read the rest of Chapter 8, we see that Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch, and preached in all of the cities of 70 miles of coastline (v 40). It makes little sense that Philip would be used to preach to all these people, perform great miracles and signs (v 13), but not be able to lay hands on people to receive the Holy Spirit. If Philip could not lay hands on people to receive the Holy Spirit, does that mean that only apostles can perform that function? This possibility is disproved when Ananias was chosen by the Eternal to lay hands on Paul, after which he was healed and received the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:10-17). It does not say that Ananias was an apostle or some other “high rank”, nor that he was “over Paul”.
Lacking a clear command from the Scriptures, how can anyone set up rules to limit who can lay hands on whom? If the Eternal gave some kind of rules where only apostles or other “high-ranking” leaders could lay hands on others, why would He have bypassed these rules and taken a message directly to Ananias? The explanation is: “All these [spiritual gifts] are activated by one and the same Spirit, who allots to each one individually just as the Spirit chooses” (1Cor 12:11).
If we see the laying on of hands as a means of power and control, then it is indeed important to try to restrict who can do it. But if we see it as a means of confirming our desire for the Eternal’s blessing on a person—knowing that the laying on of hands means nothing unless the Eternal actually does bless, then the question, “who can lay on hands?” does not really matter much. The biblical practice of laying on hands is a physical event which sometimes accompanies the spiritual activity of prayer.
If anyone can lay on hands, what will stop people from laying hands on each other for unscriptural or silly reasons? What stops people from praying for unscriptural or silly reasons? Nothing! Both prayer and the laying on of hands are only meaningful when the Eternal takes action. Neither should be done insincerely or contrary to scripture. But this writer can see no scripture restricting any believer from laying hands on another individual to request a special blessing, a healing, or the imparting of the Holy Spirit after baptism. After all James 5:15 states “And the prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise him up.” If the person has true faith, the Eternal will do what He has promised.
Ministers and Deacons Not Different
When the word “minister” appears in the KJV, it is usually translated from the Greek diakonos (noun meaning “servant” or “minister”) or the diakoneo (verb meaning “to serve”or “to minister”). All occurrences of “deacon”and “deaconess”are translated from these same Greek words. There are no associated adjectives or other linguistic elements to signify a “spiritual” diakonos (minister) or a “physical”diakonos (deacon). The word is also used to describe servants who do physical work.
Separate “offices”of “deacon and “minister”could not possibly have existed in minds of the New Testament writers if they used an identical word for both of them! Can you imagine Paul “raising someone in rank” from a diakonos to a diakonos? The concept of church organizations separately “ordaining” people for spiritual service (ministers) or physical service (deacons) is nowhere in the New Testament.
Even though many Bibles contain both the word “deacon” and “minister”, you can see yourself from a concordance and a Greek Interlinear that they are writing something into the Bible that was not originally there. First, let us find out exactly what diakonos (and related words) really mean. In some cases, it is “a real working servant” and is so translated many times. One example: “but the servants who had drawn the water knew” (John 2:9). Most New Testament Historians agree that the Gospels were written later in the first century, probably after most of Paul’s letters. If diakonos had come to be an important religious title, the Gospel writers would not have used it so much for describing working people—they would have used doulos or some other Greek word for “servant”. Also realize that diakonos is also used to describe women. Martha “served” Jesus (John 12:2) and Phebe was a “servant of the Church” (Rom 16:1).
All Uses of 3 New Testament Greek Words
Matt 4:11; 8:15; 20:26,28; 22:13; 23:11; 25:44; 27:55; Mark 1:13,31; 9:35; 10:43,45; 15:41; Luke 4:39; 8:3; 10:40; 12:37; 17:8; 22:26,27; John 2:5,9; 12:2,26; Acts 1:17,25; 6:1,2,4; 11:29; 12:25; 19:22; 20:24; 21:19; Rom 11:13; 12:7; 13:4; 15:8,25,31; 16:1,27; 1 Cor 3:5; 12:5; 16:15; 2Cor 3:3,6,7,8,9; 4:1; 5:18; 6:3,4; 8:4,19,20; 9:1,12,13; 11:8,15,23; Gal 2:17; Eph 3:7; 4:12; 6:21; Phi 1:1; Col 1:7,23,25; 4:7,17; 1 Thess 3:2; 1 Tim 1:12; 3:8,10,12,13; 2 Tim 1:18; 4:5,11; Phm 1:13; Heb 1:14; 6:10; 1 Pet 1:12; 4:10,11; Rev 2:19.
This writer believes that the Bibles would be much better understood if the three Greek words in the box, above, were consistently translated as “servant”, “service”, and “serve”. If you have any doubt, please read them all and see. While the actual usage of these three Greek words do vary a little, it would still be better understood in English if we had to determine the meaning by the usage, rather than by allowing Bible translators to make the decision for us—choosing different English words for the same Greek word and losing the underlying connection. All of the above verses make sense if “servant/service/serve” are used, provided that we understand service can be spiritual as well as physical.
Sometimes, using “servant” will shed new light on a scripture. For example, 2 Corinthians 3:6,8,9 (KJV) speaks of “ministers of the new covenant”, and the “ministration of the spirit” being more glorious than the “ministration of condemnation”. Because Paul is showing his leadership in the first three verses of the chapter, some have taken this chapter to be an explanation of the glory of being a “minister”(usually an “ordained minister”) of the New Covenant. However, if we compare these verses to Romans 6:16 which uses the Greek doulos for “servant”, the meaning is clear: “Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?” The verses in 2 Corinthians 3 are talking about everyone serving (or being servants) of a “covenant of the Spirit”, rather than being servants under the Old Covenant. Verse 18 confirms that this section is about all believers, not just Paul and Timothy or “the ministry”: “But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord.”
There are some verses where the word diakonos (“servant”) clearly represents people who were specially designated as having a service function within the Church. Paul greets the “saints”, the “overseers” (bishops), and the “servants”(diakonos) (Phil 1:1). Also, 1 Timothy 3 gives qualifications for a “servant”. If there were never any kind of recognition of a person as a diakonos (“servant”), then what need would there be for qualifications? But the position is not one of authority or spiritual capability as most church organizations use it. It is one of service to others (possibly a paid position in some cases, but there is no biblical example or proof of it.) The main emphasis of the word is “doing work for the brethren”. Paul calls himself a diakonos and backs it up with evidence (2 Cor 6:4-10; 11:22-28). His evidence is not an “ordination”, the “laying on of hands”, the number of people “under him”, or any such thing. His evidence is the number of things he suffered serving the brethren and preaching the Gospel. Indeed, there is no scripture—even a mistranslation—that ever shows where anyone was “ordained” or had hands laid on them to become a diakonos (minister/deacon/servant).
The Eternal could have inspired the New Testament church to choose or make any word that He wanted to for this function. He could have chosen: “ruler”, “boss”, “captain”, “sergeant”, “know-it-all”, “Christ’s representative”, “holy person”, etc. But, He inspired “servant”. The “offices” used in modern church organizations are indeed much closer to Catholic practice than they are to biblical directives.
How many church organizations today would be interested in dropping their titles of “minister” and “deacon” and calling these men “servants”? The word may sound too demeaning for the position—which probably indicates our concept of the position is different than that found in the Scripture. We will discuss more about the type of leadership the Bible describes in a later section.
Other King James Translation Errors
Self-appointed “Minister”(Servant): “... ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted [appointed] themselves to the ministry [service] of the saints” (1Cor 16:15, KJV). The Greek tasso everywhere else in the New Testament is translated as “appointed”, “determined”or some other decision-making word that fits its Greek meaning. This writer checked numerous translations and nearly every one had a different English word in this verse. Apparently, the translators knew what tasso meant, but did not want to write something against the doctrines of so many churches—so they had to “come up with something”. Green’s Literal Translation has it right: “and they appointed themselves to ministry to the saints.” If Christ really governs his Church, is it unreasonable that He either allowed or inspired the household of Stephanas to serve the brethren? What is important, that men approve Stephanas’ service, or that the Eternal approve it?
Obviously, many “servants” of the Church were selected by the recommendation of the brethren and/or the appointing by already established leaders. But that was not an excuse for translators to obscure this clear case of self-appointing. There are other cases where important functions in the church were initiated by an individual deciding to do it. Apollos began teaching on his own, but was later accepted by Paul and the brethren (Acts 18:24-28; 1Cor 3:6). Also, notice that Paul tells Timothy: “This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop [overseer], he desires a good work” (1 Tim 3:1).
Selective Translation Bolsters “Bishop”: The various spiritual gifts listed in the Bible were usually described by plain, everyday words in Greek. The KJV translators should have used plain, everyday English words to translate them. But because King James instructed them to use old church terminology, they inserted the old Catholic words for church offices. This practice leaves the English reader to believe that the Scriptures actually support church offices rather than the various spiritual gifts mentioned.
The Greek episkopos is translated “bishop” in four places in the KJV (Phil 1:1, 1 Tim 3:2, Tit 1:7, 1 Pet 2:25), where it apparently applies to only a few men—matching the authoritarian Catholic Church concept of a “boss over many congregations.” It is translated “overseer” (its true meaning) in Acts 20:28 where Paul was addressing many elders of Ephesus (vv. 17-18). The KJV translators would have a hard time if they wrote “bishop” here, because the Catholic concept of “bishop” usually involved only one per city. (The American Standard Version, produced much later, is at least consistent and contains “bishop”here). However, “overseer” would be a much better translation for episkopos if we understand it as “someone who looks out for the welfare of others”, not “someone who bosses others”. (See the latter section on “Elders, Overseers, Pastors”).
Other Religious “Titles”Enhanced: The Greek poimen is translated “shepherd” 16 out of 17 times in the KJV. In Ephestians 4:11, it is translated “Pastor” where there is a list of spiritual gifts that Christ gives to His body. That is the only verse where “pastor” (or any variant) occurs in any major Bible translation. The YLT and Darby say “shepherd” here. There are no other modifying words or other linguistic features that indicate that this is some kind of title or church office. Even when the word is used to refer to Christ (John 10:2,11,12,14,16; Heb 13:20; 1Pet 2:25), it is always translated “shepherd” by nearly every translation. Why? Probably because poimen (“shepherd”) is mentioned with “sheep” in the immediately adjoining verses in nearly every case but Ephestians 4:11. Since there is no church office corresponding to “sheep”, the translators had to keep the obvious meaning and write “shepherd”. Certainly, there is a spiritual gift of “shepherd”—one who leads and guides brethren as a shepherd guides sheep. This is the task of “overseers”or “elders”. But we should not take a modern day definition of “pastor” from a dictionary or church doctrine book and read it back into the Bible. Much of what people expect of a pastor in a typical church organization should be accomplished through spiritual gifts shared among many brethren.
Some church organizations use the term “evangelist” as an ecclesiastic “rank”or title. The Greek word is euaggelistes and appears three times in the New Testament (Acts 21:8; Eph 4:11; 2Tim 4:5). But unless you use some kind of Greek Bible help, most translations do not clearly show that euaggelistes is from euaggelion which is almost always translated “gospel”. The word euaggelistes should be translated “gospel-preacher”—clearly connecting the relationship between the two words. In two out of three places, the YLT accurately has “proclaimer of good news”.
One thing that can be said in favor of the KJV translators: they did not try to put the church terms of “layman” or “lay member” and “clergy” into the Bible. Of course, there are no words in the Greek texts that have the meaning of those English words. However, they have crept into modern translations in one or two places.
Creative Insertion of the Word “Office”: In their efforts to bolster “church offices”, the King James translators inserted the word “office”into a few verses for no apparent linguistic reason. In Romans 11:13, “office” was used for the Greek diakonia, elsewhere translated “service” or “ministry”. In Romans 12:4, “office” is inserted for the Greek praxis, instead of “function, deed or work”. The phrase “use the office of deacon” appears in 1 Timothy 3:10,13 where “be servants” (same as “ministers” or “deacons”) would be better. These errors were so blatant and obvious that nearly every modern translation has corrected them: the word “office” does not appear in these passages.
“All Authority” Inserted into Titus 2:15: The KJV reads: “These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee”. In English, it sounds like Paul is telling Titus that he has “all authority” over the brethren—as a king or dictator might. The Greek words for “all authority” are pas and epitage. The latter word is used five other times in the New Testament (Rom 16:26; 1Cor 7:6,24; 2Cor 8:8, 1 Tim 1:1, Tit 1:3) In all of these cases epitage is translated “commandment”and refers to a commandment of God. The incorrect use of “authority” makes it sound like Titus was the rebuking authority, not the Eternal’s commandments. Also, the Greek pas is translated “every” 117 out of 1243 times. When pas is used with a word that represents a “class of items”, pas refers to “every item in the class.” This verse would be much more consistently translated if it said “rebuke with every commandment”. Titus was to correct the brethren using every commandment of the Father and Christ.
Matthew 16:18-19 Mistranslated: The first part of this translation error is known to many. “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter [petros—small stone], and upon this rock [petra—large massive rock] will I build my church.” The Greek shows the Church is not built on Peter but on Christ. The KJV, with no distinction between the size of rocks, leads us to believe that the Church was built upon Peter and, by deduction, his successors. (Most top “church leaders” in big organizations claim to have Peter’s authority in some way.)
Verse 19 is also mistranslated. The Greek here is difficult, but any interlinear will show that there are words in the Greek text which do not appear in most English versions. The KJV says “whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” This sounds as though the Eternal will bind whatever Peter says to bind—whether it agrees with the Eternal’s word or not. However, Young’s literal translation is more clear: “whatever thou mayest bind upon the earth shall be, having been bound in the heavens, and whatever thou mayest loose upon the earth shall be, having been loosed in the heavens.” This version gives Peter permission to bind and loose things on Earth, as long as they are bound or loosed in heaven. This exact same wording is given in Matthew 18:18 where the same power is given to all of the disciples (many more people than the 12 apostles).
Probable Voting References Suppressed: The Greek cheirotoneo literally means “stretching forth the hand”. In Greek literature of about 100 B.C., it certainly meant “selecting by show of hands”—voting. This author could not find an applicable reference work that disagreed with this fact. However, some references concluded that the word had changed meaning over the years to simply “appointed”. One cited Josephus’ Antiquities XIII 2:2 which contains a letter from Alexander, son of Antiochus Epiphanes, where he, of his own decision “appoints” (cheirotoneo) Jonathan as high priest. But does this example prove that cheirotoneo had changed in meaning, or is Alexander simply misusing the word to make his unlawful action look lawful? The new high priest was supposed to be the son of the last high priest—if no son existed a vote was often taken to decide the next priest. Would not Alexander write a nice word that meant “selected by show of hands” so that Jonathan could at least pretend to be a legitimate elected high priest, rather than a puppet? (Some present-day countries still hold mock elections and refer to some officials as elected, even though they are all appointed by a dictator.)
The two verses that use cheirotoneo are: “And when they had ordained [selected by show of hands] them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed” (Acts 14:23). “And not that only, but who was also chosen [selected by show of hands] of the churches to travel with us with this grace....” (2 Cor 8:19). Weymouth’s New Testament in Modern Speech (By Richard Francis Weymouth, Harper & Row), does use the expression “selected by show of hands”in both of these verses. Adam Clarke’s and other commentaries agree with this translation. The Greek grammar indicates that Paul and Barnabas did the “selection by show of hands” in Acts, but it is possible that they simply conducted the election. However, in 2Corinthians, it is clear that the congregation selected the person.
From a historical perspective, we must realize that most Jews of that day accepted the idea of voting—in the synagogues and in the Sanhedrin. This is not to say that the Early church was a “democracy”, and that people voted for every position—but it was apparently used some times. If Christ taught the apostles that voting was wrong, we would expect that they would have had to teach that idea to all the congregations. Why, then, would Luke and Paul have used the word cheirotoneo, a word that was clearly meant “to vote” in Greek literature that was written only 100 years earlier?
Ekklesia Translated “Church” Instead of “Congregation” or “Assembly”: This is yet another case of choosing old theological terms to keep the people in line, rather than choosing the best translation. The Greek ekklesia simply meant assembly; it did not imply a specific “church building”or “church organization” like the word “church” does today. Of interest, ekklesia is translated “assembly” three times in Acts 19:32,39,41, once for a “lawful assembly”, and twice for a rather unruly mob. “And some cried one thing and some another, for the assembly [ekklesia] was confused, and most of them did not know why they had come together” (v 39). It is also used in Hebrews 2:12, a quotation from Psalm 22:22 to translate from the Hebrew qahal, which is usually translated “congregation” in the Old Testament. “Congregation” or “assembly” would have been a much better translation to use in all cases as the Darby Bible, and YLT, and Geneva Bible (1500’s) have done.
King James was still the head of the Church of England, and was well aware of the “wild things” that were happening on the continent, such as people assembling in houses (Rom 16:5; 1 Cor 16:9; Col 4:15; Phm 1:2), without a Catholic priest—or any clergymen at all. King James did not want to be under the Pope, but neither did he want his subjects to think they could simply assemble together on their own to worship. He did not want to get away from the historical idea of “the church” as an official building with an “ordained clergy”.
(Note: For clarity in this paper, we use the term “congregation” to represent a local assembly of brethren, and “Church” for the entire body of Christ. In English, the word “congregation”simply does not mean many scattered groups of people, but “church” does. If the KJV translators had consistently translated the Greek ekklesia as either “congregation” or “assembly”, one of those words would be used by Protestants instead of “church” today.)
Kingdom Conflict: Luke 17:21 was translated “the kingdom of God is within you”to perpetuate the teaching that the church was the kingdom of God on earth. It was easy to push this deception on people who could not read the Bible for themselves and see the many parables about the Kingdom coming in the future, or read the context and see the Savior was not talking to his disciples but to antagonistic Pharisees. The Greek entos is also used in Matthew 23:26 where it describes things contained by a plate and cup but not embedded inside the material of the plate and cup. Luke was referring to our Savior, standing among the Pharisees, not to something inside each one of the Pharisees. The NRSV correctly states: “…the kingdom of God is among you.”
In Reference to "Arguments from Silence": Many readers will have noted multiple uses, above, of statements like: “no scripture mentions ‘ordination’ to become a ‘minister’”, “the ‘office of pastor’ is not found in the Scriptures”, etc. Some will say that these are “arguments from silence”—just because the Bible does not say something does not mean it is untrue. For example, the Bible does not say that the Earth is the third planet from the Sun, but it is. Also, much of what we know about the Roman empire is not from the Bible. There are many other examples. However, when it comes to understanding how the Eternal governs, it is very important to know what the Bible does not say!
Once a person comes to realize that most modern-day church offices and organizations are not based on biblical instruction, then two good things happen: 1) It quickly becomes evident that most modern day “church offices” and “church governments”are creations of the Catholic Church and her successors. 2) It is much easier to look into the Bible and read what it does say about how Christ governs His people. If you are willing to accept a church government because you are used to it being done a certain way, and because the Bible does not specifically condemn that way, then this paper may not change your mind much. However, if your desire is to let Christ lead His Body the way He said He would lead it in the Bible, then you will probably realize that the traditional “church organization” is not what He commanded.
Did the New Testament Writers add New Concepts to Old Greek Words? Some church leaders defend their organizations by claiming that there were no Greek words capable of expressing the new “church” concepts, so the apostles had to appropriate existing Greek words and give them new meanings. Some will even go as far as claiming that these “new meanings” have been faithfully preserved by the Catholic and other large churches, and that we can “read them into the Bible” on that basis. This idea is wrong. The Scripture does not tell us about words that are given new meanings—turned into titles of “church offices”. Furthermore, secular church history shows that local “bishops” gradually concentrated their power over nearby congregations and that the “Bishop of Rome” gradually gained power over the other bishops. The earliest writings of the “church fathers” do not claim that they were filling hierarchical offices that Christ or the Apostle set up.
Every Greek-speaking person whom this writer has asked has confirmed that the Greek language is particularly suited to combining words to make new words. You can look in a concordance’s dictionary or in a lexicon and see that a high percentage of the Greek words are a combination of two or more other Greek words. One example is archisunagogos, the Greek word meaning “ruler of the synagogue” (Mark 5:22,35,36,38; Luke 8:49; 13:14,15; Acts 13:15; 18:8,17). This is undoubtedly a word coined by Jews who had learned to speak Greek—they did not simply want to use the Greek word for “king” or “ruler,” “priest,” etc.—they wanted a word that adequately described the position. However, the New Testament does not contain any “new” Greek words invented for “church offices”. We do not have a “ruler of the congregation”, “head of the congregation”, “spiritual-leader” or even a “spiritual servant”. Those Scriptures that describe leadership in the Church simply describe what the leaders did in every-day terms, they do not set up “leadership positions to be filled”.
What Is “The Church” Today and What Has It Been in the Past?
We cannot possibly reach a biblical conclusion on church government unless we know what “The Church” is. We have already explained that the Greek word translated “church” is ekklesia and that it simply means assembly. It was not an exclusively religious term. Unmodified, the Greek ekklesia or “church” refers to the entire body of believers as in Ephestians 5:25: “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church [ekklesia] and gave Himself for it.” Other times it refers to a local congregation in a certain area: “To the church [ekklesia] which is at Corinth” (1 Cor 1:2). The plural form is used to refer to multiple congregations: “so that we ourselves boast to you among the churches [ekklesia] of God” (2Thes 1:4).
Colossians 1:13-18 makes it clear that the “Church”is the body of Christ. 1 Corinthians 12:12 shows there is one body with many members. “…Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His” (Rom 8:9). We must have His Spirit to be part of His Body. 1 Corinthians 12:4-6 provides some interesting insights: “Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. There are differences of ministries [services to others—diakonia], but the same Lord. And there are diversities of activities, but it is the same God who works all in all.” To summarize, it is the spirit inside a person that makes him or her a part of the Body of Christ—the Church, but members of the church may be involved in a great diversity of activities.
So how, then, do we relate this definition of “the Church” to the hundreds of “church organizations” that exist today? Is there one organization that is the “true Church”? Or, do multiple organizations make up the “true Church”? The truth of the matter is that the Bible says nothing about the formation of church organizations. If a church organization refuses to recognize brethren as equals who are “outside the organization”, then it is creating division contrary to Scripture. When the brethren in Corinth began to recognize one Bible teacher as preeminent over the others, Paul told them to stop it (1 Cor 1:10-13; 3:1-23). Paul did not tell the Corinthians that they were “not in the church” because they were looking to individual leaders, but he told them they were “babes in Christ” and “carnal” (1Cor 3:1,3).
Today, we find that most people who claim to be Christians are members of some church organization. Some feel their group is the “only true church” or that it is at least somehow better than the others. Making this mistake does not mean that they are not a part of the True Church, but neither does church organization membership assure anyone that they are a part of the True Church. We are not given the job of determining who is and who is not a part of the True Church (James 4:11-12). If others hold doctrines we believe are wrong, or if their life is a poor example, we may decide not to fellowship with them. But no person is given the authority to determine who is and who is not a member of Christ’s True Church. When the sinning member in 1 Corinthians 5:2-7 was put out by the congregation, it was done so his spirit might be saved. He was put out of the local congregation, but the Scripture does not say that the Spirit of Christ was taken away from him or that he was severed from Christ’s body. Later, he repented and returned to the congregation (2Cor 2:5-8).
Someone may say, “I agree with your definition of the Church from the Bible, but we are commanded to assemble with brethren (Heb 10:25) and the only place I can do that is at a service sponsored by a church organization. Is it a sin to go?” The answer is “No” ! The apostle Paul attended numerous synagogues. He prayed and sang with them, listened to them speak and they listened to him speak. Some gladly received his preaching of Jesus, others beat him up or threw him out. Similarly, a believer today who understands that church organizations are unbiblical may be able to happily fellowship with some of them, but others may ask about his or her different beliefs and then “put him (or her) out”.
For those who decide to attend services sponsored by an organization, please note that we are not saying that one organization is as good as another. Some church organizations have a high respect for the Bible and will consider the presentation of ideas based strictly on the Bible. Other church organizations teach only their established doctrine—some count their own traditions as equal in authority to the Bible. It is difficult to learn or even speak about much truth in the latter types of organizations. If you have to choose between several organizations for fellowship, you will need to pray about it, and then choose the group where you can learn and serve the most. It is possible that there are church organizations where most of the people have the Spirit of Christ. It is also possible that there are organizations where nobody has that Spirit.
Some people may be uncomfortable with the idea of scattered brethren—that there is no “church membership role” anywhere in the world identifying the true members of the Church. But note how the Eternal answered Elijah when he thought he was the only one left who was faithful to the Eternal (1 Kings 19:14): “Yet I have reserved seven thousand in Israel, all whose knees have not bowed to Baal, and every mouth that has not kissed him” (1 Kings 19:18). Elijah was a great prophet, yet he did not know about these righteous people, nor did the Eternal even tell him where they were. We can rest assured that our Father in heaven is carefully maintaining that information in the Book of Life (Phil 4:1-3). This book will be used to make sure that everyone is judged fairly (Rev 20:12,15).
Also some people may be uncomfortable with the idea that members of the true Church are scattered among groups and do not all hold the same doctrines. However, letters to the seven different congregations (Rev 1:11; chapters 2-3) show beyond any doubt that members and congregations can have different doctrines and still be part of the True Church. This is the only view that seems historically possible. There is no known church organization that has existed from the first century until now that has had the same doctrines the entire time. There is not even a historically-verifiable set of doctrines that have always been held by some people (regardless of organizational affiliation) for 1900 years. Every organization and every “movement of thought” varied to some degree in their doctrine—depending on whether they were learning more or sliding into error. We will simply have to trust Christ to straighten it all out in the end. “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me” (John 10:27).
Christ Is the Head
When people learn of a church group, one of the first questions they ask is, “Who is the head of it?”The answer should come from the Bible: “... Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior” (Eph 5:23, KJV). But when people are asking this question about a specific church organization, the question they want answered is: “Who is the human head of the organization?” But, if our success or very salvation depends upon how well we follow the human head of a church organization, is it not amazing that the New Testament never contains a single statement about a “human head of the Church”? Would the Eternal really let our salvation hang on a concept not explained in the New Testament? It is much more difficult to believe in a leader whom we cannot see (John 20:29). But if we have a close relationship with our Savior and really believe that He lives in us and leads us, we should be able to follow Him whether we have a human to teach us or not:
That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him, the eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints (Eph 1:17-18).
That we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ (Eph 4:14-15).
The mystery which has been hidden from ages and from generations, but now has been revealed to His saints. To them God willed to make known what are the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles: which is Christ in you, the hope of glory (Col 1:26-27).
But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone. or it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings (Heb 2:9-10).
But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him (1 Jn 2:27).
It should be clear from these verses that Christ is the Head, and that He works with each person in His Body, the Church.
There is Leadership: Apostles & Prophets are Foundation
Let us examine the main scriptures that indicate there is leadership in the Church.
[The household of God] having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, in whom the whole building, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together for a habitation of God in the Spirit (Eph 2:20-22).
And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness by which they lie in wait to deceive, but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ.... (Eph 4:11-15).
Now for Part 3
