Church Government
What the New Testament teaches on how churches should be governed
THIRD CONTINUATION IN ANSWER TO NORMAN EDWARDS' CHURCH GOVERNMENT PAPER N.E. 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" (l Cor. 16:15, KJV) The Greek lasso everywhere else in the Now Testament is fixated as "appointed," "determined" or some other decision-making word that fits its Greek meaning. The KJV translators and others after them have used a varied of words in this verse that hide the true meaning; of "appointed". They could not accept the Biblical fact that Stephanas appointed himself to the ministry or service of the saints. That would go against their doctrine of central appointment of all "ministers." In reality, there is nothing wrong with a person deciding they will serve (not be a "boss" over) the brethren. Apollos made himself a teacher and was accepted (Acts 18:24-28, I Cor 3:6). MY ANSWER Did the KJV translators really have some clandestine, undercover, secret cloak and dagger, plan to get all the English speaking population of the world, to believe in a ONE MAN AUTHORITARIAN HEAD APOSTLE/ARCH-BISHOP CHURCH GOVERNMENT TYPE OF CHRISTIANITY? All I can say is that if what Mr.Edwards wants you to believe about King James and his scholars, is correct, then overall they DID A PRETTY LOUSY AND INCONSISTENT JOB of their translating of the Greek, to enslave the world with their idea of correct "church government." I was raised and educated in England, went to a "Church of England" school all my life till I was seventeen. I faithfully attended "Sunday school" and entered many Bible exams. I read the word of the Lord. I was taught it in school. Listened to many church of England priests. Never from my personal reading of the King James Version, or from the ministers of the church of England, did I ever get the notion, or have implanted in my mind, the idea or teaching that the church that Jesus built (which the church of England claims to be part of) was ever to be a dictatorial rank pyramid eldership organization. It was not until AFTER COMING IN CONTACT WITH AND BEING A MEMBER FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS in the Worldwide Church of God, under the "only apostle" of God on earth - Herbert Armstrong (as he eventually claimed), that I was subjugated to believe, that the NT taught a hierarchial ministerial rank system of church government akin to the Roman Catholic church. I certainly did not have that interpretation encased in my mind from reading THE ENGLISH BIBLE TRANSLATED BY THE KING JAMES SCHOLARS!! So if those scholars translated with that object in their minds, under the directions from King James, then they needed to go back to theology school, for they did a dismal inconsistent job. Why I could have done better myself, not being a Greek scholar! If the King James translators took WILD LlBERTY (which they did) with planting the word EASTER (where the Greek is Pascher - Passover) in Acts 12:4, for their translation, they sure missed the train in taking wild liberties to establish King James' secret plan, to get everyone believing in a dictatorial rank ministry for the church. I speak with some tongue in cheek, but seriously now. The word "Easter" was a fragrant wild liberty, not even a transliteration from the Greek. They could have taken just as much liberty in trying to teach a pyramid structure for the NT church. Let me give you some examples as to what I mean. Come back with me to the latter half, to near the end of the first century A.D. The apostles Peter and Paul have been executed. Most if not all of the other early elders of the church have died in one way or another. The original 12 apostles have either moved far away from Palestine or have died, only the apostle JOHN is in the confines of Judea. He is old but somewhat famous because he was one of the specific 12 chosen by Jesus. The King James translators of 1611 knew the above facts. John wrote a letter to "the elect lady" and to "the well-beloved Gaius" (2 JN. 3 JN.). WHAT AN OPPORTUNITY THEY HAD! If they were conspiring with King James to slant the Scriptures so as to hood-wink the common person (who hardly had a Bible let alone the NT Greek manuscripts) into believing the NT church was built upon a pyramid ministerial rank system like that of the Roman Catholic church, they could have easily INSERTED the word "bishop" in John's letters to then read: "The BISHOP unto the elect lady" and "The BISHOP unto the well-beloved Gaius." They paid no attention to the Greek in Acts 12:4 when they inserted the word EASTER, so they could have ignored the Greek for "elder" in John's letters. if they were really up to some sneaky, surreptitious, secretive, underhanded and veiled plan with King James to foster the doctrine of hierarchal church government on the people. They could have done the same thing in Acts 14:23 - inserted the word BISHOPS instead of "elders." It would have fit in nicely, because they were appointing men in different churches not just one church. If the English mind thinks of "bishop" as some higher head minister over lower in authority ministers, and if the translators of 1611 wanted to teach the people that their "Church of England" system was taught in the Bible, they sure had an excellent opportunity in this verse in Acts. Look they could have done this kind of clandestine move with other verses also. They could have done it with 1 Peter 5:1 "The bishops which are among you I exhort, who am also a bishop..." Wow, this was Peter, surely many were already believing Peter to be in dictatorial authority over other less ranked "ministers." Putting "bishop" here would have really added some weight for King James' church government teaching. The word bishop could have been used in 1 Tim.5:17, 19, and in Titus 1:5. They did use it in Titus 1:7. Doing all that and leaving the word "elders" in passages such as Acts 20:17 and James 5:14 (where you could not have many"bishops" in a single congregation, if we take the word bishop to mean a minister in authority over other less ranked ministers) WOULD REALLY HELP NAIL IT HOME, that is King James' plan to teach hierarchal government in the church. So yes, the translators of 1611 could have done so IF ignoring the Greek as they did in Acts 12:4, and if working on a devious false teaching that King James wanted, nay, was demanding, to be promoted by the NT. Ignoring the Greek, I could have done a better job for King James' clandestine theology than his many scholars (who had many minds to work his devious seductions) he hired. GIVE ME A BREAK NORMAN EDWARDS! It was not King James and his scholars who were out "to teach the world" about hierarchal church government from the NT Scriptures. It was organizations like the Worldwide Church of God and individuals such as Herbert Armstrong, who were bent on promulgating this false heretical doctrine, taken right out of the theology book of the Roman Catholic church. And how did Herbert Armstrong do it for many years? Why, not from the NT, but by harping on over and over again about the hierarchal government in ancient Israel, and saying God is "the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow" (which I covered the real truth of earlier). It was in the late 70's and 80's he went further into error with trying to teach the doctrine of Rome, namely the "supremacy of Peter" teaching (which I've also covered in the first part of this book). As I've said, I was reading the NT long before, for years before, I ever heard of the Worldwide Church of God or Herbert Armstrong, and I never got out of it any teaching of hierarchal church government, not when you read all the scriptures on the subject from all the NT. Many scriptures the scholars of 1611 translated correctly and well, and which would contradict any planned, premeditated, conspiracy on their part to promulgate a doctrine of Rome. Why they and King James were AGAINST the church of Rome and its "king-pin, above all others" minister - the Pope. They and other English scholars of the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries OPENLY named the Roman Catholic church as the WHORE of the book of Revelation - Babylon the great, the mother of harlots. Let me comment on the specific verse quoted by N.E. - 1 Cor.16:15. In all my years of reading this verse BEFORE and AFTER being a member in the Worldwide Church of God, I never came close to the same thought as Mr.Edwards - that this was part of the conspiracy plan undertaken by the translation scholars of 1611. E.N. is quite correct concerning the Greek word lasso, yet I do not understand the big deal he is making about it. To me the KJV translators used an English word that is even more POWERFUL than the English word "appoint" or "determined." The word "addicted" to my mind is akin to the word "drugged" which carries a mighty strong, super strong connotation. Being "addicted" to wine or heroin is stronger than being appointed to the duty of carrying out the trash for the office staff. Also note, if the 1611 translators were trying to promote a doctrine of "central appointment of all ministers" they were once more inconsistent right within the verse itself. For they translated the Greek word for "service" (diakonian) as the English word ministry! And that word to my English mind, within the context of religion and the church, carries the connotation of teaching and working in the eldership function with the saints. So I could possibly take this verse not as something the 1611 translators were trying to cover up but just the opposite, teaching that certain ones appointed or addicted themselves to working in the "ministry"(eldership) of the saints. Ah, for the semantics of words and how we understand them one from another within any given sentence. Interesting to say the least, and possibly confusing to others. Now to the nitty-gritty! Mr. Edwards says it was "Stephanas appointed himself" to the ministry or service of the saints. But look at that verse AGAIN, look at it carefully! IT DOES NOT SAY THAT AT ALL! Read it, it say: ".......you know the HOUSE of Stephanas.......and that THEY (more than one) have addicted THEMSELVES to the ministry of the saints." This was not one single man or person that had appointed himself to the ministry, BUT A WHOLE HOUSEHOLD OF PERSONS! We are not told HOW MANY, what their AGES were, nor what SEX they may have been - male/female. It could have been persons of BOTH sexes that had appointed themselves to the ministry of the saints. And if I was to take the word "ministry" (as given by the KJV scholars) as meaning eldership or as we today often think and use the word in religious circles, I could come up with the idea (from the KJV) that whole families - male and female - can put themselves into the official function of church elders. Gets kind of wild doesn't it. Under this light, I could interpret this verse not as something the 1611 scholars were trying to conceal because they wanted to teach a doctrine of "central appointment of all ministers" but actually the very opposite. That whole families of male AND female could addict (be drugged on) themselves to serving in the "ministry" (spiritual eldership) of the church. We clearly know from this verse that it was the "house of Stephanas" the "themselves" and not just the man Stephanas who was addicted to serving the saints. What is also just as clear is that we are NOT TOLD the service they were doing for the saints. We are not told if it was washing the chariots for members of the church, cutting the grass, delivering groceries for the elderly saints, grooming their horses or donkeys, painting their stone fences, reading the Bible to the blind, or a hundred and one other things a household of persons can get enthusiastic about in serving others. We are just told the basic essentials, that here was a FAMILY who had become drugged with setting themselves to minister - serve (and I think we all really know that the word "ministry" was used by the 1611 translators to mean NOT eldership but service), just as they used it many times this way in other verses of the NT - (see the Englishman's Greek Concordance) in some way or ways to the brethren of the church. AND THAT'S IT! To speculate any further on the service given would be futile. Paul was pleased with their service to the brethren, and in verse 16 he tells his readers to respect and even to be subject to them, but does not go on to amplify his comments. We take from that, that they knew what he meant by his remarks and also that given in verse 18. What's wrong with what this household did in verse 16? Why NOTHING AT ALL! This was just an acknowledgment on Paul's part that such families should be held is high regards for the ministry of work they had addicted themselves to perform for the saints. Nothing more and nothing less. The KJV translators employed by the King in the 17th century were NOT TRYING TO HIDE ANYTHING in their rendering of this verse from the Greek into English, nor were they trying to teach from this verse the doctrine of "central appointment of all ministers." This verse says NOTHING ABOUT MAKING ONESELF A TEACHER OF OTHERS. But the verse in James 3: 1 SURE DOES! And quite frankly there are many going about today trying to be "teachers" WHO DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT, AND NEED TO BE LISTENING AND LEARNING. Many who were "kept under" - shackled to only "pray and pay" - taught to "not think" - finding themselves free from that straight-jacket, have become themselves "blind leaders of the blind." Apollos did what every saint is at liberty to do - go to the churches in the towns and speak the truths of God if they so desire and are so led of the Spirit to do. His example is as one going forth to the deceived and those in various degrees of spiritual darkness. After he was trained even more in the truths of God, he was accepted by the brethren to teach them and to preach to the unconverted world. He was given an opportunity to "be proved" and to see if he did "desire the office of bishop" (1 Tim. 3). Obviously from what is stated about Apollos in the first chapters of 1 Corinthians, and the fact that he like Paul was called an "apostle" it is clear that he was by GOD, and by OTHER elders and brethren called and appointed to the overseership/eldership within the NT Church of God. N.E. Selective Translations Bolsters "Bishop." The various jobs 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. As we found with diakonos, the translators used the "plain, everyday" words in some places, but put in "church terminology" ("minister" or "deacon") when it suited their purposes.. This practice leaves the English reader to believe that the Scriptures actually support exalted "church offices" rather than jobs for the converted people to do. The Greek episkopos is translated "bishop" in four places where it apparently applies to only a few men - matching the authoritarian church concept of a boss over many congregations. It is translated "overseer" (its true meaning) in Acts 20:28 because Paul was addressing all the elders of Ephesus (vs. 17-18). King James would not have allowed the "high office" of "Bishop" to be mentioned in a way that made it seem nearly equal to the "common elder" so the translators obscured it. (The American Standard Version, produced much later, is at least consistent and contains "bishop" here) "Overseer" would be a much better translation for episkopos if we understand it as `"someone that looks out for the welfare of others," not "someone that bosses others." A similar problem occurs with the closely related word episkope (meaning "inspection" or "overseeing"). It is translated "visitation" in Luke 19:44 rued I Peter 2:12 where it refers to an individual's "inspection" or "judgment", but "bishoprick" in Acts 1:20 and even "office of bishop" in l Timothy 3:1 where it is made to look like a "church office." During the first century, "overseers" were selected from elders (older men) of the congregation to take care of the administrative needs of a congregation." MY ANSWER Are there "church offices" in the church? Well again we are back to the semantics of words. Let's go to the human body example that Paul used. If you want to take the function of what the "head" does in relation to the rest of the body and call it a "body office" then you should be free to do so. If you want to call what the "blood" does in relation to the rest of the body a "body office" then you have the liberty within a language to do so. If you want to call what the "skin" does in the way of function to the rest of the human a "body office" you have freedom to do so. Language is a means of communication, to put a certain mind thought or scene into that part of the brain dealing with concepts. To call the "head" a "bodily office" does not of itself mean it is inheritably superior or exalted above the rest of the body. Certainly the body can not live or function without the head, but then again, the body can not function or live without the blood, or without the skin, or without the internal organs and so on. One office of the body is not superior to another. All offices must be there to make a whole, and for it to be nourished and to grow to maturity and perfection. And that is exactly how Paul likened the church. All functions are "offices" in that sense of how we are using the word. All in the church are supposed to be converted, yet we do not all function in the same role within the church. We have different duties to perform. We are then in different "offices" the church. We have seen the NT does indeed break down the body of Christ into THREE OVERALL basic "offices" or functions - the SAINTS, the DEACONS, and the OVERSEERS/ELDERS. No one in any of those offices are to feel "greater" or "more important" than anyone else. The NT is full of verses that proclaim that truth. I believe Mr.Edwards is making a "mountain out of a mole hill" in attributing some secret scheme to the 1611 translators. Even if by some wild endeavour on their part they were trying to make the NT teach a Roman Catholic type of church government (which is hard to believe considering England had rejected Rome and the "supremacy of Peter" doctrine), it would NOT BE POSSIBLE by the way God had preserved His word in the Greek language (unless the Greek itself was cast aside, and so called "religious" men came up with a so called "word of God" that was purely from their own minds and not the mind of the Lord). God's word is written in such a way that anyone trying to form a false doctrine of complete harmony throughout, would sooner or later have to reject the original inspired Hebrew and Greek, and insert their own ideas. No one has ever proved that the King James translators were not working from the inspired languages of the Biblical text. Let's take episkopos as used in Titus 1:7. If the 1611 scholars were trying to teach from the NT that a "bishop" was a man - a clergyman - in the church who was in rank above the other ministers, priests, elders, and that he had authority over them to tell them what to do, when to do it, and how to do it, then they should have been consistent with verse 5. If that was their aim, their teaching plan, then they should have put the word "bishop" in verse five also. They would have had to reject the different Greek word used there (presbuteros), but so what, they rejected the Greek word for Passover in Acts 12:4 did they not, yes they did! They did not reject presbuteros but rendered it "elders" as they should have. Which immediately, for even those knowing NO GREEK but only English, tells you that an Elder is also a Bishop - one and the same individual in the church. Look at Philippians 1:1. If the scholars employed by King James to do his dirty work in teaching a pyramid structure of government in the church, wanted the people to believe a "bishop" in the church was someone who was the "top dog" in ecclesiastical authority over lower pries/elders, or someone over a group of churches and ministers, they sure messed up here. Paul was writing to ONE TOWN! Would they have "bishops" plural - a number of them, in one town? I do not think so, and the Church of England as they use the word "bishop" today, do not have a number of them in just one town! To avoid people questioning their "bishop" teaching from this verse, if they had some secret agenda, it would have been easy to have put the English word overseers in this verse, as they did in Acts 20:28. The word "bishop" can have a number of meanings in English. Look it up in a good Dictionary. Or talk to someone from the Mormon church and ask them how they use the word in their organization. The King James translators were probably not using the word bishop in the way it is used today in the Church of England, nor the way Mr.Edwards wants you to believe. It wasn't the Church of England that deceived Norman Edwards for many years into believing this false doctrine of the "supremacy of Peter" and hierarchal church government. IT WAS HERBERT ARMSTRONG! And as far as I know Armstrong's teaching came from the Old Testament mainly, and later from twisting a few NT verses as the RC church does. Reading the NT in its entirety, putting scripture with scripture, FROM THE KJV translation, you will never come up with the apostolic Church of God being a pyramid or one man hierarchal structured. N.E. Other Religious "Offices" Enhanced. The Greek poimen is translated "shepherd" all other 16 times, but "Pastor" in Ephesians 4:11 where there is a list of various functions of the members of His body. Finally, the Greek euaggelion is everywhere translated "gospel.'' The very similar word euaggelistes should be translated "gospel-preacher" - clearly connecting the relationship between the two words. Instead, we have three references to "evangelist," assumed by many to be an ecclesiastic rank or title, not a function." MY ANSWER From the World Book Dictionary concerning the word pastor we read: ".......3. Archaic. a herdsman or shepherd. (< Anglo-French pastour, Old French Pasteur, < Latin pastor shepherd < pascere to feed) ." So the translators of the KJV were influenced by some Anglo-French-Latin to render the Greek as pastor in Eph.4: 11. Any big deal? No I do not think so, and I'll tell you why soon. Poimen in the Greek means ".......'a shepherd, one who tends herds or flocks' (not merely one who feeds them)......." Vine's Dictionary. This is what we learn about the word evangel from whence we derive the word evangelist, the World Book Dictionary: ".......(< Late Latin evangelism < Greek evangelion good tidings, ultimately < eu- good + angellein announce < angelos messenger). So the 1611 scholars took the Greek word and transliterated it into the Anglo-Saxon English. Again, really NO BIG DEAL, unless you are bent on reading something very sinister going on in the minds of those hired to translate the Bible by King James - a secret plot of trying to make people believe in a Roman Catholic church government structure. And that coming from the minds of those who had rejected Rome is very doubtful. The words pastor and evangelist do not carry ANY meaning within them from the Greek, French, Latin, or Anglo, that implies or teaches an "ecclesiastical rank." It is just NOT THERE, period! Tens of thousands of people back in 1611 as today in the English speaking world, who attend churches of various faiths, do not acquaint any "dictatorial rank" or "authoritarian title" - boss you about power - to the words pastor or evangelist. Just go and ask any average church attender what thoughts come into his or her mind when they think of the word "pastor" or "evangelist." Most will say for pastor, a minister who serves and shepherds the flock of God in spiritual matters. They do not think of a minister who has dictatorial authority over other ministers that he orders around. When those same people think of the word "evangelist" they do not understand it as someone with some special official "rank" in the church that has authority over "pastor" ministers. They think of it as a minister who mainly preaches the word of God to the outside unconverted persons in the world. To my knowledge, the Church of England in its ecclesiastical structure, has never used a minister rank system that carried the names APOSTLE, PROPHET, EVANGELIST. I do not believe they even used pastor or teacher, yet I could be wrong on that. Well to get it from the horses mouth, I have just called the ANGLICAN CHURCH OF CANADA, who are, they inform me, the same as the Church of England. I asked about their official structure and names used. It is: THREE TIERED - bottom rung is deacon - second rung is priest - third rung is bishop. These are separate ordinations - official appointments. They have never used as official ordination rank (which the previous three are in their government) with TITLES of apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor. They do use the words pastor and evangelist, but in an un-official way, such as assigning a "lay member" the task to do an evangelistic meeting or promotion to the public. So the Church of England under King James and his translators were NOT trying to teach from Ephesians 4:11 or by using the word "evangelist" three times, the ecclesiastic rank of church government. The truth is that from the very Greek words in the sentence of Ephesians 4:11 and the word euaggelistes, or the English words used in the KJV, NO DOCTRINE OF "RANK MINISTERS" CAN BE FOUND WITHOUT SOME WILD INTERPRETATION FROM THE MIND OF MAN! IT IS JUST NOT CORRECT TO BLAME THE TRANSlATORS OF THE KING JAMES VERSION OF THE BIBLE WITH TRYING TO "enhance religious offices" from their use of the words pastor and evangelist. Trying to do so is, to put it bluntly (not meaning to offend Mr.Edwards) - not good theology! There is NOTHING WRONG with the verse under discussion, nor with the words evangelist and pastor. What is wrong, is the false man made interpretation of that verse and of those words, as Norman Edwards experienced under the ministry of the Worldwide Church of God, led by Herbert Armstrong. It was H.W.Armstrong who rejected his own plain truth that he published about "Church Government" at the beginning years of his ministry (l have a copy of his article), to adopt a Roman Catholic type hierarchy. And in so doing he had to twist and pervert a few scriptures of the NT that would then fit his new mind set on the subject, while rejecting many other verses and passages that would sound the death bell on his "one man (he himself) supremacy of Peter" doctrine. It is time Mr.Edwards to put the blame of you believing such heretical nonsense for so many years, where it belongs. Not on the heads of the translators of King James, but on the head (one head, though many WCG ministers followed) - the head of Herbert W. Armstrong! Under his ministerial "rank" system teachers were divided into bottom rung "local elders" then second rung "preaching elders." After them and above them came "pastors." Above pastors in rank were "evangelists." The rank of "prophets" was conveniently never used as "there was none" according to HWA. And the rank of "apostles" did not exist he stated, that is until he called himself "God's apostle on earth" after the death of his wife Loma. So even under his interpretation of Ephesians 4:11 it was pick and choose, change some words, leave out others, and adapt it to his ideas of how to govern what he finally called the only true organization of God's people on earth, which was another of his false doctrines during his last 20 years of life (he also had some before those years). N.E. Matthew 16:18 Mistranslated. This one translation error 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 His assembly or "church" is not built on Peter but on the Messiah. The English, with no distinction between the size of rocks, leads us to believe that the Congregation was built upon Peter and (by deduction) his successors. (Most top "church leaders" in big organizations claim to be successors of Peter in some way.) MY ANSWER Was this really a translation error on the part of the KJV scholars? Was it intended to teach the church was built upon the apostle Peter? Does the English put no distinction between the size of the rocks? Just a minute, what rocks? In the English words I do not see but ONE rock mentioned, not two. So no one was trying to put or not put a distinction between "rocks" plural, when translating into the English language. The translators rendered the Greek petros as Peter because the apostles name was Peter, and Peter means "a stone." All this fits with what we read in John 1:42, "....Jesus beheld him, He said, You are Simon the son of Jesse, you shall be called Cephas (Peter) which is by interpretation, a stone." Then they translated petra as rock because that is what it means - huge cliff or shelf of rock. There is NOTHING HERE in the English for understanding the church of Jesus Christ was going to be built or founded upon the apostle Peter, WITH a hand-on-down head apostle. Peter was used to start up the NT church in a powerful way as we see from the early chapters of Acts. But Paul makes it clear this one man top-down was not a part of the NT church theology. Paul's letter to the Galatians makes this truth plain to see. on to other men, one at a time, one after the another. Paul in his letter to the Galatians makes it clear he did not entertain the theology of a head apostle one at a time, to the coming again of Christ Jesus. .................... |
No comments:
Post a Comment