A number of months ago my husband and I discussed the church as it is spoken of in
Scripture and the 'church' as modern America labels it. That was not the first time we have discussed it and I'm sure it won't be the last time. But in that particular discussion my husband asked me to do a bit of research into the word church in Scripture. We were both well aware of the use of the word ekklesia in the original languages in Scripture, so we both knew there was a difference in the word church and the original word in Scripture for what is now labeled as church. But...what was the difference and where did it come from. My mind also turned to the when and how...when did the word church show up in Scripture and how did it get there?
Eklesia translates as 'the assembly' or 'the called out ones'. Where in that do our modern Bibles...and therefore anyone that bases their beliefs or ideas on the Bible...get the word church?
From what I was able to gather through an internet search, the word ekklesia appears to be used in the New Testament about 115 times. That does appear to be in the King James translation, other translations may be the same or may have different numbers. Either way, however many times it's there, in most of those cases the word ekklesia has been changed from not only the original word, but also the original meaning. Everywhere that ekklesia was, the words in its place should be 'the assembly' or 'the called out ones' not church.
The first Bible to be translated into English from the original Hebrew and Greek languages was the Tyndale Bible around the year of 1524. Not too surprisingly the word 'church' was supposedly found in only two passages. I haven't personally seen a 1524 Tyndale Bible, or a facsimile of one, so I can't verify that. From what I've read the word 'church' appeared in Acts 14:13...
Then Iupiters Preste which dwelt before their cite brought oxe and garlondes vnto the churche porche and wolde have done sacrifise with the people. (TYN)
And in Acts 19:37...
For ye have brought hyther these me[n] whiche are nether robbers of churches nor yet despisers of youre goddes. (TYN)
In both of those verses the word 'church' is used to refer to temple worship or, as I understand it, a physical building. In all places where the word ekklesia was in the original languages the word congregation was used. An internet search for the definition of congregation came back with this result:
con·gre·ga·tionˌkäNGɡrəˈɡāSH(ə)n/
noun
1.
a group of people assembled for religious worship.
| synonyms: | parishioners, parish, churchgoers, flock, faithful, followers, believers,fellowship,
communicants, laity, brethren, membership; More
|
2.
a gathering or collection of people, animals, or things.
"large congregations of birds may cause public harm"
| synonyms: | gathering, assembly, flock, swarm, bevy, pack, group, body, crowd,mass, multitude,
horde, host, mob, throng
|
It appears that 'congregation' is much more in keeping with the meaning of the word ekklesia than 'church' is. In my research I saw that 'congregation' or 'assembly' are equal in their meanings or translation for the word ekklesia but that is another thing that I cannot verify. Either way, from the definition above, it does sound as if the word 'congregation' is a legitimate and appropriate translation for ekklesia.
In researching the history of the word 'church' in Scripture I discovered that it was first used in 1382 by John Wyclife...
And Y seie to thee, that thou art Petre, and on this stoon Y schal bilde my chirche, and the yatis of helle schulen not haue miyt ayens it.
This, however, was a translation of the Scriptures, not from the original languages but from Latin. I'm sure there are variables in translating from Latin that are far different than in translating from the original languages. I'm not quite sure how to work this first English translation, and therefore its use of the word 'church' into the other things that I discovered in my research. For the time being I'm going to sort of disregard Wyclife's Bible and consider only the Bibles that were translated from the original languages but I will come back to Wyclife's Bible later.
I do think it important to note that 'church' or 'chirche' was used in 1382 and also that English wasn't the first translation to use it but I also noticed that Wyclife and the Latin Bibles didn't come up much in my research. Which leaves me with a situation of not quite knowing how to fit it in. You see, Wyclife was indeed the first to translate ekklesia into 'church' but he didn't actually translate the word ekklesia, he translated whatever Latin word was used for ekklesia and therefore he may well have simply translated a word that straight out meant 'church' in Latin, into English. Since my interest is in finding out when ekklesia was translated into 'church', I'm not so sure Wyclife's Bible qualifies, although it was the first English Bible to use the word 'church'.
The word 'church', though, wasn't actually used in place of ekklesia until 1556. It was then that Theodore Beza, a Protestant, and follower of John Calvin, first used the term 'church' in Geneva, Switzerland. At that time there was already a universal, or visible, church in existance. This visible church was the Roman Catholic 'Church' and the Protestant 'Church'. These 'Churches' had systems in place that revolved around a certain way of doing things, much like a government, and their entire system, or enterprise, depended on the people acting a certain way, believing a certain way, and following their 'leaders' a certain way. In other words...control of the masses was a must.
I have heard it said that public schools can only succeed because the children that attend them are 'institutionalized'. What that means is those children have learned to live within the schedules and rules of the school and they have learned that the adults in charge are in complete control. These kids learn to use the bathroom only when they are given permission, they learn to eat when they are told, even if they aren't hungry...such as schools that have lunch at nine or ten in the morning...they learn to sit and stay when told, learn to talk only when allowed...and the list goes on and on. Prisons work on much the same principle, so do nursing homes, so do hospitals. Want to see a doctor or nurse get flustered? Buck the system. Refuse a certain treatment. Tell them you don't want a certain medicine. Refuse to let them put in an I.V. Even our modern hospitals are nothing but an institution where the system is the ruler of all. Doctors and nurses are taught to do certain things because...well, because that's the way it's done. I do know it gets more complicated than that and I know that there are wonderful health care workers and horrible ones but the same can be said for prison leaders, school teachers, government officials and...'church' personnel. They are all systems and for any system to work the masses must play by the rules. Doctor's that use certain treatments or testing procedures stumble when a patient bucks those procedures. In a medical center where ten to twenty minutes...tops...is allotted for each patient, any stumbling block in the way things are run creates a ripple effect that messes up their entire schedule...or system. In a school where the the kids outnumber the adults, teachers depend on kids following the rules to keep them in line, get one kid (or parent) that could care less about the rules or the punishments dished out for breaking the rules and you have a potential uprising on your hands. After all, what happens if all thirty kids decide to rebel against the rules?
Church buildings operate on the same kind of system. Each 'Church' has certain needs, they want certain things, they have certain systems in place. Ever go to a 'church' that believed all children and babies should be in the nursery or children's 'church'? I have. You want to see the 'leaders' get flustered...refuse to send your children into their kid's 'ministries'. I have had 'church' 'leaders' all but try to pry my children out of my arms.By the way...that's also a good way to get some disgusted...or ugly...looks from the preacher and other leaders during the service.
When the Scriptures were first being translated into English there were 'church' systems in place. These 'churches' already had established ways of doing things, they had rules in place, they controlled the masses by these rules. Not all that long ago I read something about people being easily brainwashed. Wherever I read that used kidnapped people as an example. Anyone that's heard anything about kidnapping victims has heard of the teens and adults that stay with their captors. We all ask ourselves 'why'? Why would anyone in their right mind stay with their abductor when they had a chance to flee. There's some psychological explanation that says the abducted person begins to identify with and sympathize with their kidnapper. It's some kind of subtle brainwashing that makes a person that wouldn't ordinarily do something do exactly what they would never have done. Supposedly cults do this. But so does every other 'church' you walk into. And yes, I know that in our modern American society where people base their 'Christianity' on their 'church' building, those are fighting words.
But fighting words or not...they are true.
About a year ago I had a conversation with someone where they saw things in Scripture that I simply did not see. There was no middle ground in that conversation. One of us had to be right and the other wrong. Unless we were both wrong and there was a third option. This conversation essentially had one of us saying something was white and the other saying it was black. Unless the verses in question were purple there was no way around the fact that only one of us could be right. I would have happily admitted I was wrong and willingly learned something new if this person could have used Scripture to show me where I was wrong but the sad truth was that wasn't the case. There was no Scripture to back up this other person's view. It may be that I was truly wrong...and if so I would readily admit it...but the other person was wrong too. But the thing is...I learned something invaluable in that conversation. A person can approach Scripture with a certain idea in mind and they will find in Scripture exactly what they want to find.
And there comes in the ability for 'Churches' to brainwash those within their services. When a person goes to a 'church', most of the time that person believes at least some of what that 'church' believes. They hold certain understandings of Scripture. Either that or they are open to being taught and they believe that the 'church' leaders will only teach them what the Scriptures teach.
I'm probably going to step on some toes here but we have a perfect example of that very thing happening with the Scriptures. You see, today our Scriptures are all typed up neatly and packaged in books that we call Bibles. The thing is...Bible is nowhere in the Scriptures. It is a man made term for the Scriptures. But how many people do you hear speaking about 'The Bible'? We even capitalize Bible. Why? Bible is not Scriptural. It is not contained anywhere within the holy Scriptures. But we have been conditioned...brainwashed...into putting great significance on the word bible, so much so that most people believe that Bible is synonymous with the holy word of God. That's straight up brainwashing.
And so is the use of the word 'Church'. Church is a word that was added, in almost all cases, to the holy Scriptures during translation into the English language. Beza was a Prebyterian that was either brainwashed by the 'church' system into believing that the 'church' ruled the 'Christians' or else he was one of the ones doing the brainwashing...or maybe he was both. Either way he is the man behind the word 'church' in the English translations of the Scriptures. Beza, intentionally or not, translated the word ekklesia into the word 'church', thereby supporting the 'church' system of his time.
The first English Bible to have the word ekklesia translated into 'church', thanks to Beza, was the 1557 Whittingham Testament, which was the first edition of the Geneva Bible. And that is how we got the word 'church'. Not because it was devine, not because it was in the holy Scriptures, not because the apostles used the word...but because a man in a 'church' system translated ekklesia that way.
This was a change, or translation, made to the Scriptures in their original languages, not because that truly was how the word translates but because 'church' was already understood. The people, already understood what 'church' meant. 'Church' was a system. It was a government. It was a system of rules and requirements that the people must follow. It was not profitable, or wise, for this 'church' system to define the believers in Scripture as simply a group of people meeting together to share their faith in Christ. That would have undone everything these system style 'churches' stood for. If people discovered that 'Church' actually meant a group of people, friends, if you will, meeting together in homes, on street corners, in coffee shops (or whatever their equivalent was), and in their own living rooms, the entire 'church' system might well have crumbled. It was, and is, imperative to the 'church' system that people believe the 'church' is the ekklesia spoken of, and to, in the Scriptures.
And so...the word 'church' wormed its way into the Scriptures and has been exploited ever since.
Want to put that to the test? Walk into any 'church' building today and tell them that they are nothing but a bunch of heretics teaching and pushing a system that does not exist in the Bible...and yes, it would be wise to use the term Bible. By the way, if you do decide to test this, please, please, let me know what happens. I would love to hear the response that comes from that.
This indoctrination. This institutionalization. This...brainwashing...has been going on for hundreds of years. I have noticed many times that even the preachers that claim to be Sola Scriptura, or Scripture only, are just as guilty of this as the Arminian preachers. This past winter I read something by a reformed preacher where he said he, and the believers in his 'church', would be persecuted if they lost their tax exempt status. I wrote a post in response to that, titled 'Persecution'.
The thing is, from where I'm sitting, at home, all but never inside a 'church' building, it seems to me that anyone working inside the 'church' system promotes the use of the word 'church' in Scripture. But it doesn't stop there, they also promote the brainwashing that would have the believers, real and professing, to believe that the 'church' is a physical building and that they must support that building and its leaders and preachers.
Our English books (Bibles) containing the Scriptures subtly shove this idea at us through their continuing to print the word 'church' where 'church' should not be and preachers, of all beliefs, support, encourage, and shove that believe at us by saying the 'church' is their physical building.
I have heard them try and guilt people into being in 'church' because 'the Bible says we are to be there'. They tell people that they are to tithe to the 'church', they tell them that they must 'give' to the 'church'. They tell them...all sorts of things in order to promote their system.
And our copies of Scriptures, even those printed by reformed companies, continue to feed this belief to us, one Bible at a time. It was understandable when King James was 'authorizing' a Bible. But what about now? With the push of a few buttons I can have almost any version of the Bible before me. I can compare verses from so many different versions that it makes my head spin. And yet...I can't get a copy of the Scriptures, not even one claiming to be a literal translation, that doesn't adulterate the Scriptures with the use of the word 'church'. Why is that? I will admit that there could be a version that doesn't use the word 'church' for ekklesia but if there is, I haven't come across it. It would seem to me that from a business perspective if you were printing a Bible with 'congregation' or 'assembly' in place of 'church' everywhere that ekklesia was in the original languages, that would be a major selling point. They could advertise as being true to Scripture and not to serving a system...wouldn't we hear about that? Maybe not.
But either way, the use of the word 'church' in Scripture was to support a system and not to be Scripturally accurate. If the 'churches' or 'leaders' behind the printing of Bibles were to use the word 'congregation' or 'assembly' those words, though admittedly still associated with 'church' buildings, would expose their systems for the frauds that they are.
And now I'd like to briefly revisit Wyclife and his Bible. When Wyclife translated the Bible into English he did so from Latin. As I understand it, although I did not do much research on the subject, the Latin Bible, or Latin Vulgate, was put out by the Catholic Church. It stands to reason then that the 'Church' putting it out stood to lose a lot if the people reading it, or hearing it read, did not believe in their system of 'church'. I'm assuming, but not researching, that 'church' was placed into Bibles long before the Bible was translated into English. When, I don't know. Why...I can guess. And so when Wyclife translated the Latin Bible into English, he would, it would seem, have translated the words in that Bible into English. The fact that he placed 'church' or 'chirche' in his Bible had more to do with the fact that he was translating a version of the Bible that already contained the word 'church' than it did with his own intentions. But I truly don't know if that's what happened. Whatever Wyclife did, or did not do, he does not seem to be given the credit for first putting the word 'church' in Scripture, at least in the English versions of Scripture, that status appears to be granted to Beza despite the fact that Wyclife predated Beza's use of the word 'church' by about 200 years.
Does it really matter what term we use, or how it got started? I guess it depends on the person you ask. Earlier I suggested that a person might test a 'church' by walking into their building and telling those gathered there that they are not the 'church' of Scripture. I'd go further here and say that they can't possibly BE the 'church' of Scripture because there is no 'church' in Scripture, at least not in the way we have been conditioned...brainwashed...to think their is. Does it really matter? Yes...and maybe no. I don't suppose it would matter what word we used for the called out believers of Christ so long as that word was universally used to mean only the people that have been converted by Christ and given salvation. The trouble is that 'church' does not mean that. Even in Scripture the only real use of the word 'church' meant a building and not a body of believers.
But here's where things kind of get tricky. Until the last couple of years I was like most American's, I never really gave the word 'church' much thought. But apparently there are those that do. I recently read something about someone that prayed with a woman that was a part of the occult. Now, I don't know what the person doing the praying believed. In fact I know nothing about that person. All I know is this little bit of what I read and the fact that I found it interesting. I also did not do any further study on this so cannot confirm that what this person said is the truth. It does, however, make sense to me for reasons I will explain in just a minute. So this person was praying with someone that was in the occult, a woman that, as I understand, was being drawn out of the occult and into some belief in Christ. This woman asked the person praying with her not to use the word 'church'. When questioned as to why she did not want that particular word used she explained that the word 'church' is used within occult circles.
This made me stop and think. Would the Lord describe His followers by a word that would be used to also describe those that stand in opposition to Him? That wasn't the only question that got to me though. You see...if a word is used to describe the occult...then what does it truly mean? And the word 'church' is used to describe many...I don't even know what to call them, beliefs, gatherings, groups of people...that have nothing to do with Scripture. The church of Scientology, the church of Wicca, or how about...the church of Satan? What place then does the word 'church' have to do with true Christians or Christianity? If a 'church' of Wicca is a church...what is a gathering of regenerated believers? If a 'church' of Satan is a 'church'...what then is a gathering of those following the Bible?
I think of the building that may be down the road from anyone's home. A 'church'. It sits on the street corner or in the middle of the block. It may have a sign at the road. It may have one on the building. Maybe it's a monstrous building or a tiny little dot of a building in the middle of trees and parking lot. Whatever it is...it has the term 'church' on it. I don't know about you but my mind conjures up a supposed Bible believing 'church' building. But...if there is a 'church' of Satan...could the building not as easily be a 'church' of satanists? Could it not as easily be Wiccan? Could it not as easily be occult?
There is much in the satanic and occult circles that I don't know or care to know. I do recall reading a number of years ago that Santa Claus when the letters are rearranged spells Satan Lucas. I also remember reading in that same place that this comes from the satanic and that among satanists it is widely believed that all one must do to get 'Christians' to accept their beliefs is to rearrange the way something is spelled.
I have no idea if that is true or not but for just a moment let's suppose it is. Imagine a bunch of devil worshipers wanting to get Christians to worship what they do. If they change the spelling of something and secretly promote it, getting many to follow their ideas, do they not still win even if the people now believing don't know what they are doing? I'm not suggesting that the use of the word 'church' is satanic. What I'm saying is...take a good look at Santa Claus. He is much more of a god of America than Christ is. If, indeed, Santa Claus was created through a careful rearranging of Satin Lucas, and if Satan were given a new identity...one that includes elves which as I understand it also ties into Satanic worship...then what do you have?
Now...we have the word 'church'. It appears to be a meaningless word, used only to describe a group of people meeting together for...we would assume worship. 'Christians' claim that 'church' is the house of God and that they go to 'church' to worship God. But if that is the definition of the word 'church' then what do satanists do when they go to the Church of Satan? What do Wiccans do when they go to the Church of Wicca? Can a word be used...IN SCRIPTURE...to describe the Lord's people and also be used to describe devil worshipers?
I'm honestly asking the question, please if you know the answer, leave me a comment, because I do not know. What fellowship does light have with darkness? Can the two share even a common description?
I do know this, those in the occult believe in symbols and twisting of words to represent things. They believe that those symbols hold power even when one does not know what they are using or saying. This, supposedly, was where satanists see good in 'Christians' believing in Santa Claus. Something about them worshiping Satan even as they worship Christ. Could that be the case with the word 'church'? Could the word truly belong to that which opposes Christ and was placed within the holy Scriptures by those promoting a system which opposes the very Scriptures that they use?
I've written many times of preachers that twist Scripture to make it what they want it to be. They take the Lord's holy words and turn them into something that promotes their own agenda, usually money based, in order to control the people that they supposedly lead with the Scriptures.
Do satanists and other unregenerates that live in complete defiance of the Lord know something that most 'Christians' do not? I've heard it said that they do. And I would have to guess that in the case of most professing 'Christians', they probably do. I have heard that most athiests know more Scripture than most 'Christian's' do. Whether Santa Claus is a twist on Satan Lucas or merely a coincidence, I do not know. What I do know is that Santa is a god of this world. He is far more important come Christmas time than Christ is, even to the professing believers. But what of 'church'? Well...dare I say that it is a god of this world too? Dare I say that 'church' is of much, much more importance to most people than Christ is?
A few years ago I was on a so-called Christian website. This website, if I remember correctly, required that all there must be 'Christians' and that they hold to certain beliefs. In talking with some of the people on that site I would often ask them about their beliefs. More often than not I would get replies about how they go to 'church' every Sunday, drive the 'church' bus, teach Sunday school. For the majority of people that is the definition of Christianity. Satanic? No. A god or an idol...YES.
That is what Bible publishers knowingly or not instill in their readers heads with every printing of a Bible. That is the definition for 'church'. It's a meeting place. And in our minds those meeting places consist of preachers, Sunday schools, buses, and in most cases nice clothes. We must 'dress nice for Jesus'. We must go to 'church' to learn about God. We must...be a part of a club that has a membership. This is 'church' in America. And it's on just about every street corner.
It doesn't matter if that 'church' is Baptist, Pentecostal, Methodist, Lutheran, or Catholic.
This is what has been inserted into the holy Scriptures. It may simply be the image or understanding of what a 'church' is that makes having that in place of ekklesia in our Bibles a bad thing but it is a bad thing. If a church of Satan member (is that the right term?) could read this...
I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. (Matt 16:18 NASB)
...and believe based off that single verse that it was their 'church' being talked about then is that the right term to use in Scripture? Again...I don't know the answer to that question. What I do know is that ekklesia was the word in the original languages and ekklesia does not translate into 'church'.
A few months ago I wrote a post called 'Spiritual prisoners'. In that post I wrote of how we are in spiritual bondage until, and unless, the Lord sets us free by granting us salvation. I also wrote of how the Lord isn't interested in the earthly things but of the Spiritual, or eternal, things. In other words Christ is interested in the souls and spirits of those that belong to Him. He came because of His kingdom, a spiritual kingdom, that is eternal in nature. A 'church' is a physical building or gathering place. An ekklesia is 'the called out ones' or an 'assembly of the called out ones.' Which of those two descriptions sounds more like something in keeping with the work of Christ? Which of those two sounds like it's temporal, or earthly, in nature? Which one sounds like it's eternal? Which one sounds like it might crumble with age and fall into disrepair, or burn to the ground in a fire? Which one sounds like it might cross the barrier between earth and heaven and continue into eternity?
And yet, 'church' is the single defining definition for all things relating to any sort of meetings among professing believers in America, possibly worldwide. A few years ago I knew someone that had given up on 'church' buildings and drove two hours to go to a meeting of believers. Want to know what they referred to their meetings as? A house 'church'. These were, supposedly, strictly bible believing people. They supposedly held to none of the denominational doctrines and only took their beliefs from the pages of the Bible. And yet...from those pages they came up with the title of house 'church' for their meetings. Would they have done so if Bibles today didn't portray gatherings of believers as 'church'?
What if Scripture simply kept the word ekklesia in its passages? People would learn the definition and it would become an English word.
And still some might ask if it really makes any difference. Just this morning I was reading the headlines on a 'Christian' news site to my husband. When I came to one about the 'church' my husband questioned what 'church' they were referring to. To get the answer I had to pull up the article. In the short time it took to load my husband said, 'never mind, I know what 'church' they're referring to.' And he did. The article was speaking of the multitude of physical 'church' buildings.
For quite some time my husband and I have referred to 'churches' as worship buildings. That worked well for us. But then...I guess it didn't work quite so well anymore. I started writing a post that I have yet to finish, one that had me looking further into the meaning of 'church' and how it relates to Scripture. And just the other day my husband called a 'church' building a 'church', then corrected himself and called it a worship building, then corrected himself again and said he didn't know what to call it. I think that is a very good definition. What do you call them?
If 'church' does not truly exist in Scripture...does it matter if we call a physical building a 'church'? If 'church' isn't in Scripture than we can't be twisting Scripture to label a building as a 'church'. And yet...because of man and their ideas we have the word 'church' in Scripture. Most people understand 'church' to be any group of people, usually inside the walls of a 'church' building, but not always, gathered to interact with the Bible in almost any way.
On the surface it would seem as if it makes no difference whether or not we use the term 'church' but in reality it has very far reaching consequences. If a news article says the 'church' was attacked last night...are they talking about a group of people or a building? If we speak of meeting with the 'church' are we speaking of those that go to a certain building or a body of believers?
And even that barely scratches the surface of the far reaching consequences of the word 'church'. To take it to the very basic level... the word 'church' is of eternal consequence. It may not be a salvation issue but it effects all of how we understand and apply Scripture.
When Scripture speaks of the ekklesia, it speaks of a group of people meeting in a certain place. Paul wrote letters to different 'churches'. They were written to the 'church' or ekklesia of Corinth, of Ephesus, of...wherever he was writing each letter to. These were not 'church' denominations. It wasn't to a nationwide or world wide group of people. These were local pockets of people with other, ordinary, people that were further into their understanding of the gospel as their leaders. One might even say that these leaders were less leaders and more mentors. They were there to step in and remind the believers of how they were to act. They were to point them back to Christ when they began to go astray.
These small pockets of believers had no Bible. They were dependent on each other to help them remember how New Covenant believers were to believe and act. Some of these teachings were very new to them. This was new. It was never before seen. The leaders of the ekklesia were to guide them, to remind them, to help them keep the teachings of what a Christian should be. The leaders were not preachers as we have today, they were not rulers. They were not there to enforce a system of beliefs that 'churches' had in place but to guide the new believers back to Christ when they stumbled.
Does it matter if we understand that? Does it matter if we can distinguish between 'church' and ekklesia? That's like asking if it matters if we can differentiate our own personal beliefs from our governments rules.
Ekklesia was a group of people called out to believe in Christ by the Lord. They are a people set apart from the rest of the world. Their belief system was simply to believe in Christ and to repent of their sins.A 'church' is a system of believing which includes perpetuating the belief that the people that step within the physical barriers of the walls and doors of a certain type of building are a group of people set apart to believe a certain thing which generally means those people believe what the 'rulers' of the 'church' system want them to believe.
Distinguishing between those two things is like distinguishing between night and day. There is no Scriptural basis for a 'church' beyond the few references to a 'church' as a temple in Acts. All other references are referring to something that does not exist, at least it doesn't exist in the way the English language uses the word 'church'.
In fact words are so important that by changing just one word we can literally change an entire meaning. If I say that memorial day is this month, you know that the month is May and what the weather should be like. But if I change just one word in that sentence and say that Christmas day is this month, we get a whole different meaning. It's still a holiday but the time of year is different, the celebration is different, whether you celebrate either holiday or not, and the weather is different. But what if I said cousin Bob was born this morning. We get to celebrate the birth of a new life. If, on the other hand, I said that cousin Bob died this morning, what do we have? Almost the same sentence but with an entirely different meaning all because of the change in one word. In one we celebrate new life, in the other we mourn the loss of life. A single word makes all the difference in the meaning of the sentences, in the meaning of the pronouncements.
And a single word can make all the difference in Scripture. Scripture tells us that Christ said 'upon this rock I will build my church'. Those very words can be found, with slight differences, in every version of the Bible on the market. The trouble is that Christ did not build a 'church' at all. Where in Scripture do you see Christ laboring to build a 'church'? How many rocks did He haul to lay the foundation? How many bricks did He make to build the walls? He did none of those things because He WAS NOT building a 'church'. Christ said upon this rock I will build my ekklesia. Different word, whole different meaning. Upon this rock I will build my 'church'. Upon this rock I will build my called out ones.
There are different understandings of what the rock in that verse is, for this purpose I don't feel the need to discuss exactly what that rock is. It really doesn't matter. Whether the rock is the gospel, the rock is Christ, the rock is Peter, or the rock is simply a rock laying on the ground...Christ never built a 'church' on any of those things. There was no 'church' built by Christ. A church by its very definition is a meeting place. It's a building. And nowhere in Scripture do we see Christ building a physical structure.
But our Scriptures, the very word of God, has been infiltrated by an impostor. And that infiltration has changed the very basis of much of Scripture. We are led, through Scripture, to believe that the 'church' is something important, some even claim it to be vital to a believers faith, but the 'church' is not IN the original Scriptures.
By adding the word 'church' to Scripture the translators changed what Scripture was to something totally different. Where Christ was here to build a spiritual kingdom among a certain set of people, among those that are His, among the elect, by changing ekklesia to 'church' we change what Christ did. We change what He came to earth to do. Christ came to save a certain set of people. He came to save those that belong to Him, the elect...the called out ones. He was here because of His spiritual kingdom. There is no spiritual kingdom within ANY physical building.
And what makes a certain building a 'church' anyway? Assuming Scripture did actually refer to the 'church', which it doesn't, than what makes one building a 'church' when another isn't? I once lived in a house that was the first 'church' in my town. This house was certainly not a church, it was a house, but it had been a 'church' at some point in history. And the opposite is just as easily true. When I was in high school I attended 'church' in my high school auditorium. The 'church' had no building, it had to be torn down, and they met in the high school instead. The school didn't magically become a 'church' on Sundays simply because services were held there. Regardless of the day of week or the function happening in or on the premises, there was no getting around the fact that we were meeting inside a school. So what makes a 'church' a 'church'? What is the distinction?
A lot of people will at least admit that a 'church' isn't the building they meet within but the people that meet there. Okay...that is, at least, a start. What then determines which group of people that are meeting is the 'church'...but to be honest within 'church' buildings I have heard this referred to as the 'church body' and not as the 'church', there does seem to be a distinction there, at least for most people. But lets just stick to the 'church' as the people, at least for now, and not make the distinction. What then determines which group of people are the 'church'? If I was sitting in a Baptist building with the 'church' are the people sitting down the street in a Presbyterian building also the 'church'? And if they are what about the people sitting in the Pentecostal building across the street? And if all of us in those three buildings are the 'church' then what about the people in the Methodist building across town or the Lutheran building on the edge of town? Or how about the people in the Roman Catholic building next door? Where is the line that defines the 'church' whether it be a building or a group of people?
The thing is there doesn't seem to be a line. Not between the Roman Catholic 'church' or the Baptist 'church' and it doesn't matter whether we are referring to the building or the people. Most non-Roman Catholics will say that Roman Catholics are not the Christians spoken of in Scripture, most can see a clear difference in their belief and the Roman Catholics and they don't mind saying the Roman Catholic isn't 'saved' by Biblical standards. But those same people can't see a problem with their own 'church'.
Still think it doesn't matter what we call the believers or whether or not 'church' is in Scripture?
How about this? The word 'church' has single handedly effected the entire world. It has slipped into the most holy of Books, it has infiltrated something that is life or death, and it has effected the world as we know it. This single word has, we might say, taken the world hostage and twisted the very understanding of just who or what belongs to Christ. It has twisted and shaped the world's idea of who and what the ekklesia is. It has warped peoples minds into believing that the 'church' is the people that belong to Christ. And it doesn't seem to have an exact line as to whether or not that 'church' is the building or the people within it.
Scripture shows us through example who the ekklesia are. They are groups of people that are scattered here and there. In Scripture we also see the roles of the leaders or elders within the ekklesia. These leaders did not have physical buildings that were used to instruct and even control the believers. The elders were not given complete rein to rule the believers as they saw fit. Scripture sets out examples of how the elders are to lead. Paul used himself and others as examples of what a leader should be, of what they should be doing. There in Scripture is the very example of what a leader should do and how they should lead. And that example is there even with the use of the word 'church'.
At some point though those scattered groups of believers turned into masses of people that are controlled through not only a local 'church' building but through nation wide or world wide organizations. With these organizations come the need to control the masses of people. And we return to the systems that must be in place to institutionalize those very masses. An alter call offering all and sundry (as my grandmother would say) doesn't go over quite so well if someone in the audience stands up and protests the Scriptural accuracy of such a call. Nor does a sermon on how much Jesus loves you sound nearly as good if someone in the back yells out how much God hates the sinner. And how is a preacher supposed to teach a group of people to fill the offering plate if there's a man on the front row quoting Scripture and telling everyone that tithing is unScriptural? It just doesn't work out too well for the system or the enforcers of that system. The solution? Simple. Just keep the system going. Do what must be done to keep the controlling system in place. And to do that...change the Scriptures if you have to.
It shouldn't surprise us at all that the Scriptures are changed. After all we see that very thing happening before our eyes with 'new' bibles that are coming out now and have come out in recent years. March of 2002 saw the publishing of the TNIV New Testament, and 2005 saw the publication of the entire Bible, a Bible that released amid much controversy, so much so that the publisher discontinued it. The objections? It was gender nuetral, so much so that a popular 'Christian' store refused to sell it. The publisher eventually quit manufacturing it or so they claimed. 2011, however, saw an updated NIV released, an update that supposedly revised the NIV. Supposedly though the 2011 revision of the NIV is nearly 92% identical to the TNIV while it is only 31.3% identical to the 1984 NIV, according to a statistical analysis by Robert Slowey.
If that were the only bible that is changing Scripture to suit the publisher, or transcribers, purposes it would be one thing and even understandable. Sadly that is far from the case. I have before me a bible titled 'The Good News Bible'. How I came to be in possession of this bible is a story in itself as is what I will soon be doing with it, essentially ensuring that is never falls into anyone else's hands, but for the moment this bible is sitting in front of me. This so-called bible released in 1966 as a New Testament and in 1969 as a complete bible. Opening this bible to Genesis 1:1 clearly shows that this per-version of Scripture is not your ordinary Bible. A little digging online got me the information that it is a 'gender-neutered' edition and that it attacks, changes, and preverts just about every major doctrine in Scripture.
And still, I wish I could say that the changing and twisting of Scripture ends there but it does not. 2002 saw the release of the slowly written and piecemeal published 'The message bible'. This so-called bible is one man's translation of Scripture based off...I don't even know what. It clearly changes and twists Scripture to suit the author's ideas and beliefs.
A year or so ago I saw something online about the bible being changed to replace God with a popular entertainers name. Recently I saw something about that again. For the low price of 20.00 fans can get a bible that reflects their modern lives...or something like that.
Those are but a handful examples of the twisting of Scripture that is taking place in our lifetime. A while back I saw a comment by a woman that said believers should buy up Bibles now because it won't be long before it will become a censored, even illegal Book. At the time I thought little of the idea but with the way America is going now I wouldn't be surprised if that doesn't become a reality.
Scripture is being twisted today to suit the agenda of those that are promoting it. Thankfully, for now we have publishers that are sticking to the mostly unadulterated Scriptures. But that wasn't the case when the word 'church' was added to Scripture. For some reason once the word went into Scripture, it wasn't taken out again.
During that time, leaders, or clergy, needed a way to control the people in their buildings. They wanted those people to do certain things, to believe they were under the control of the physical 'church' building, the system it contained and promoted, and the men that controlled it all, to do that they had to make the Scriptures teach the people what they wanted them to believe. And so ekklesia became 'church'.
Could we simply replace 'church' with ekklesia today? Yes. But...there is still very much a 'church' system in place today and that system does not want to release the power that it holds over the people. And where does that power start? With the 'church' building. The building doesn't just hold the believers when they meet, it is THE place to meet. 'Church' can't be held without the building. Groups can't get together without it. Fundraisers don't happen without it. The building is the center of the belief. The 'believers' must go to 'church' say the leaders. The reason the leaders say that is because their bible says that. The leaders also say that the 'church' is God's house and that the people must give their money to God. To give money to God, they must give money to God's house.
It is a system that requires a building and a false religion that exists within the supposed religion of 'Christianity.' It all boils down to the worshipping of money. The leaders desire money and to get that money they need the people. Those people must then understand and believe in the system. It's a system that starts with a building, inside which the 'believer' will be taught that 'Jesus loves' them, and once that has sunk in far enough they will be told that they must give money to God.
This is a system that must work just so or the whole thing will topple. The apostles did not have such a system in place. The apostles taught the gospel of repent and believe. It is the same gospel that John the Baptist taught and it is the same gospel that Christ taught. It is the true gospel. And this gospel did not, does not, and never will, depend on a 'church' building or the system that goes along with it.
Christ did not use the word 'church', nor did the apostles, because the gospel has NOTHING to do with the 'church' and everything to do with Christ. But man cannot gain from such a gospel, nor can he gain from such a lack of a system. So he 'improved' upon it. He added 'church' to the Scriptures and BOOM the Scripture served man rather than man serving it, rather Christ, through the Scriptures, served man instead of man serving Christ.
It was a simple enough change but it was a change that...well...changed everything. Just a single word and all of history, all of mankind, was effected. With that one change believers were no longer a called out, set apart, group of people but a mass of bodies that packed the pews in every building wearing the name of 'church'. And once that happened anyone could be a part of the 'church' by simply doing what the leaders said they should. This one says you must say a certain prayer, this one says you must be baptized a certain way, that one says you must take these classes... you name it membership can be had into the 'church' if you'll only do whatever it is that the leaders say is required.
I must admit that that is a much easier membership than the one Scripture lays out for becoming a member of the called out ones. It sure is a lot easier to say a prayer or stand on your head with your feet crossed than it is to wait for the Lord to drag you out of sin and into salvation.
But Christianity isn't about what's easy. It isn't about man or what man wants. It's about Christ. And if we look to Christ first we see, from Scripture, that He is about His Father's work, a work that is Spiritual in nature, a work that started before the foundation of the world, a work that is of a heavenly or eternal kingdom and not an earthly, temporal, one. A 'church' be it a group of people in a particular building or the building itself is not a group of people that have been called out. To be called out means to be set apart, it means to be different. Most 'churches' today are filled with people that are, as a whole, no different than the rest of the world. They watch the same movies, read the same books, use the same bad words, have the same habits...LOVE the same things.
'Church' may be just a single word but it's a word with enough power to change the way the world saw Christians. It is a word that can confuse people without them even knowing they are confused. It is a word that makes us as 'which 'church''. But it's...
Just a single word.
