013A - Why is the word Church wrongly translated for Greek word Ekklessia which is called out ones? (Acts 19:32)

Why is the word Church wrongly translated for Greek word Ekklessia which is called out ones?

THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH: DISTORTED AND DEFORMED

"But we received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is from God; that we might know the things that were freely given to us of God; which things also we speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches, but which the Spirit teaches; combining spiritual things with spiritual words." 1 Corinthians 2:12-13

What would you say is the number one responsibility of Bible translators, or any translator for that matter?   Would you agree in saying that the main function of translators is to convert written material from one language into another language, making certain that the translated version projects the meaning of the original text as precisely as possible?

When God told Adam and Eve, "Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it..."(Gen. 1:28), you can be certain that He chose His words carefully to keep from being misunderstood.  When He commanded them not to eat of "the tree of knowledge of good and evil," the record indicates that they fully understood the order and its dire consequences (Gen. 2:16-17; 3:1-3).

All throughout time, God spoke His will to the people, sometimes directly and sometimes in a dream or vision.   In these last days, He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things (Hebrews 1:2).

As our opening verse demonstrates, the Apostle Paul would say that it is impossible to know the mind of God without the help and aid of the Spirit.

The Holy Spirit has always been present to help the inspired man of God select the right words that are relative to revealing the word of God.   God did not leave anything to chance.  We must stay with words "which the Spirit teaches" (1 Cor. 2:13) and be careful, when we attempt to explain an idea expressed by these Spirit-given words, not to stray from their original meaning.  

That is why translators are given a great responsibility in making sure they get it right, especially key words.  The changing of one word can literally change the world.  Do they get it right, or do they have something to protect?

The word “c-h-u-r-c-h” is one of those words that has impacted the world and has subverted the purpose for which it was intended.  Because the translators substituted the word “church,” meaning a building, instead of the Holy Spirits word, ecclesia, a word reflecting a functioning body or a community, it has affected our whole approach to the meaning of the body of Christ.  We have been given a word from the translators that has nothing to do with the original Greek word ecclesia. 

This may come as a surprise to some people but there is no such thing as a CHURCH (institution) in all of Scripture!  Oh yes indeed, the word CHURCH is found therein about 100 times; but the English word CHURCH should NOT be there at all.  That word is not a TRANSLATION of the Greek word ecclesia; but it is substituted for a translation of the Greek word ecclesia in every place it appears in the NT Scriptures with the exception of three instances; all three found in Acts 19:32, 39, and 41 (more about this later).  

When Jesus said, “Upon this rock I will build my ecclesia,” (Mat 16:18) the translators purposely used a word identifying a building rather than the people.  What He said was that upon the great truth confessed by Peter, that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the Living God, Jesus would build His assembly, His gathering, or His community of redeemed people.  Jesus did NOT say that He would build a church and He did not do such a thing! The ecclesia of Christ is NOT a church!  All churches are the works and creations of men.  Jesus did not set up a religious institution of any kind.  The ecclesia (ek, "out of or from," and kaleo, "a calling or to call") is His called out, obedient people, wherever they are!  The ecclesia (or  e-k-k-l-e-s-i-a) is NOT an organization or institution.

Now dear reader, at this point, you have a choice: either believe what the translators had to say or go to the original language and read what Jesus and the apostles had to say.  You will surely find no word coming from Jesus that He called the translators to represent His authority.   

Doesn't it stir your mind and heart enough to move you to really examine why this is true and consider all the error it has brought upon the world?   Most people in the church are not aware that some Scriptures have been mistranslated, and then misapplied by human leaders.  Everybody can check these things out for themselves.  Today, we have bible programs that show every Greek word, its meaning, and what part of speech it is.  We have bible dictionaries, lexicons, the internet and resources without end.  And of course, we have the ever-present help and aid of the Spirit Himself who will "guide us into all Truth."   We are indeed, "without excuse!"

Ken Cascio

wickedshepherds.com

THE "C-H-U-R-C-H" TAKES SHAPE

How did the Greek word Ecclesia, meaning a called out assembly, congregation or community, come to be translated "church", a word that is neither Greek nor English but is of doubtful Latin origin and implies a building and temple worship?   What is a word that is neither Greek NOR English doing in a Greek to English translation?

In order to answer these questions, we must look at some historical documents and references. When we study the history of Bible translations, it is easy to see why those in authority, along with the translators, have sought more to hide the meaning of some verses than they have done to reveal their real meaning to the common people's understanding.

There is absolutely no doubt that this word (among others) remained intact in order for the clergy to redefine it, interpreting it with the strongest institutional and hierarchical connotations.  Was this mere ignorance, or a means of creating a ruling class of “church overseers?” 

In 1604 for example, King James I, who was not only the King of England, but head of the Church of England, commissioned fifty-four Hebrew and Greek scholars to give English-speaking people the official version of the Bible. The king had always been interested in the Scriptures and was somewhat of a scholar in his own right.  He appointed Richard Bancroft, soon to be made the Archbishop of Canterbury, as chairman and "chief overseer" of this committee. 

The "King James pattern of church" was already well established in the ecclesiastical orders and offices of the Church of England, so it was relatively easy to follow the instructions of the noble King James who held many titles, one being "Defender of the Faith".  

So, the stage was set to give the world a true English translation of the Bible.  But the world never had a chance to receive a pure translation because everything was stacked in favor of one that would place the emphasis on the institutional Church and its ruling officers.  Bancroft, as well as Erasmus, were the architects of the King James Version translation and they were far from being saints.  The translators were obligated to fit the translation with the Anglican agenda and beliefs without any conflict between church and state.  King James knew “no bishop, no king” and he ordered a translation which would make his control over the church and the people less difficult.

When the King James Version of the Bible was created, James actually gave instructions not to change the word church in order to reflect its actual meaning.  This is not a conspiracy theory.  This is documented history!  Bancroft subsequently, with the King's approval, devised 15 rules which the translators were ordered to abide by in their development of what became known as "the Authorized Version;"  a cunning ploy that would eventually make all other versions "unauthorized." Notice rule number three: "The old Ecclesiastical Words are to be kept; i.e.,the word Church not to be translated congregation or community,  etc."  It was clear to the translators what "ecclesiastical words must be kept" and you can be sure that they would have no qualms for choosing "ecclesiastical words" that would fit the best interest of the powerful Clergy/Church, one of which was this rule not to tamper with these terms (i.e. church).  Again, this is an historical fact.  Many other words were translated differently as well so as to agree with the Anglican Church.

So again, the King James translators retained, under orders from the King and the Archbishop certain "ecclesiastical words," including "church."  Such words do not give the true meaning of the Greek.  "Church" does not translate ecclesia.  English words such as "congregation" and "assembly" and "community" do.  Again we ask, why were these words not translated?  Why were the people deprived of the true sense of these words?  What would the Church of England, and subsequent "churchmen,'' have to gain by keeping the people ignorant of the true meanings of these words?  We have given you a hint to the answers to these questions already in this article.  It is so obvious.  

Bibles are not translated by atheists.  If they were, maybe they would be more accurate.  But Bibles are mostly translated by Christians who profess to adhere to the tenets of Christianity and who ALREADY KNOW WHAT THEY BELIEVE.  And as they translate, THEY WILL PUT THEIR BELIEFS INTO THEIR TRANSLATION. 

In regards to "c-h-u-r-c-h," here we have an example of translators modifying the text to make it seem to align better with tradition and practice that is already set in place, rather than trying to convey the literal intended meaning.   

The word "church" naturally draws the reader's thoughts to a religious structure and a religious form rather than organic spiritual life.

But this is no justification of the use of “church” for ecclesia.  Unless of course one has a built-in bias in shifting the meaning of the word from “the people” to “a building”.  A building would more serve the purpose of a religious group with a built in hierarchy.

"Church" was employed by the King James translators to protect their own interests and to keep its readers from a proper understanding of the will of God.  They were happy to let the people live in ignorance and superstition, so long as the church was able to keep its position of privilege.  This word has created many false ideas, causing much confusion and division among religious people, even among those who are striving conscientiously to serve the great God of Heaven.  

The word "church" is not of God.  It is the product of man's own theological imagination and abject bias.  It is in a class with "Purgatory," "Easter," "Christmas," "Transubstantiation,'' "Eucharist," etc.  For that matter, the same can be said of "Bishop" and "Deacon."

Remember that the "Church" at that time, and indeed, right down to today, had been fashioned into a powerful force that dictated "truth" to the people, and wielded the ecclesiastical sword as a political weapon for its own advantage.  In addition, the "Church" imposed itself as the "mediator between God and man," making obedience to IT an absolute necessity, without which there could be no salvation.  The "Church" claimed to have given the Bible to the people, and that it was the rightful guardian of it.  When I speak of the "Church" I am referring not only to the Roman Catholic Church, but also the Greek Orthodox Church, all the Protestant Churches, and especially the Church of England.

As a result we have many Bible translations today that truly are tainted by men using covert schemes to gain their own ends; where men who supposed themselves to be authorities over the Lord's Assembly tried to destroy the revelation that all God's children are priests unto God through one High Priest, Jesus Christ. The scheme sought to place self-appointed leaders in mediation between men and God, usurping the authority of Christ. These men sought to alter the Bible text just enough to make it appear supportive of their hierarchical rule and false authority.

These facts are recorded in history and anyone can do the research themselves and find it to be true.

Enter Constantine

From its earliest usage, the word “church” has been understood in pagan traditions.  It was the pagans who had constructed their obelisks; their buildings; their shrines and their pagan mosques in which they met to offer their sacrifices unto their idols.  There were pagans using the word “church” long before Christians ever began using it. Church is a pagan concept and not a Christian one. 

In fact, Justin Martyr, writing in the 2nd century, makes it plain that the concept of "church" and "church buildings" were nonexistent in his day and that the saints were not accustomed to meeting at any particular time or in any place!

When he was asked where he assembled, Justin Martyr answered: 

"Where each one chooses and can; do you suppose that we all are accustomed to meet together in one place? Quite otherwise, for the God of the Christians is not confined by place, but being invisible, He fills the heaven and the earth, and the faithful everywhere adore Him and sing His praise."

Not only that, most of the pomp of religious ceremony that so many believe to be essential in church services is derived entirely from pagan concepts that influenced and corrupted the early Church.  This again is an undisputable historical fact!  It is clearly evidenced in early Christian writings.  Here is just another example of the many early writings:

"The pagans had been accustomed to numerous and splendid ceremonies from their infancy, and they saw the new religion (i.e. Christianity) destitute of temples, altars, victims, priests, and all the pomp which the pagans supposed was the essence of religion; for the unenlightened persons are prone to estimate religion by what meets the eyes. To silence this accusation, the Christian leaders thought they must introduce some of the rites and ceremonies which would strike the senses of the people;

"Before the second century was half gone, before the last of the apostles had been dead forty years, this apostate, this working of the 'Mystery of Iniquity,' had so largely spread over the East and the West, that it is literally true that a large part of the Christian observances and institutions, even in this century, had the aspect of the pagan mysteries" (Mosheim in Ecclesiastical History). 

Even Constantine (280-337), the Roman Emperor and his mother, Empress Helena, built many pagan temples but  after his conversion in 313, he continued his custom of building, but this time it was “Christian" temples.  Many pagan buildings were later converted to so-called churches. This was really the official beginning of recognizing buildings as churches but it was not until after the reign of Constantine that Christianity was publicly recognized and sanctioned by the state. 

By this time however, a clear class of "church officials" had evolved and it was Constantine that gave legacies (money) to church leaders and began to erect cathedral type buildings.  He built 7 in Rome (at least) , and others in Italian cities, in Africa, Syria, and Asia.  Also at this time, the church leaders thought that it was a good idea to herd the laity under one roof.  This was desirable so that they could be guarded against "heretical" teachings of those that weren't approved by the clergy.

Since there was now a well defined distinction made between the clergy and laity, special clothing, special titles, and official duties evolved that could only be performed by these elitists.  This group now decided who could speak, who could teach, and be added to their special group.  These "church leaders" now gathered together to decide issues and plans.  They regularly discussed personal matters of the laity that in other contexts would be considered gossip.  And all this was accomplished for the good of the laity.  These were the "self-appointed watchers" that insisted on submission. These leaders thought that they had the power to act in authority above the Word of God.  They sought to, and did impose their self-righteous, man-made doctrines on the people and called all failures to obey these man-made rules sin.   

Can the reader describe one aspect mentioned above that is NOT present within denominations existing today?

Organized Christianity was now on the move and made equal before the law with the few remaining pagan religions still recognized by the Roman government.  Some church historians accord these events as one of the most decisive in world history.  Whether Constantine was himself "converted" in the sense of New Testament usage of the word matters little.  What does matter, and very much, is that the "c-h-u-r-c-h"; the institution of the church, was legalized for the first time; all of this done with no Biblical justification whatsoever!  The full majesty and power of the stately Roman government conferred its recognition and blessing upon this new formed institutional church. 

In 325, Catholicism became the exclusive and domineering religion of the realm and in rapid succession, urged on by the clergy, Constantine issued decrees conferring unprecedented advantages upon the church.  Tax exemption was granted; members of the clergy were excused from military service; the estates of those dying without direct heirs was given to the church, and the church was empowered to receive gifts and legacies of any kind. 

Every pagan cult and communion of any kind, except Catholic, was outlawed and their assets confiscated and given to the Catholic Church.  And the measures taken against dissident Christians were even worse. Christians who opposed what was happening were forbidden to assemble on pain of death or exile, and all their assets were confiscated and given to the Church.  Of course, the clergy said that these measures were necessary for the defense of the gospel and silencing heresy. 

THIS was the beginning of institutional Christianity and the downfall of what "church" and "worship" truly means.

As the centuries went by, this idea of not only the word (church), but also the concept of an institutional church kept growing more and more by the Catholic church and was retained by the Church of England and both used it as a device to hold people in subjection to the whims of a few powerful men who controlled the institutional church at that time. 

Enter Tyndale and others

The keeping of the word "church" in the vocabulary of the religious leaders is important to the institutional church concept even today, and is defended by the modern day clergy for the same reasons that it has been for centuries but never has the word “church” been demonstrated or justified from a biblical stand point to represent the Greek word ecclesia.

But even at that time, though the Bible was still a closed book for the English, God was in the process of preparing a man to change this.

During the 15th and 16th centuries, some Godly men knew of the evil that had been already perpetuated.  In the 16th century, men of God like William Tyndale, Greek scholar and translator of the first printed English Bible, knew that the word "ecclesia" did NOT translate as "church."   In his translation of the Scriptures, instead of using the word "church," Tyndale used the word "congregation" to place emphasis upon the congregation of God or the community of God's people who assemble ONLY under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.  He wanted to rid the Bible of the ecclesiastical words set in by a powerful clergy system and move the unscriptural focus from a building to the people.

He knew that the word "church" was totally misleading and that inherent in that word resided all the apparent justification for an institutional Church with all its trappings.  Although he was at one time brought before the local bishop on charges of heresy, but released with a warning, William Tyndale would not be silent about the Word of God. 

Tyndales emphasis was deliberate and true.  It is obvious to see how this offended the religious leaders of his day, just as it does the religious leaders of our day; because Tyndale's emphasis on people being the Ecclesia of God distracted readers from seeing organized religion, hierarchical leadership and the buildings dedicated for religious service as pertaining to and even defining the Church.

These men were fighting for the right of the people to have a translation that would give them clear meanings to all the words; that they be expressed in simple English words that would make the meanings clear to the people.  Tyndale, and other men like him, were fighting against that which they saw as a perversion of the gospel of Jesus Christ.  They contended that each individual had the right to assemble where they wish and a responsibility to search the Scriptures on their own, and not to rely upon the Clergy.  The "Church" objected, and therein lay the conflict.

Those who held political sway over the masses through the "church" insisted that these men be silenced, and that their works be burned.  An all-out attack was launched to discredit those "heretics" and to intensify the message of so-called "orthodoxy." The "Church" determined what the truth was for everyone, and the clergy set out to defend it with all vengeance.  Religious leaders who did not pledge allegiance to the State religion, The Church of England, were more than looked upon with a great deal of suspicion.  They were deprived of certain rights.  If he was a clergyman, he was often relegated to an obscure outpost where his work could not influence many people.

William Tyndale became famous for his translation of the Bible from Greek to English.  Throughout his translation, Tyndale gave "congregation" as the meaning of ecclesia, and the word "church" never appears in his translation.  One church leader named John Bell told Tyndale that it would be better for the people to be without God’s truth, as long as they had the churches law.  This was Tyndale’s famous response:

"If God spare my life, ere many years I will cause a boy that driveth the plough should know more of the Scripture than thou dost."  

In the England of Henry VIII, it was illegal to translate the Bible into English.  The church authorities believed that it would be dangerous for people to read the Bible themselves.  How would they know how to interpret it without the "Church" to tell them what it meant?  (Sound familiar?)  One English bishop complained that placing the Bible in the hands of the people would cause "the pearl of the gospel to be scattered on the ground and trodden in the mud by swine."   But the real problem was that the "Church" was not teaching the Truth of the Scriptures to their people.  They were happy to let the people live in ignorance and tradition, so long as the church was able to keep its position of privilege. 

There is no doubt that Tyndale's assessment of the problem was undeniably factual in that the Scriptures were being hidden from the eyes of the people.  Many of the people could not find the answer or explanation, or even understand the "churches" subtle rules, policies and teachings.  Those in "leadership positions" in the church covered up their abominations and sham by hiding the Scriptures from the people's eyes and darkening the right sense of the Scriptures by their confusing and deceptive arguments.  This went well beyond mere verbal deceit to tampering with the actual Scripture texts themselves, as we have seen.

The average person 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.

One English couple were actually arrested for teaching their children the Lord’s Prayer and the 10 commandments in English.  They were found guilty and burned to death.  These things infuriated Tyndale, causing him to press on in earnest.  Tyndale realized what he needed to do. 

After his translations started showing up in England, the King, (Henry VIII) along with the church, declared Tyndale a heretic and a criminal and orders were issued for his arrest.  The King sent many spies throughout Europe searching for Tyndale. They were ordered to arrest him and take him to England.  Tyndale lived a life of constant difficulty and danger.

It is believed also at this time that Tyndale probably hid for several years in Hamburg, Germany.  Even his friends did not know where he was.  During his time of hiding, he also wrote other books, one of which was "The Practice of the Prelates," a book dealing with the corruption and abuses of the Church.  This, along with other books, were secretly printed and smuggled to England where they were a great help to Christians there.

Even while he was engaged in this great work, Tyndale was never safe.  He knew he was a wanted man and he constantly moved from place to place.  Because he was so secretive, we don’t know much about his life at this particular time.  He was probably living in a very poor run down area of whatever city he was living in at the time; or in barns out in the country.  Of course, he couldn’t afford to attract attention.  Tyndale lived on very little food and had almost no possessions, except for the books and papers he needed for his translations.

Although Tyndale was very careful about who he trusted, he was finally "tricked" by a man whom he thought was his friend, but turned out to be one of the King's (Henry VIII) spies.  One day, Tyndale accepted an invitation to this "friends" home for dinner.  When he arrived, there were other men waiting who grabbed Tyndale and tied him with ropes. 

He was taken to a huge medieval fortress in Antwerp, and cast into a filthy and rat infested dungeon.  He was beaten and mistreated and was held there for a year and a half. 

The crimes he was charged with, among other things, was for teaching that people should be able to read the Truth of the Scriptures and to read it in their own language.

His pursuit of a fair and honest translation not only put him at odds with the Clergy, but his translation brought down the wrath of the Clergy and it cost him his life and for that they labeled him a "heretic" and finally succeeded in having him burned at the stake.  All this, because he dared to challenge the meanings of certain ecclesiastical words; all because he translated the Scriptures from Greek and Hebrew into terms that more closely identified with their original meanings! 

Tyndale refused to say that he was wrong.  He defended his answers by quoting from the Bible, which he had given his life to study and translate.  In October 1536, he was declared guilty and was sentenced to death. 

On the day of his death, he was taken to the place of execution.  First he was chained to a wooden stake.  Then he was surrounded up to his waist with straw and wood sprinkled with gunpowder.  Church officials were sitting in their seats of honor to watch.  Many hundreds of townspeople had also come. 

The order was given and the hangman first strangled Tyndale, and when he was dead started the fire that burned his body. 

But Tyndale was not silent in his death.  Just before his death he prayed in a loud voice, "Lord, open the King of England’s eyes!"  Just as our Savior Jesus did, Tyndale prayed for his enemies at the moment of his death.  The Lord answered the prayer of William Tyndale, raising up other men, who took up the task where Tyndale had left off. 

After the martyrdom of Tyndale, the work of giving the English speaking people a Bible in their own language fell upon the shoulders of Miles Coverdale.  With the encouragement and support of Thomas Cromwell and Thomas Cranmer, and publishers Richard Grafton and Edward Whitchurch, Coverdale published a translation that leaned heavily upon the Tyndale Bible.  The new work was called "The Great Bible," which was published in 1539.  Again, in every case, ecclesia was translated "congregation," and the word "church" never appears in his translation! 

But today the KJV still thrives.  The KJV has had greater circulation among English speaking people than any other version before or since.  The style is one of its greatest appeals.  Written in the stately Elizabethan language, it is perhaps the easiest of all translations to commit to memory.  It came to be regarded as the one and only true translation, even venerated as sacred.  To speak critically of "the blessed KJV" is close to the sin against the Holy Ghost in the view of some.  Some churches revere it as the only reliable translation.   

As some might know, many of our other translations that are around today get its cue from the KJV; versions such as the ASV, NASV, RV, NIV, NKJV, Scofield; just to name a few.

Considering the above, could you see why almost all of our translations today have kept the word "church?"  When the influence, popularity, and hold of the KJV is considered and when one looks at the religious world with all the churches, who would dare publish a Bible and leave out the word church?  Who would buy a translation if the word church was not in it?  

"Church" is a dear and beloved word and Church people are not going to give it up, nor their beloved Church. How dare anyone publish a Bible without Church in it?  For sure it will be a publication failure.  No good, faithful member of any church would have a Bible in his home that did not have the word "church" in it.  It would border on blasphemy to leave church out of the Bible, desecrating that holy institution, the church!

I would venture to say that many people have never seen a translation that does not use the word "church."  It is little known to Christendom that multitudes possess a “bogus” translation that has been foisted upon the "church" by the translators; a “camel” that has been swallowed by many scholars and students alike.

However, several scholarly translations have been made in more recent times.  Translators attempted to accomplish many of the same things that Tyndale, Coverdale, and others did.  But these translations never sell well because there is no "church" in it!

Robert Young, who gave us "The Analytical Concordance to the Bible," published a work which he called, "A Literal Translation of the Holy Bible."  He uses "assembly" as the translation of "ecclesia," and the word "church" is not found in it.  It is published by Baker Book House.  He dared to give us a translation of the word "ecclesia" rather than substituting the word "church."  He destroys "the myth of the church" - there is no such thing in the NT Scriptures!

Another bible scholar, relied upon by our brethren in recent years, J.B. Rotherham, put out a literal translation which he called "The Emphasized Bible."  He too, never used the word "church."  Many others can be cited as well.

Again, such translations are not popular with church-dependent people, because they "belong to a church" which is the center of their religious life.

It is significant that this attempt by Tyndale, Coverdale, and many others to rid the Bible of such ecclesiastical words as "church" brought down the wrath of the powerful Clergy upon them.  The same has been true in every generation, even to this day .  Whenever honest people explore the possibilities that what they are being taught by their religious leaders may contain untruths, they run the risk of inciting their wrath.  Many religious men are fearful that they may lose control of the people, their livelihood, and/or their reputation.  The most hated people are those who challenge our religious system.

What does all of this mean?  It means (among other things) that it is quite obvious that for centuries there have been many scholars and students of the Bible that have been concerned about the use of "church" as a translation of ecclesia.  Many church leaders and teachers today would have us believe that challenging the word "church" is foolish and that it should not be done. They contend that this kind of criticism is of recent origin, calling it a "New Age"movement and that only a "handful of heretics" are raising questions about it. 

Anyone can see that this is not true.  Our study shows that conscientious Bible students have objected to these theological, ecclesiastical words, such as "church" for centuries, and we will continue to do so as long as there are those who insist on conjuring up distorted meanings of ecclesia.

Remember that many in the clergy today derive their prestige and livelihood from a clergy system with its corporate headquarters in a building.  A change back to the faith that was once given to the saints rings fear to the order of our institutional church system.  

Our translators presumed to know more than the great Author and corrupted the word of God.  How can those who profess to be Christians modify what God, by the Holy Spirit has given!  The body of Christ is a purchased possession bought and paid for with His blood.  He and He alone is the Head and holds full ownership.  By changing the frame and form of His body by adding our own rules, and regulations and interpretations, we pollute the pure Scriptural example.  We say that we are qualified to further define God's Word; that God didn't finish His Word because man's clarification is necessary.

Can one imagine a more perfidious and deceptive act of man?  It truly is repugnant to those who reverently regard the original as the very word of God, and want it to speak to them as He was pleased to give it. 

Those who would push aside the Holy Spirit, the teacher and guide to all truth (John 16:13-14) have been a thorn in the side of the Body of Christ from the beginning.  They always want to add or clarify or change something.  Just like the Pharisees who came before them, they seek to elevate themselves by enslaving others; by taking away the liberty which is ours in Christ. (Galatians 3)

During the so-called Reformation Period, very little changed.  The concept of “church,” along with its structure and format, kept pressing on, even to greater distortion.  The people continued to look to teachers for truth and "correct doctrine" and death to the dissenters followed its path.

The focus on the building and a strong one man leadership had not changed since the time of Constantine.  "The Reformers" simply went from priest to preacher and never healed the clergy/laity gap that still exists today.  Great teachers emerged and we worshipped their eloquence.

Crowds jammed to hear these silver tongued orators.  And what did we do?  We built bigger buildings in celebration of our idols.  Christianity became defined by men of skill and oratory, not men defined by servanthood and humility and other fruits of the Spirit.

Though they elevated the Word of God to some degree in the Reformation, they continued many of the lofty customs and traditions they had grown up with in the confines of the Roman Church.  They adopted from Rome (which was adopted from the pagans) the use of large elaborate buildings with steeples on top.  These buildings contained altars and platforms which raised their appointed leaders above the congregation.  It divided the congregation from the so-called leadership.  Leaders were set above the congregation and were called ministers and pastors.  

Though no such practice took place in Scripture, the traditions of pews, platforms, stained glass, and clergy continue to this day.  Even during the Reformation, so accepted did these traditions of men become that even the building now became known as the "Church." 

People began to believe that the building was the "House of God" and called it so.  No thought was given to Scripture on this matter or it would have been clearly seen that each of God’s people is His house.  (Hebrews 3:6; 1 Corinthians 3:16) They would have known that God does not dwell in temples made with hands.  (Acts 7:48ff) 

As the Reformation grew, it continued to practice many of the customs of the Roman Church, the greatest of which was the placing of mortal men above the Word of God.  They began to make rules and regulations not found in the Scriptures.  They justified these additions by saying that these things were not forbidden in the Word and would help to define it.  Do you think God needs our help?

Like the Roman Church before them, they sought to legislate everything.  Since the leaders now placed themselves above the people, they now decided who could or could not teach; who people should marry; right down to eating, drinking, and dress.  Gossip and slander continued behind peoples backs and became common place amongst the leaders, and all of this being justified by “watching over the flock.” 

This whole desperate effort to justify from Scripture the man-devised and instituted local corporate church institution is as absurd as it is totally contrary to God's word.  And what is really even sadder is that many refuse to see this false teaching and folly for what it really is!

Ken Cascio

wickedshepherds.com

ACTS 19:23-41

In Jesus' day, when the government or organization wanted to announce a gathering, they would send a herald, a chronicler, an announcer, who would call out the purpose of the meeting, who should attend, place, time etc. 

Those who attended that particular "calling out" were called the "ecclesia" to that calling. 

In Acts Chapter 19 starting at verse 23, we have a very interesting "ecclesia" or "church" gathering: 

"And about that time there arose a great commotion about the Way. For a certain man named Demetrius, a silversmith, who made silver Shrines of Diana, brought no small profit to the craftsmen. He called them together with the workers of similar occupation, and said: 'Men, you know that we have our prosperity by this trade. Moreover you see and hear that not only at Ephesus, but throughout almost all Asia, this Paul has persuaded and turned away many people, saying that they are not gods which are made with hands. So not only is this trade of ours in danger of falling into disrepute, but also the temple of the great goddess Diana may be despised and her magnificence destroyed, whom all Asia and the world worship.

Now when they heard this, they were full of wrath and cried out, saying, "Great is Diana of the Ephesians! 

So the whole city was filled with confusion, and rushed into the theater with one accord having seized Gaius and Aristarchus, Macedonians, Paul's travel companions. And when Paul wanted to go in to the people, the disciples would not allow him. Then some of the officials of Asia, who were his friends, sent to him pleading that he would not venture into the theatre. Some therefore cried one thing and some another, for the assembly was confused, and most of them did not know why they had come together. 

And they drew Alexander out of the multitude, the Jews putting him forward. And Alexander motioned with his hand, and wanted to make his defense to the people. But when they found out that he was a Jew, all with one voice cried out for about two hours, 'Great is Diana of the Ephesians!' 

And when the city clerk had quieted the crowd, he said: 'Men of Ephesus, what man is there who does not know that the city of the Ephesians is temple guardian of the great goddess Diana, and of the image which fell down from Zeus? Therefore, since these things cannot be denied, you ought to be quiet and do nothing rashly. For you have brought these men here who are neither robbers of temples nor blasphemers of your goddess.

Therefore, if Demetrius and his fellow craftsmen have a case against anyone, the courts are open and there are proconsuls. Let them bring charges against one another. But if you have any other inquiry to make, it shall be determined in the lawful assembly. For we are in danger of being called in for today's uproar, there being no reason which we may give to account for this disorderly gathering.' 

And when he had said these things, he dismissed the assembly."   Acts 19:23-41

Here we have an illegal "assembly" made by an illegal "calling out." The Romans were very fearful of assemblies of any kind and had very stringent laws of assembling in any kind of manner whatsoever. 

There is a lot in this passage of Scripture than can be commented on.  The main thing to point out is that this gathering; this assembly; this community; this "church" if you will, had a purpose for gathering.

As has been said, the KJV translators, as well as all subsequent ones, substituted the word "church" for the Greek word ecclesia in every place it appears in the NT Scripture with the exception of three instances; all three found in Acts 19:32, 39, and 41.  Why did the translators translate the word ecclesia correctly only in these three verses in Acts 19?  You could see why very easily when you examine the context.

Remember that according to the translators and to their customs and traditions that they have developed, a church is a religious organization or institution; or, the word is used to refer to a building built by men, where people go to do their religious services.

How can they possibly use their incorrect translation ("church") in Acts 19:32, 39, and 41?  It wouldn't make sense.  It would expose their deception and corruption.  So they used the correct translation: assembly, or gathering, or community.  The design and the hypocrisy of the leadership among the translators is seen very clearly.

They incorrectly translated ecclesia as "church" over 100 times, except in these three instances in Acts 19.  Isn't that incredible?  Why?  If the Greek word "ecclesia" really means the same thing as the English word "church," why did not the translators render it "church" in these three cases?

The word "ecclesia" could NOT have been translated by the word church because it does NOT have the same meaning!

In the day of Christ and His apostles, the word "ecclesia" was an everyday word that simply meant "assembly;" "congregation;" "community" or "gathering" of people.  Any gathering of people, whether religious, political, or even criminal in purpose, was called an "ecclesia." 

The word itself gives no indication of the kind or the purpose of the assembly (ecclesia). In Acts 19:32, 41, ecclesia is translated "assembly" and refers to an unlawful gathering, a mob.  In the same context it has reference to a "lawful assembly" in Acts 19:39. 

In all instances where the word "ecclesia" appeared, if it was in a religious connection or had to do with the Lord's people, the word "church" was substituted.  Hence, in Acts 19 the three times the word appears it has no reference to the Lord's disciples and the word "assembly" is given as a true translation. 

This flagrant deception of substituting the word "church" rather than providing a proper translation has been a source of untold problems giving apparent justification for the institutional church as we know it today, from the Roman Catholic Church onward! 

The fact of the matter is that people could have "church" and not worship the true Creator.  People could follow a "calling out" which was not only unlawful, but basically served no real purpose.  For two full hours, the Ephesians screamed 6 words!  This was, according to the true Greek meaning of the word, an ecclesia.  But,...BUT, according to the translators, this should  have been a "church service" too!  But no, that can't be!

A point to be considered is this: Just because people gather together on Sunday at a place called "church" does not mean they are doing what God calls them to do at such a gathering.  There is nothing sacred about "going to church." 

But in our Western society, "going to church" has become something sacred, as sacred as Diana was to the Ephesians. 

In our society, patriotic, law-abiding, moral people go to church.  The President of the United States, when he wants to portray his morality, will use television footages and pictures of himself attending church even though he has no interest in the things of God.  There is a strong cultural pull to attend church, not because the Holy Spirit is calling, but because our cultural and/or religious conditioning is calling.

Many of us are familiar with the term "go to church."  It is ingrained in us.  But there is not a single Scriptural reference to support the idea of "going to church."  When a Christian hears the true "calling out" it is the Holy Spirit calling us to Himself, not to some church building where we do all sorts of things which may or may not have anything to do with what God may want us to do. 

Thanks to the influence of the Pagans and the Romans (and eventually the Roman Catholic Church), and right down to our so-called "church fathers," we now have church buildings and they have become so adopted as a part of our religious culture that we actually have deceived ourselves to think they are necessary and biblical. 

We falsely presume that true spiritual growth and fellowship cannot transpire without one of these "churches."  We might ask ourselves, "if the early ecclesia thrived and spread like wild fire throughout the world without church buildings and programs, how is it we have come to believe that we can do nothing without them?"

Ken Cascio

wickedshepherds.com

"C-H-U-R-C-H"..."C-H-U-R-C-H"... AND MORE "C-H-U-R-C-H"

So far we have looked at only a fraction of the history that so many Christians are unaware of.  There is so much about this issue that could be said.  Does it bother anyone (considering the resources of information, concerning history and the original writings of Scripture we have available at our very fingertips) that we are still to this day using a term (i.e. church) not actually found in Scripture; a term that has been "translated" from a Greek word that is not even used once in all of Scripture?

I can hear some die-hard detractors saying:  "Does all of this really matter?"   

They will say, ....."that was then and this is now."

"You can’t expect the church to be perfect with imperfect people."  

"Why do you hate the people in the institutional church.”

"Your' re making a mountain out of a mole hill."   

"Of course we know that 'church' is not a building."   

"We know that it refers to a congregation, or an assembly, or whatever.  We know that!  And this is what we try to teach to our people."

  

"You are the one who is distorting and deforming the issue!  Its been done this way for centuries.  It must be right.”

Oh really?  Obviously, you have not been listening (reading) very well, have you?

Again, let me repeat.....it is very important for us to understand that the Holy Spirit, working through the Biblical writers, did not supply them with the word "church." 

This is an historical fact and can easily be checked out. 

The Holy Spirit chose the word ecclesia to describe the people who have been called out of a world of sin and who are the "assembly of God."  Simply put, ecclesia means a called out "gathering" or "community.”  Ecclesia, by stark contrast, bears no connotation whatsoever to an earthy building, temple, shrine, institution or anything of the sort!

Does all of this really matter?  The fact is, it only matters if you are interested in Biblical Christianity.  It only matters if doing things the way Jesus intended is important to you. 

No, I don’t expect the so-called "church" to be composed of perfect people;  I just expect it to be biblical.  And no, I don’t hate the people in the ecclesiastical system.   I hate the system that has ensnared them; that has placed them behind bars; sometimes through no fault of their own.

This is a matter of one thing and one thing only.  These are the words and commands of Scripture!

The prevailing view today goes totally against the teaching of the Spirit and the NT.  The Holy Spirit gave particular words and particular ways of doing things.  A “congregation,” an “assembly,” a “community,” is either based on these words and ways or on something else.  And if it is based on something else, then it equates to but one thing:  the words and traditions of mere men!

And if that is the case, then such so-called institutions simply cannot be said to be “biblical.”  They are unbiblical; indeed, anti-biblical, going totally contrary to the teaching of Scripture!

Until we all realize that the Scriptures which God has given are not optional; that they are not to be tampered with; then you are doomed to defeat.  The pain and misery of good people trying to make their Christianity work in a system that won’t let them be what Jesus called them to be will continue.  And it needs to stop.  

Why do we build a material building and hang out a sign that announces to the whole world that this is a Baptist Church, or a Catholic, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Reformed, or Mormon Church?  Why? Surely we say that we know that such a building is NOT the Lord's ecclesia.   We say we believe that the Church is people, but we aren't willing to let go of the idea as well as the practice, that "church" is also the place we attend each week!

But, "ACCORDING TO WHAT?"  There is no other "church" in the Bible than the people of God.  There is never a place; there is never a building called by this name.  Why do we insist it exists and that it is an absolute requirement that it exists?  When will the leaders have the faith, courage and will to correct their practice and their speech that promotes so much error and misunderstanding?  My prediction:  THEY WILL NEVER DO SO!

Remember that one of the major reasons that churches exists today is that the works of men may be seen and carried out.  As someone so aptly said, 

  "It is difficult to get a man to understand something 

when his livelihood and salary depends upon his NOT understanding it."  

Is it no wonder that when you read the New Testament, you will find absolutely nothing that resembles the so-called "church" of today?

You will find NO Christian religious church buildings to house passive pew potatoes; NO church budgets; NO salaried clergy; NO clergy period.  You will find NO religious furniture pointing all the “laity" in the direction of the “clergy,” putting on his one-man show, paid to perform week in and week out;  NO "church leaders" meetings held apart from the rest of the congregation, where decisions are handed down to the rest of the brethren who don’t know what’s really going on.  You will find NO solemn, dark communion services where the communicants sip little shot glasses of grape juice, and eat soda crackers; NO big tongue up front on an elevated platform wagging for a bunch of little ears in an audience.

No, despite what any detractors deceive themselves (and others) into saying, the church building model, accompanied by its institutional system of leaders lording it over others, is alive and well.

What do many Christians today talk about?   "Placing membership in" and "belonging to," some kind of an organization!   Expressions like "being in the church," "going to church," "getting ready for church," "having church," "wearing church clothes," "giving to the church," and "being faithful to the church," demonstrate the effect that such absurdities has had on our understanding, or lack of it, concerning the ecclesia. 

It is indeed treated and looked upon purely as an institution or social organization with its various social functions.  We cannot deny it; our speech and our actions betrays us. 

All the talk about "the church on the corner," "cleaning the church," "painting the church," etc.  Will anyone deny this?   And again, it's not enough to say, "We know better," or "You know what I mean."  People are deceived.  They are being deceived not only by the god of this world but also by the "church leaders" in whom many trust.

Look at more of the confusion and deception that the word and concept of "church" causes.  Who are you trying to fool?

Just what, for example, does the word "church" refer to in the following statements?

- "He left the church years ago."  - "It's my month to lock up the church." - "The First Baptist Church, Inc. was formed in      1971."

- "After church let's eat at Applebee's." - "The Bible speaks very clearly about the necessity of church membership." 

- "Mary is always late for church." - "Do you want to join the Smith's and the Wagner's in starting a new church?"

- "That is a conservative church." - "He who refuses to have the church as his mother, most likely does not have God as his Father."

- "We are building an addition to our church." - "You are expected to attend all of the stated meetings of the church  unless providentially hindered."

- "Some of the members filed a lawsuit against the Emmanuel Bible Church." - "Take your hat off and don't talk loudly. Remember, you are in church."

- "One cannot be a faithful Christian without being a member of a faithful church." - "Our church recently had a split and another church started as a result.'"

- "How many attended church today?" - "Worship will begin at our church at 9:30." - "We would love for you to consider applying for membership at our church."

- "Our church recently installed a new Minister of Visitation." - "If you are looking for a church home, we invite you to consider our church."

- "Let's meet at the church to discuss plans for our church softball team." - "Were you in church today?"

- "Prayer meeting is on Wednesdays @ 7:00pm at the church." - "Trinity Church was defeated 10 to 1 by the First Baptist Church."

- "I recently ordered some more church literature for the classes." - "God intends for every believer to contribute to the mission of the church."

- "If you are a visitor and live in our city, we hope you will consider making our church your church home."

- "Devotion to your church is the same as devotion to Jesus Christ." - "You should make conscience of giving one-tenth of your income to the work of the church." 

Carefully check back through these statements and see how ridiculous and untrue are the words of both "clergy and laity" alike when they say:  "Oh, we believe and know that the church is people and not a building!"

I am sure that the devil heartily approves of such a concept that has brought so much confusion, bitterness, and enmity among men.  When we look to God's Word for instructions on how to operate a so-called "church" and then find out that there are no such instructions, what do you do?  I'll tell you what people do.  Some people are so sure that God wants them to have a church that they force ideas into Scriptures that were never intended.  It is no wonder everything is distorted and deformed.

As said earlier, one will be hard pressed to find the structure of a typical modern church in the New Testament, but then again, that is the point.  These structures, images, concepts, doctrines, are not in the Bible, but when we have been programmed to accept all these things as Christianity, our minds cannot see what is plainly written.  We see through all these filters and so see "through the glass darkly."  As a result, we see a very dark "God."  And when "God" becomes dark, mysterious, hard to figure out and easy to cross, we need someone to speak to Him for us lest we be consumed by His wrath.  We then become like Israel who said to Moses, "You speak with us, and we will hear; but let not God speak with us, lest we die." (Exodus 20:19) 

Perhaps the greatest evil ever perpetuated upon the people of God is the institutional church; a human organization that makes all the decisions for you and controls all of your religious activities, yea, even your life!  This is the most wretched deception of all.

Many people convince their minds that this nicely ordered routine equals "spirituality" and now, this makes them feel righteous before God.  In this state they are easily pacified, distracted from biblical reality, controlled by their leaders and easily manipulated by heretical teachings. 

So the charade continues despite the fact that in the New Testament, there is "no requirement (pattern) from God" whatsoever that the disciples "form or constitute themselves into an organic institutional body called the local church."

Where is that requirement?  Where is that pattern?  Where is the record or teaching which proves that disciples were divided into independent, autonomous organizations that we call "the local church" corporation?  There is no Scriptural proof for such!  People have to assume it and then assert such to be true.

We have assumed that what we have today is exactly what they had then.  After all, we boldly claim that we follow the pattern!  We follow God's word!  Therefore, we are the true church!  Since we are a "pattern people,'' it must follow that what we have today must certainly be what they had then!  It must be what the Lord set up! 

This is our way of reasoning in justifying everything we want to do in our day; from the "professional windbag preacher" to "the local church corporation."  For our "idols" we will find justification - in our own mind.  We want something we can see and someone to represent us… something physical.  Whether we are building a building to reach the sky as the tower of Babel or an edifice to hold our pastor’s meetings on Sunday… we want our own building and God will allow us to see and believe what our hearts are set upon.  (Ezekiel 14)

In Acts 7:48, Stephen angered the Pharisees by saying that God "dwells not in temples made with hands" (Acts 7:48). Such a statement and change would abolish everyone from the gatekeeper to the high priest who served the old system of the temple.  What Stephen’s statement said back then would be just as offensive to our spending of billions of dollars of God’s money on "church buildings" today. 

What he said then is just as offensive today as it was to those Pharisees: God does not dwell in "Churches" or any other building.  Our focus is not to be distracted on the material but on the temple of the Holy Spirit. That departure of emphasis has permitted the enemy to come in our midst and pick us off one at a time. 

Dear reader, the Truth is at stake here, and perhaps for some, your life is at stake too.  What is being said here is either the Truth or it is dangerous error!  If you think it is the latter, then prove (test) it for yourself by God's word.  Search for the justification for the "church institution" in the Scripture.  Look for the authorization for such in all of its parts and pieces. See if you can find a "church member" referred to in Scripture.  Seek the instruction from the Lord for having a building or sanctuary as the place of worship. 

Search for the Lord's authorization for a church organization to hire a "Professional Minister" (a church employee) at a high salary and excellent "compensation package" to be the Chief Pastor and manager of the corporate Church. 

Rest assured though that if you run to your "pastor" or to the "eldership," what do you think that they will tell you?  You know what answer they will give.  It will be the same one the Pope would give, if he was willing to give any at all.

Unfortunately, for many in positions of church leadership, they feel that they have invested too much money, time, and education in doing it wrong, to now turn and walk away to do it right.  It’s easier to justify or ignore your conscience in regards to the Truth of the matter.  After all, what will they do with all these buildings?  

Remember that without a building, the so-called clergy would lose their power over the people.  Without a building, the clergy system would fall.  This whole system of clergy/laity with its dominance of "power and authority over the people," head-quartered in a building called an institutional church was totally foreign to the vocabulary and the life of the disciples of Jesus.

But, "it’s too late now to change, isn’t it?" 

It all depends on how serious your love and commitment is to Christ and His Word.

Ecclesia !  What Has Happened?

The fact of the matter still remains that in the time of the apostles, they did not have institutions, organizations, or corporate structures known as "churches" such as abound in our day.  The saints did not "belong to a church" for no such thing existed in that day. They belonged only to Jesus Christ who redeemed and "purchased" them with His own blood. 

MEN, in their wisdom, build churches and every one of them, regardless of the brand or kind, are the creations of men!  If YOU are a member of some church, whatever the brand or kind, you are a member of something in which Jesus has no part nor lot in!

Today, millions of people around the world actually think that they are just like those early disciples.  Just because they make the effort to get out of bed, get the family ready, and arrive at a "church building" with a nice warm pew every Saturday or Sunday morning, many are convinced that they have performed their duty that they think God requires of them; especially the oft misinterpreted verse: "...forsake not the assembling of yourselves together..." 

Yes, they "go to church" each week and spend a maximum of about two to four hours together.  They stand when they are told to stand.  They sit when they are told to sit.  They speak when they are told to speak.  Someone leads them in prayer.  Someone leads them in music.  They hear some announcements.  Someone passes a collection plate so they can "offer to the Lord their tithes and offerings."   Someone teaches them in a class.  Then they hear a one hour monologue from someone standing behind a wooden soapbox.   Occasionally, they eat the Lord's Supper; one little bread crumb and a shot glass of grape juice.  They call it "partaking of the Supper," which has now become a ceremony, separate from anything else they do.  Occasionally, they might schedule some other "fellowship," but in reality, they share little in common.  But yet...BUT YET, they are convinced that they are "the church."

All of these elements of "the service" deceive people to think that they are fulfilling the Lord's desires by cramming all of these things into a  church service each week.  People instinctively get themselves into a mode that "if I just do this faithfully every week, it covers all the bases; God is pleased; I'm doing my duty; I am assembling as the Bible says, and I'm growing spiritually." 

This is now the "church service" or the "church meeting."  And to top it off, the "church authorities" have now made this a mandatory meeting where not only is attendance strictly recorded but where also the peculiar doctrines held by the church are now repeated numerous times over and over again, week in and week out; year in and year out, until your brain is numb with boredom and you are thoroughly convinced that there can be no other truth. To now miss one of these meetings is a grave sin and indicates that you may be "apostate".  You have now begun to lose the ability to think for yourself.

It is so easy to fall into the trap of thinking our righteousness is based on and maintained by works and things like church attendance.  That is why organized and institutionalized Christianity is so dangerously deceptive.  The same was true in the first century.  The Apostle Paul was stunned that these believers who had experienced such great freedom and joy in Christ, were now turning back to religious practices.  They still believed in Jesus.  They still wanted to follow God, but they had allowed themselves to move away from the simplicity of their devotion to Christ and were replacing it, little by little, with religious observation.  

Writing to the Galatians, Paul expressed surprise and shock that Christians gave up the "grace of Christ" to return "to the weak and beggarly rudiments… to be in bondage over again" (Gal. 1:6; 4:9).  What were they doing to bring on these critical comments by the apostle?  They were allowing religious leaders to dictate their man-made rules and regulations that they said had to be obeyed in order for them to be right with God.  They were told that they had to be circumcised, to remember to keep certain days holy, to make various sacrifices to God and man, etc., etc.  Paul said that if they gave in to these requirements, they would lose their blessings. "Christ will profit you nothing." (5:2). 

Men may claim to be led and moved by the Spirit of God, but in reality are simply led and moved with human motivation, human greed and scare tactics.  The Holy Spirit could be withdrawn completely from the earth, and most "church services" would continue without knowing anything had happened!

God has never, ever placed the Master role on the Pope of Rome.  Neither did He place that role and responsibility upon any other man nor any group or body of men, even if they do claim that the Eldership has such authority and control.  It is another big lie, like the claim of the Pope.  Jesus Christ is the One and only Master and Lord. 

In spite of this, church members, as well as all churched people, are constantly being told by their "church leaders" that you ought to be devoted to your local church to the same degree that you are devoted to the Lord Himself; that the local church is a "blood bought institution'' implying that our Savior shed His blood on the cruel cross to buy an institution.......something other than people.  Can you imagine this?

And speaking of buying and selling, what does an institution; what does an organization; what does a corporation require in order to operate effectively?  Why, none other than paid professionals!  So now, arriving on the scene is the paid Pastor, the paid Preacher, the paid Elder, the full-time professional paid clergy!

Never mind what Jesus said:  that all that came before Him, and many who have come after are the same as thieves and robbers.  Never mind what the apostle Paul and others had to say.  

I thought we believed that the gospel is God’s free gift?  How do you think the Lord sees the events of today where we have the paid professionals; the “pastors,” the “teaching elders”turning around and selling the gift so freely given them - a gift that cost the life of God’s Son to acquire?  All of these “church leaders” have taken what was freely given them, slapped a price tag on it, and sell it week after week…….. for a pay check!  

These people are nothing but hireling's ( to use Jesus' own words) pure and simple!  The Apostle Peter condemned one who tried to buy it (Acts 8:18-24); how much more those who sell it week after week!

The Apostle Paul, in epistle after epistle, condemned over and over again, the one who is making a living off of the gospel.  And again, just like with the issue of "c-h-u-r-c-h," I can already hear some of my  die-hard "institutional church people" saying, "Oh no! Not our “pastor.”  

Our 'pastor' isn’t in it for the money! Our 'pastor' is so humble; he’s so godly; he just looooves the Lord!" 

Wherein, I again reply, "Oh really?"

Let’s try this experiment.  Here is the hireling's test.   lf he can pass it, you may know that he is not a hireling.  

Stop paying him.  That’s right.  Stop paying your “pastor.”  Let him "care for the sheep" at no expense to the sheep. Don't receive a wage.  Avoid the appearance of being a hireling.  Do it for nothing!  

Not only that, let him serve at his own expense!

Do this for three and a half years and he will have passed the hireling's test.  He will be walking in the footsteps of Greatness; the footsteps of the One that came to serve, and lay down His life for His sheep.

See how long he remains being unpaid like the Apostle Paul!!  

See how much he "looooooves the Lord" when he isn’t getting paid to "love the Lord!" 

Tell him he can still minister the word week after week, but also, he will have to get a real job like the Apostle Paul did, "working night and day." 

I guarantee you, him, along with 99% of all other so-called “pastors” will be out of there, searching for a new pulpit to fill.  It’s that weekly paycheck that he loves, and if the church won't pay him, he’ll pack his bags and sell himself off to some other church that will!   Guaranteed !!!

Rest assured, every single so-called “man in the ministry” today lives according to this principle: "No Pay, No Play."

Yes, that's right.  There are no exceptions.  Every single "person in the ministry" receiving an income from preaching the gospel is a thief; a robber; and a hireling!

The Apostle Paul, over and over again, condemns those who have turned “the ministry of the word” into a full-time paid job.  He condemns those that have made a living out of it. He condemns those that have turned the gospel into "a means of GAIN".  In short, he condemns EVERY SINGLE PAID pastor/elder THAT EXISTS TODAY.   (See, Should Pastor's Be Cared For?)

Why haven’t you heard this before?  Why hasn’t this teaching of the Apostle Paul been “broadcast” widely and proclaimed from pulpits across this land?  Why is it that the "institutional church" along with the “church leadership” has consistently avoided teaching and preaching on verses like these? 

Well, to even ask such questions is to answer such questions. The reason why the "church" and its “leadership” keep quiet on this issue is because they themselves are the target of Paul’s wrath. 

They are the ones guilty of having turned “the ministry of the word,” i.e. preaching, into a full-time job. 

For them to preach this from their pulpits would be the end of their livelihood.  They have been forced to choose between God, and mammon – and guess what?  They’ve chosen mammon. They have been faced with the choice of picking what they love more - their salaries, or the truth; and truth has lost out.

The very people who are in the best position to inform their congregations of the truth of this matter, turn out to be the same people who have a “vested interest” in keeping quiet. 

Indeed, the wolves have been placed in charge of the hen house, and are doing their best to keep the hens ignorant of the slaughter of truth going on.   These people are only motivated by private ambition, greed, and a lust for power and authority.  The money is good.  They love the recognition.  They love the feeling of power and control.  They love the sheep pen, but they do not love the sheep.

Jude warned, "These are hidden rocky reefs in your love feasts when they feast with you, shepherds who without fear feed themselves; clouds without water, carried along by winds; autumn leaves without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots" (Jude 1:12).  They are hirelings, self-proclaimed shepherds feeding themselves.  They flee when the sacrifice becomes too great, or most assuredly, when the money runs out!   

Give your so-called pastor the hireling's test, and see for yourself!

This whole arrangement; this whole man-made cacophony of an institutional church system run by a self-serving hierarchical team of spiritual monsters is a great deception and a horrible error! 

There are no words too strong to demonstrate this deception and shift.  In fact, the words that come to mind are: abomination, heresy, and blasphemy.  There is no other way to explain the devastation and damage of distorting and deforming Christ and His body. 

This anti-scriptural buffoonery has deceived millions of unknowing, often unthinking people into actually believing that there really is an institutional church in the Bible. 

Men have usurped the authority of Christ as Head and have built around denominational titles and names separating His body into corporations and institutions of men.  We no longer gather around the name of Jesus, but the name of a building or a pastor or a board of elders.  We have literally robbed Christ of his rightful place and therefore His glory in His body has departed.  Because of this we are not, and have never been equipped to build a Glorious body without wrinkle and spot!  We have replaced the ministry of the Holy Spirit with the works of men.  We have replaced first love (a true love and obedience toward Jesus) with the works of men.  

What is being done might look good and professional, but it is not God.  These things indeed, though they have an appearance of wisdom in self-devised religious observance and lowliness of mind and ill-treatment of body are not of any value against the indulgence of the flesh. Col. 2:23

This dastardly system only serves to further dividing the body and isolating the laity. 

An Ecclesia Indeed

The Holy Spirit was ever present and worked with those early believers; those first disciples.  They had a supernatural foundation (Jesus) and a supernatural builder (Jesus and the Holy Spirit). The early believers came out of the kingdom of this world and became a part of the kingdom of God.  They understood the kingdom concept taught by Jesus.  They were Jews who understood a kingdom and a king. 

To the Jews, they were now a part of a new kingdom and Jesus was their king.  Israel with its kings and high priest was a thing of the past.  Their building was now made of living stones and Jesus was building them together.  In Scripture, believers were likened to a body, a temple, a house, a bride, etc.  Jesus was the foundation of His building and He was the Head of His body and the Husband to His bride.  The early believers had no clergy and laity.  As believers they were "called out" indeed of the world into the kingdom of God.  They were truly the called out ones.

It has all been so simple.  It began with Jesus.  Then, His disciples.  They believed in Jesus.  They followed Jesus.  They lived like Jesus.  His Spirit permeated them.  They told everyone they met how knowing Jesus had changed them from the inside out.

They spent as much time together as possible.  Every day, they congregated from one home to another.  They shared stories about what had happened to each of them.  They prayed together.  They helped each other to become stronger, by teaching and encouraging each other.  They ate a full meal together, pausing during each meal to remember Jesus by eating unleavened bread and drinking wine, as he had shown them.  When one had a need, the others supplied it out of what they had.  When needed, they even sold what they had to help others.

They shared all things in common.  They were a community of believers.

And blessed be God that Christ has never stopped building His true ecclesia, nor has He needed man to restore His works.   No "organization" or "institution" rests upon Him.  Nothing is substituted for His ecclesia.  He is our only foundation, our Savior, our all. 

The ecclesia of Christ describes the most beautiful relationship known to man.  The word was chosen by the Savior and man certainly cannot express it better.  When Jesus said "I will build my ecclesia", He was not talking about an institution or a corporation or a bunch of local bodies.  What He promised to build was His assembly, His group, His gathering, or His people.  It is a collective term that applies to all those who make Christ first and serve Him with their life.

In Acts 15 at what is called the Jerusalem Council, James said: "Simon has declared how God at first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for his name." (V.14). This is the meaning of ecclesia. 

1 Peter 2:9-10 says "But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy." 

That is the meaning of ecclesia!  Notice all of the descriptive terms used in this passage, each one emphasizing a different facet of this ecclesia.  How can we fail to understand?

Jesus came to this earth to seek and save the lost (Luke 19:10).  Was He talking about a lost institution?  No, He came to save man who was and is lost in sin. "For the son of man did not come to destroy men's lives but to save them" (Luke 9:56). 

Doesn't that tell us something about the ecclesia?  The ecclesia refers to those who are being saved, that is, people. 

We are a blood bought PEOPLE, not a blood bought institution!  

In the same manner we might consider the redeemed which is another term that is interchangeable with the ecclesia.  It is not a synonym but a term referring to the same group.  Redeem means to buy back.  What was bought back?  You and l!  People!  Institutions don't sin and institutions are not accountable to God.  People are lost in sin and people are accountable to God.

Who are the ecclesia?  Those people who realized they were in sin and were helpless to do anything to save themselves; who heard the story of Jesus and His redeeming blood and have responded with love and obedience born of that love; who put Him first in their life; who, because of their mutual love for Christ, have a love and concern for one another to the point that it is an identifying characteristic that "ye may know them"; who follow the lead of and imitate the life of the older and more experienced of their number, as they lead with love and an exemplary life. 

Simply, they are God's people, the followers of Christ.  He is their High Priest and nothing or no one stands between them and their Savior.  They are not "devoted" to nor serve institutions, organizations, or men who love to label themselves as "duly authorized," but they serve their God and their fellow man through love.  

It is an Ecclesia whose existence does not depend on forms, services, ceremonies, clergy, churches, pulpits, pews, vestments, organs, endowments, money, kings, governments, or any act of favor whatsoever from the hand of man.  It has lived on and continued when all these things have been taken from it.  It has often been driven into the wilderness, or into dens and caves of the earth, by those who ought to have been its friends.  Its existence depends on nothing but the presence of Christ and His Spirit; and they being ever with it.  This Ecclesia cannot die.

This is the only Ecclesia of which no one member can perish.  Once enrolled in the lists of this Ecclesia, sinners are safe for eternity:  They are never cast away.  Not one bone of Christ's mystical body shall ever be broken.  Not one lamb of Christ's flock shall ever be plucked out of His hand.

This is the Ecclesia which does the work of Christ upon earth.  Its members are a little flock, and few in number, compared with the children of the world.  One or two here, and two or three there; a few in this community and a few more in the next.

These are they who shake the universe; these are they who change the fortunes of kingdoms by their prayers; these are they who are the active workers for spreading the knowledge of pure religion and undefiled; these are the life-blood of a country, the shield, the defense, the stay, and the support of any nation in which they are passing through.

Why would anyone want to clutter that picture with institutions or organizations? 

Community:

Probably the best description of ecclesia would be a called out "community."  This is because a community can exist without reference to organization of any formal kind and without reference to meetings at set times and places.  It refers simply to people who live in a common area or who are united by a common bond or in a common purpose.  This is parallel to the Christian meaning of ecclesia: the people who live in Christ, who are united by their faith in the gospel of Christ and in relationships of Christian love.  The community of God in Christ is a community of faith working through love.  All distinctions of the flesh, whether racial, ethnic, sexual, economic, political or religious, disappear in the Christian community. 

But what do we have today?  In this day, "church" and community are different.  

Church is a building.  But a community is a body of people. 

A church is a place you visit occasionally.  A community is something you are.

A church has an installation service and selects and appoints men to be "elders" and "deacons." A community already has their old men ensconced; living amongst the people as fathers with their families.  

A church is used only on special occasions of religious significance.  A community is people whose religion lives with them every day in all occasions of life.

A church follows the patterns and ways of the world in putting men into "offices" or "positions"or "places" of authority over others.  A community follows the patterns and ways of Jesus in His instructions:  "NOT SO SHALL IT BE AMONG YOU!"

A church is created to be special.  It is created to appeal to the senses.  It is created to attract some sort of divine atmosphere of reverence, with stained glass, attractive pews and religious music.  A community lives in the din and discord of the world.

A church is served by a clergyman who says prayers, performs duties, presides over our religious gatherings, calls on the ill and bereaved, gives sermons and accompanies our children on summer outings.

A community is served by a leader who lives with his people as counselor, friend, and comforter.  He abides in them, and is a steady source of strength and peace.

A church is made of lifeless stone and wood.  A community is made of living, active believers in Christ. 

A church is constructed by men to serve their purposes.  A community is established by Christ to do His will.

A church is known by its facility, doctrine, and pastors ability to preach or lead.  A community is known by its love.

A church building must be maintained against deterioration by the labor of men.  A community is sustained and renewed by the power of the Holy Spirit in the midst of the body.

A church is sustained by the monetary support of its attendees.  A community is sustained by the living Christ who will never leave or forsake them.

A church will eventually crumble to ruin.  The Body of Christ, the community, will be lifted up to Him forever.

Ken Cascio

wickedshepherds.com