Early Departure From Biblical Baptism

Let us examine the early Christians' departure from the biblical practice of baptism.

Ignatius (A.D. 110):
"It is not permitted to...baptize independently of the Bishop."

So let us get this straight. In order to get baptized, you need to ask the Bishop for permission. Is it not interesting how far this concept deviates from the practice of the New Testament? In the New Testament, once they made a profession of faith, they were immediately baptized.

Justin Martyr (A.D. 150):
"All who accept and believe as true the things taught and said by us, and who would undertake to have the power to live accordingly, are taught to pray and entreat God, fasting, for the forgiveness of their former sins, while we join their prayer and fasting. Then we bring them to a place where there is water, where they are regenerated in the same way we were."

Not only do you need to ask permission from the Bishop in order to get baptized, but now there is even mandatory prayer and fasting. Also, in case you missed it, a person is not born again when they believe on Jesus as their Lord and Saviour, but rather when they are baptized. The New Testament's simplicity of "repent, believe on the Lord Jesus, and be baptized," has been complicated and changed into "believe on the Lord Jesus, repent over a lengthy period of time with prayer and fasting, and then, after receiving permission from the Bishop, be baptized, at which point in time you will be born again."

Tertullian (A.D. 200):
"The unwed should be deferred for temptation is waiting for them as alike in the case of the virgins because of their maturity, as in the case of the widowed because they are without partners. Let them wait until they marry, or until they are strengthened for continence. Those who understand the importance of baptism will rather fear its attainment rather than its delay."

"...there are sins too ruinous, and too serious to receive pardon. Such are murder, idolatry, fraud, denial of Christ, blasphemy, and of course adultery and fornication... Christ will no more intercede for those: he who has been born of God will never commit them: if he has committed them he will not be a son of God."

"All waters, after the invocation of God, attain the sacramental power of sanctification: for the Spirit straightway comes upon them from the heavens and is upon the waters sanctifying them by His own power: and being thus sanctified they are imbued at the same time with the power of sanctifying."

Wow! Now single people cannot get baptized (and therefore born again) unless the Bishop is pleased beyond all doubt that a person is beyond the possibility to commit sexual sin before receiving baptism. Baptism now only covers past sins, but not subsequent sins. This is basically where the idea of sinless perfection began. A "Christian" is apparently "an individual who is beyond serious sin." A person is supposedly born again in baptism because the Holy Spirit turns the water into "holy water," which then cleanses a person from past sins and cause them to become born again and sanctified against the committal of future sins. So the water is imbued with magical powers through the blessing of a priest. This is nothing more than superstition, which the Catholic church is chock full of.

Cyprian (A.D. 250):
"A man is not born by imposition of the hand when he receives the Holy Spirit, but in baptism."

Yet again we see the false idea of baptismal regeneration. Moreover, though someone may have received the Spirit by the laying on of hands, they were not considered born again until they had been baptized. In a matter of 150-200 years, the sacrament of baptism became overly corrupted.

The Roots of Authoritarian Church Hierarchy

The teachings of the New Testament were designed to help the Church avoid the dangers concerned with leadership. Ironically, the very thing they were meant to protect against ended up occurring. The early Church Fathers introduced the error of hierarchy and institutionalism, which happened to take on the form of the Old Testament Levitical priesthood.

As we discussed in the previous blog article, the authoritarian hierarchical structure developed amidst the fight against unacceptable beliefs when Gnostics were claiming to have received special knowledge from the Holy Spirit. What the early Christians were facing is not much different from what we see today. Masses of Christians claim to be, or to have been, led by the Holy Spirit in regard to something they have done or something they believe, being completely ignorant of the fact that the Holy Spirit does not lead people contrary to the Word of God, of which He inspired to begin with. Nor does He lead two different people in two different directions with regard to beliefs and practices (e.g., election vs. universalism). By attributing their own thoughts, feelings, and opinions to the voice of the Holy Spirit, they are in essence claiming inspiration. They are claiming the same authority as the original apostles. If what you do or believe comes from the Holy Spirit, then who can question it? This is the crux of the issue, which I have discussed in the blog article What Is Your Authority?

Because they did not possess the complete Bible at their fingertips the way we have today, and they failed to recognize the authority of the Bible and the teachings, traditions, and practices of the Lord Jesus and His apostles, the early Church Fathers reasoned that authority rested in and with the apostles and then introduced the heresy of "apostolic succession," claiming the same authority and inspiration as the original apostles. They reasoned that if God sent Jesus, and Jesus sent the apostles, then anyone appointed by the apostles, and in turn appointed by the watchmen (episkopos), must have the same authority and inspiration. Apostolic succession is a demonic deception utilized by those who were given too much power and influence, which inevitably resulted in spiritual pride and arrogance wherein deception and error flourish naturally.

"The high priest has been given his own special services, the priests have been assigned their own place, and the Levites have their special ministrations enjoined on them. The layman is bound by the ordinances of the laity." -Clement of Rome to the Corinthians (A.D. 95)

Here we have the first suggestion of a clergy/laity divide among the people of God. This divide did not originate with Jesus or His apostles, yet it has haunted Christianity for two millennia. Who do you think the "high priest" of his quote will turn out to be?

"Your reverend presbytery is turned to the Bishop as strings to a lyre... Let us be careful not to resist the Bishop, that through our submission to the Bishop we may belong to God... We should regard the Bishop as the Lord Himself..." -Ignatius to the Ephesians (A.D. 110)

"I advise you to always act in godly concord with the Bishop, presiding as the counterpart of God, and the presbyters as the counterpart of the council of the Apostles... As the Lord did nothing without the Father, either by Himself or by means of the Apostles, so you must do nothing without the Bishop and the presbyters." -Ignatius to the Magnesians (A.D. 110)

"...respect the Bishop as the counterpart of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and the college of the Apostles: without those no church is recognized." -Ignatius to the Trallians (A.D. 110)

"Let no one do anything that pertains to the church apart from the Bishop... it is not permitted to batize or hold a love-feast independently of the Bishop. But whatever he approves, that is also well-pleasing to God." -Ignatius to the Smyrneans (A.D. 110)

Did you notice that non-hierarchical co-equality is no longer present, and how the "presbytery" (presbuteros = elder) is growing in both importance and spiritual authority? This is where the audacity of a minister attaching the designation "Reverend" to the front of his name originated. Reverence belongs to no one except God Almighty! Did you spot the blasphemy here? The Bishop is to be looked up "as the Lord Himself."

"The supreme priest (that is the Bishop) has the right of conferring baptism: after him the presbyters and deacons, but only with the Bishop's authority. Otherwise the laity also have the right... how much more is the discipline of reverence and humility incumbent upon laymen (since it also befits their superiors)... It would be idle for us to suppose that what is forbidden to priests is allowed to the laity. The distinction between the order of clergy and the people has been established by the authority of the Church." -Tertullian (A.D. 200)

With the clergy/laity divide firmly in place, clergy are now said to be superiors of the laity, with the Bishop as supreme. The idea that the clergy/laity divide "has been established by the authority of the Church" demonstrates the claim of divine authority in order to sanction their own institutionalized system. Church leaders were now beyond question or challenge, which meant you could not hold them accountable as a layperson. Many denominations still function in this manner today, the "pastor" claiming to be untouchable, falsely quoting and misapplying Scripture such as, "touch not God's anointed."

"If Christ Jesus our Lord and God is Himself the High Preist of God the Father, and first offered Himself as a sacrifice to the Father, and commanded this to be done in remembrance of Himself, then assuredly the priest acts truly in Christ's place when he reproduces what Christ did, and he then offers a true and complete sacrifice to God the Father, if he begins to offer as he sees Christ Himself has offered." -Cyprian (A.D. 250)

Here we have the Catholic Mass in its genesis. This priestly hierarchy eventually led to the culmination of the Pope, the Bishop of Bishops. We see the progression of the early Church Fathers in taking the Church from a non-hierarchical co-equal family unit and little by little turning into an authoritarian hierarchical religious corporation. This was and is the foundational error of the early Church Fathers, which inevitably led to other errors, such as withholding baptism for a lengthy period of time, removing the love feast and replacing it with a wafer and a small glass of juice, and turning membership into some sort of club with a bunch of silly hoops to jump through first.

This foundational error concerning the nature and function of leadership and government within the Church resulted in Christian leaders being given such authority that whatever they ended up teaching became acceptable simply by virtue of being as from the Lord Himself. When you supposedly have the same authority and inspiration as the Lord Jesus Himself, who can question you, challenge you, or hold you accountable? No one! And this was the point. If you speak for the Lord, if what you say is inspired by the Holy Spirit, then upon what basis would anybody have to challenge your teachings? Here are some arguments from the early Church Fathers toward their having the same authority and inspiration as the original apostles:

"The Apostles have received the gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ. Christ was sent forth by God and the Apostles by Christ. Both these appointments were made in an orderly way according to the will of God... The Apostles appointed the first-fruits of their labours to be bishops and deacons for those who would believe." -Clement of Rome

"I advise you to always act in godly concord with the Bishop, presiding as the counterpart of God, and the presbyters as the counterpart of the council of the Apostles... As the Lord did nothing without the Father, either by Himself or by means of the Apostles, so you must do nothing without the Bishop and the presbyters." -Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch

"By knowledge of the truth we mean: the teaching of the Apostles: the order of the church as established from the earliest times throughout the world: the distinctive stamp of the Body of Christ preserved through the episcopal succession: for to the Bishops the Apostles committed the care of the church which is in each place, which has come down to our time, safeguarded without any written documents." -Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons

"Therefore we should be careful to observe and keep the procedure we received from the Divine Tradition, and from the practice of the Apostles which is kept among us." -Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage

God sent Jesus, and Jesus carried the same authority as His Father in Heaven. This is absolutely true. Jesus sent the apostles, and they were divinely inspired and authoritative (though they were not inspired in everything they did or said). This is also true. The apostles appointed watchmen (episkopos), or "leaders," but these were not inspired, infallible, and authoritative in their teachings as were the apostles before them. Once the authority of the apostles was gone, the Church then had to figure things out for themselves. Unfortunately, she took a turn for the worse, from which she has never fully recovered.

Failing to understand the New Testament's teaching with regard to Church life and practice, many so-called "house churches" utilize the same dysfunctional and unbiblical authoritarian hierarchical system that is the core problem with institutional "churches." The pyramid structure goes entirely against the teachings and practices of Jesus and His apostles. The "Moses model" of church government is not only unbiblical and dysfunctional, but it is also extremely dangerous. The traditions of men go against and make void the Word of God.

Just because your denomination is dysfunctional and its traditions and practices are unbiblical does not mean that they are not Christians. This kind of thinking plagues every denomination, thinking they are the only true Christians. Even having all of the Bible's teachings, traditions, and practices correct does not mean we should think ourselves better than everyone else. You might be part of a house church and meet all the criteria for a biblical church, but that does not make you a "true" Christian, nor does it make you better than other Christians. You might be better off, and certainly more in line with biblical teachings, but not better than.

What Is A Biblical Church?

Christians need to settle, once and for all, that irrespective of what the issue might be, God's Word is correct and they are wrong. It is that simple, and that is all there is to it. If more Christians did this, there would be less division in the Body. However, a large number of Christians either do not believe the Bible to be their absolute and final authority, or they evade and explain away whatever aspects of its teachings that they do not like.

What is your authority? Is it church history? Is it church tradition? Is it your creed? Is it your confession? Is it your constitution? Is it your statement of faith? Is it your system of theology? Is it what the “experts” tell you? Is it your personal "experiences"? Is it how you were raised? It is what you were taught? Is it your personal feelings and opinions? Or is it Scripture alone? As in everything, the Bible must be our sole and final authority on this issue.

Nobody has a monopoly on biblical truth—least of all myself. But that does not prevent me from striving to "search the Scriptures" and learn the truth irrespective of man's traditions. You see, regardless of how I was raised, what I was taught, or what I presently believe, I strive to conform myself and my beliefs entirely to the Word of God. Regardless of my opinions, my feelings, or my proclivities, I strive to subject myself and my beliefs entirely to the Word of God. If it contradicts me, then I am to submit myself to the Word of God—no matter the cost to myself. This is called death to self; taking up your cross daily. It is fundamental to being a Christian. The Word of God never submits to me, my culture, my ethnicity, or anything else. Now that we have made that clear, let us get to our subject.

The single most important issue facing Christians today is the recovery of New Testament church life and practice, and in spite of what everyone else chooses to do, "...as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord" (Josh. 24:15). In other words, I am going to do what is best for my family regardless of what others think, say, and do. "One man with God is a majority." "One word of truth outweighs the entire world."

Inevitably, when you write on issues such as this, fellow believers will fire off trumped-up accusations against you, such as false arguments that you must have had a negative "church" experience. However, that simply is not the case, and could not be further from the truth. When you desire to conform to God's Word no matter what, as you study Scripture and the truth is revealed to you, you must then act upon it in obedience. Obedience to God's Word is obedience to Jesus Himself! The closer you stick to God's Word in both teaching and practice, the more you will become a target for fellow believers who are not living accordingly. The last thing they want is to be convicted by those who are, and so there is very little they will not do in order to attempt to silence you. Remember, men love darkness rather than light, and darkness is afraid of the light. A less-than-holy Christian will hate a Christian walking in holiness because that holiness highlights his evil deeds. Why do they hate such people? Pride. Envy. Could be a number of things.

Jesus said, "...I will build My Church..." (Matt. 16:18). He quite obviously had very specific ideas as to how His Church ought to look and function in actual practice. After all, the apostle Paul had said, "And so I direct in all the churches" (1 Cor. 7:17), and, "...as in all the churches of the saints...." (1 Cor. 14:33), meaning that they were all taught the same things and that they all practiced the same things. Paul had also said, "...we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God" (1 Cor. 11:16). According to Paul's words, the apostles of Jesus established and set up Churches to function in a particular manner. Again, according to Paul's words, this pattern was intended to be universal. All churches should be fundamentally identical when it comes to how they assemble and function as a congregation.

When Paul talks about "traditions" (2 Thess. 2:15; 3:4, 6; 1 Cor. 11:2), he is talking about the established practice (παράδοσις, paradosis) taught by the apostles of Christ. He is not talking about new traditions invented and handed down by the Catholics or the Lutherans or the Calvinists or the Anglicans or the Presbyterians or the Baptists or the Pentecostals. When Paul said to the Corinthians, "I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you," he was addressing how they met as a Church as well as the way they practiced things when they did so. In 1 Corinthians 11-14, Paul was correcting abuses that were occurring whenever they came together as a church. He was not addressing doctrinal beliefs or personal holiness. All churches were set up exactly the same. All churches were practicing in the exact same way.

When Paul gave direction as to how the Church was to meet and function, he also posed a rhetorical question that dripped with sarcasm: "Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only?" (1 Cor. 14:36). Were there other ways of "doing church" than what the apostles had prescribed? Apparently not! "If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment. But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized" (1 Cor. 14:37-38). Church practice is a matter of the Lord's command. It is not optional! It is a matter of the Holy Spirit's leading, and the Holy Spirit will never lead people contrary to the Word of God. He inspired the Word of God to begin with. Paul informs us not to recognize anyone who teaches differently.

God does not want different types of churches meeting in different ways. This goes completely against the teachings of the New Testament. "Churches" that function as institutions/organizations/corporations are dysfunctional churches. "Churches" that make void the Word of God and "do church" the way they feel they want to conduct their assemblies are unbiblical churches. However, just because the Church meets in houses does not make them biblical churches. They could meet in houses and yet be unbiblical in every other way. So what determines a biblical Church, according to Scripture?

• New Testament churches met once a week on the first day of the week (Sunday; which for Jews began immediately after sundown on Saturday evening) to partake of the Lord's Supper.
• New Testament churches assembled in houses. Temple courts, such as Solomon's Porch, as public gathering spaces, were used for mass gatherings for teaching, evangelism, prayer, etc. They were used for multi-church gatherings.
  
• New Testament churches were completely open, spontaneous, and participatory in their corporate worship and sharing for the spiritual well-being of everyone present. No one was to control the proceedings and lead from the front. The format for how they were to function is outlined in 1 Corinthians 14:26, 29-31. The key to a healthy body is that each part function properly according to its design.
  
• New Testament churches ate the Lord's Supper as a full meal as part of their proceedings, which was commonly referred to as a "love feast."
• New Testament churches were extended family units; living organisms—not institutions/organizations/corporations, and they practiced non-hierarchical, plural, co-equal, indigenous male leadership (not controlling, subjugating, dominating) that had arisen from within the church they would subsequently shepherd. Eldership was understood to be purely functional and not positional (as a title or an office). Decision making was consensual and collective, made by the whole company of believers and not simply the “officials.”

These are the non-negotiable, irreducible minimum requirements for a church to be said to be biblical. If you really had to, if there were extenuating circumstances, you could still maintain the nature and function of a church while meeting somewhere other than in people's homes. Nevertheless, however, you would still need to meet all the other requirements of a biblical church. This means that you should sit in a circle so everyone can see and hear each other, and that worship should remain entirely open, spontaneous, and participatory. No one should be leading the proceedings (least of all from the front, elevated above everyone else as if they are somehow more important then everyone else). The meeting is to be a dialogue, as prescribed in 1 Corinthians 14:26, and not a monologue. If anyone understands the last three parts of the pattern, why would they want to play around with the first two parts (meeting on Sundays, and meeting in houses)—unless their were extenuating circumstances?

Is it not interesting that in countries where there is great animosity against the Christian faith, that the only prescription that allows the Church to grow is by use of house churches? In these countries you could not obtain a government permit to build a "church" building such as we have known and experienced in Europe and America.

If you want just one piece of evidence that shows how much the modern "church" is not obeying the teachings of Scripture, look to their practice of baptism. In the Bible, as soon as a person made a profession of faith in Jesus, they were immediately baptized. There was not a single excuse for waiting. If you want a second piece of evidence that shows how much the modern "church" is not obeying the teachings of Scripture, look to their practice of the Lord's Supper. This was never a wafer, a cracker, or a piece of bread and tiny cup of grape juice or wine. For the early Christians, this was a complete meal. Hence Paul's address of the Corinthians' abuse in 1 Corinthians 11. A third example would be membership. In the beginning, the only qualification for membership was a life changed by the Holy Spirit. Now look at all the unbiblical nonsense attached to it.

In the New Testament, believers met in someone's home in order to talk and fellowship together, to encourage each other, and enjoy one another, and they did so over a full meal. The New Testament knows nothing of "church services" as you and I have experienced! They talked together, prayed together, sang songs of praise and worship together, built each other up spiritually through teaching, and encouraged one another from Scripture. They were a family unit, and they acted like it. When you change something beyond what it was originally designed to be, you make it completely other than what God had intended. This results in it being dysfunctional. Churches that are not based on the teaching, traditions, and practices of the Lord Jesus and His apostles are unbiblical, dysfunctional churches.

In using the word ἐκκλησία (ekklēsia), early Christians were employing a term in which, while it designated the assembly of a Greek city-state, only citizens could participate. The Church is not "a hospital for sinners." The Church is for believers only! Go ahead. Read through the entire New Testament (especially the book of Acts) and find a single instance of sinners in the Church. Oh, and in case you were not aware of it, once a person has been born again, even though they might continue to stumble into sin, the Bible refers to them as saints—never as sinners. They are a new creation! So, how do you reach the lost if the Church is only for saints? By going out and evangelizing them as you were commanded to. Once people had repented and believed, then they were added to the Church. Not before!

Away with tradition, and back to the Bible! The Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible must be our absolute and final authority on all matters pertaining to doctrine, church practice, family life, and personal holiness. Regardless of how we were raised, what we were taught, what we might presently believe, regardless of our opinions, our feelings, or our proclivities, we are to subject ourselves and our beliefs entirely to the Word of God. If it contradicts us, then we are to submit ourselves to it—no matter the cost to ourselves. Go by Scripture, even when the consequences of such are unthinkable to you. This is called death to self; taking up our cross daily. It is fundamental to being a Christian. The Word of God never submits to us, our culture, our ethnicity, or anything else.

I do not expect my brothers and sisters in the faith to take my word concerning biblical truth at face value. In fact, it would be foolish of them to do so. The Bereans did not take the apostle Paul's words at face value (Acts 17:11), nor did Peter expect his readers to take his word at face value (2 Pet. 1:19-21). There are numerous "experts" or "scholars" they can refer to outside of the Bible that back up everything I have just written. For many people, the Bible simply is not sufficient enough. It is not their absolute and final authority. For those people, they can refer to the "experts" and "scholars" on the issue. Nevertheless, your experience of "church" does not meet the biblical prescription of what the Church ought to look like and how it ought to function.

When we come together, the Church should be under the Headship of the Lord Jesus, allowing Him to move in and through each member of the Body at His discretion. The Church should rely on the Holy Spirit's direct guidance in our meetings. This is how the early Christians functioned. In the second century A.D., this pattern began to change by those who thought they had the same inspiration as the original apostles, and during the time of Emperor Constantine it become fixed within the Church. The Church has never recovered from this. Instead, it was taken for granted that what "leaders" decided was what the Spirit was saying, and so pew-sitters never bothered to question what they were told from the pulpit, and were taught to value lesser things. The Headship of Jesus has been effectively strangled and the life of the Holy Spirit has been gradually squeezed out of the Body of Christ by the traditions of men in the mechanical organization they call "church."

How did we end up having authoritarian church hierarchy? It originated with the fight against unacceptable beliefs when Gnostics were claiming to have received special knowledge given them by the Spirit. Despite not having a complete Bible at their fingertips, rather than recognize the authority of Scripture and the teachings, traditions, and practices of the Lord Jesus and His apostles, the Church  reasoned that authority rested with the apostles and so anyone succeeding them would have the same authority (and inspiration). Thus began the false teaching of "apostolic succession." In the second century, you can see the authoritarian hierarchy develop, especially in post-apostolic writings. In the fourth century, all hell broke loose as the Church no longer resembled what she had been in the past. The structure and practices we see across every denomination today were put in place under Emperor Constantine, and find their roots in Roman culture and pagan religious rituals. If you were to dissect each denomination's "church service" today, you would find that it differs very little from the Catholic system.

No Bible student worth their salt would ever attempt to deny the fact that the New Testament knows nothing of a "clergy" class in contrast to a "laity" class. There was no division of class between believers in the early Church. This has already been proven with the Scripture references above, of which there are many others. The early Christians had no sacred temples to meet in; there was no division in the body of "clergy" and "laity"; there was no "pastor" leading the proceedings (least of all from the front); and the "pastor" and/or staff did not receive salaries. All of this is unbiblical, tracing their roots to Roman culture and pagan religious practices.

What Is A Biblical Overseer?

According to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, the Greek words episkeptomai and episkopeo are closely related in their usage and application. Rabbis frequently used these terms to mean visitation, such as visiting the sick. Jesus knew the high estimation of visiting the sick in Rabbinic ethics, and thinking of the Jewish works of love, He places all men under the same command:

For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited [episkeptomai] Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.' Matt. 25:35-36

'For I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit [episkeptomai] Me.' Matt 25:42-43

James, the Lord's brother, adopts both the tradition in Rabbinic ethics and the command of Jesus for practical love to our neighbours:

Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit [episkeptomai] orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world. James 1:27

The Jewish works of love in Rabbinic ethics included visiting the sick, sheltering the strangers, helping newly married poor, comforting sorrows, etc. Hebrews 13:1-3 agrees with these ethics. The Bible provides clear information as to how the Church is to care for widows and those in need.

A father of the fatherless and a judge for the widows, Is God in His holy habitation. Psalm 68:5

Learn to do good; Seek justice, Reprove the ruthless, Defend the orphan, Plead for the widow. Isaiah 1:17

You shall not afflict any widow or orphan. If you afflict him at all, and if he does cry out to Me, I will surely hear his cry; and My anger will be kindled, and I will kill you with the sword, and your wives shall become widows and your children fatherless. Exodus 22:22-24

Israel was to give special care to widows, orphans, and the poor. In fact, part of their tithe (their taxation system) was to go toward providing for those in need (Deut. 14:28-29). In Acts 6, seven men were chosen to care for the large population of widows in the Church, providing food for them. In Galatians 2, Paul and Barnabas were encouraged to remember the poor (i.e., the poor believers in Jerusalem who were struggling). In 1 Timothy 5, Paul gives specific instructions on how the Church was to care for widows. This mercy ministry would also include single moms, trafficking victims, and anyone else in desperate need.

So what exactly is an Episkopos?

The Greek word episkope, found in 1 Timothy 3:1, comes from episkopeo. The Greek word episkopos, found in 1 Timothy 3:2, comes from the same root words as episteptomai, with the sense of episkopeo. The word episkopos denotes someone who is a watchman, an overseer, or an inspector, but does not tell us anything of what he watches, oversees, or inspects. According to the whole of the New Testament, however, it quite obviously refers to those who watch over men and women in reference to their spiritual life (cf. Heb. 13:17). According to 1 Peter 5:1-4, it is connected to the idea of shepherding.

What are the responsibilities of a shepherd? The responsibility of shepherds is the safety and welfare of the flock. They are not to drive the flock (rule over it), but to lead the flock (by example; see 1 Pet. 5:1-3). They are to feed the flock, keeping a watchful eye out for poisonous plants. They are to protect the flock from predators, being willing to lay their life down to protect them. They are to bring healing to the flock.

First Peter 2:25 refers to Jesus as the Shepherd and Watchman of our souls.

So what exactly is a Presbuteros?

Elder (presbuteros) is not a separate function within the Church. The use of the word in 1 Tim. 5:1, 2, 19; 1 Pet. 5:1, 5; 2 John 1:1; and 3 John 1:1 is an adjective! An adjective is a word or phrase that names an attribute. It is added to a noun in order to modify it, such as "red car" or "blue hat." If elder (presbuteros) were a separate function within the Church, then why is it not listed along with watchman (episkopos) and servant (diakonos) in Philippians 1:1, where reference is made to those saints who were functioning in those roles? First Timothy 3 gives qualifications for watchmen and servants, but never for elders. So what exactly are elders?

Elders are mentioned in 1 Timothy 5:17 in connection with "preaching and teaching," (though the word for preaching is not used here). They are also mentioned in Titus 1:5, where Paul continues to describe characteristics of a watchman (v.7). The watchman described to Timothy (1 Tim. 3:2) and the elders of 1 Timothy 5:17 and 1 Peter 5:1 have the same shepherding functions as the elders of Acts 20:17 (cf. v.28, where they are called watchmen). In Ephesians 4:11, "shepherds and teachers" are the same function. Teachers are shepherds. An episkopos, then, is a presbuteros who teaches the flock by shepherding it and being an example to them (see 1 Pet. 5:1-4). An episkopos is not a title, an office, or a position; it is a function.

So what exactly is a Diakonos?

A diakonos is a servant to the Church, whether male or female (Rom. 16:1; 1 Tim. 3:11), who ministers to the needs of others. A diakonos is never connected with prespubteros in the Bible. A diakonos is not a title, an office, or a position; it is a function.

Is an Episkopos a leader of the Church?

How do we know that the function of a watchman was not a title, an office, or a leadership position?

Do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. Matt. 23:8 (In other words, do not call yourself "Pastor" or "Reverend" [especially since reverence belongs to God alone] or any other title, and do not call other men by such titles, because you are all equal.)

Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. Matt. 23:10

But Jesus called them to Himself and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord [katakurieuo] it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many." Matt. 20:25-28

Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; nor yet as lording [katakurieuo] it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock. 1 Pet. 5:1-3

For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot says, "Because I am not a hand, I am not a part of the body," it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body. And if the ear says, "Because I am not an eye, I am not a part of the body," it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole were hearing, where would the sense of smell be? But now God has placed the members, each one of them, in the body, just as He desired. If they were all one member, where would the body be? But now there are many members, but one body. And the eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you"; or again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you." On the contrary, it is much truer that the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary; and those members of the body which we deem less honorable, on these we bestow more abundant honor, and our less presentable members become much more presentable, whereas our more presentable members have no need of it. But God has so composed the body, giving more abundant honor to that member which lacked, so that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it. 1 Cor. 12:12-26 (If the entire body were one mouth and many ears, where would the body be? There is to be no division within the Body. One individual, or group of individuals, should not be elevated on a platform for the rest of the Body to passively and quietly look on. Exegete the placement of things and people within your "church" and take note of what things and people are given greater importance and what things and people are given less importance. This all goes against the entire New Testament.)

Our Protestant denominations enjoy proof-texting Matthew 23:9 against Catholics—Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven, but fail miserably in the application of this passage and what it is teaching to themselves. You are not to call yourself "Pastor" or anything else, and you are not to call other men "Pastor" or anything else. Pay attention to the full context!

So if there were no independent leaders lording it over the rest of the flock, how did the early Christians actually function?

What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. ... Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment. But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, the first one must keep silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted; 1 Cor. 14:26, 29-31

The assembled congregation of the early Christians was every-member functioning, and they met from house to house. Because Christ Jesus is the Head of His Church, that means that each member of the Body was free to participate and contribute to the meeting as the Lord Jesus moved him/her. The meeting was a dialogue, not a monologue. Notice the instructions for the meeting in verses 29-31. Could you imagine trying to interrupt a service in modern "churches" in order to share what God has moved you to share? They would either silence you, or have you removed. Modern "churches" and the structure they follow by tradition has effectively strangled the Headship of Jesus. The "church" structure we are so used to has stifled spiritual transformation because the Church cannot benefit from the gifts, knowledge, and experience of the entire Body of Christ the way it is supposed to. Instead, the Church is limited to the gifts, knowledge, and experience of a single individual. Christians are taught to value lesser things by sitting quietly and passively in the pews, watching the monologue performance of a single individual. When Paul talks about the purpose and function of the body, he makes it clear that every member needs to participate for the entire body to be edified. The body does not consist of a single mouth and many ears, the way most denominations are structured today.

Elders, Overseers, and Deacons: BUSTED!

First Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus are not "Pastoral" epistles. Timothy and Titus were not "pastors"; they were apostolic workers. Timothy was an apostle (see 1 Thess. 1:1; 2:6). These letters were not given the label of "pastorals" until the 18th century! They do not even address titles, offices, or positions. They address functions: shepherds and servants.

All early churches were taught the same practices. Paul makes this abundantly clear in 1 Cor. 7:17 and 14:33. Acts 2:42-45 gives us a glimpse as to how the early church functioned, and 1 Corinthians 14:26, 29-31 makes it clear. The early churches were every-member functioning. There were no divisions of classes. There was no "clergy/laity" split. The Church is a priesthood of all believers. There was not one mouth and many ears. They all participated and contributed as the Lord Jesus—Head of His Body—directed them. The Body needs to benefit from all its members working together. Paul made this absolutely clear. The way modern denominations structure themselves, they effectively strangle the headship of Jesus and stifle spiritual transformation. These structures have limited the Church to the gifts, knowledge, and experience of a single individual. The Church has been taught to value lesser things, sitting passively in a pew as if at a theater watching a single performer. This is not biblical in the least! You may think that it is biblical because it is the only experience that you have, and men have been proof-texting verses ripped out of their immediate context for centuries, but it is not.

What is an adjective? An adjective is a word or phrase that names an attribute. It is added to a noun in order to modify it. The word "elder" in 1 Tim. 5:2, 19; 1 Pet. 5:1, 5; 2 John 1:1; and 3 John 1:1, and the word "elders" in Acts 11:30; 14:23; 15:2, 4, 6, 22-23; 16:4; 20:17; 21:18; 23:14; 24:1: 25:15; 1 Tim. 5:17; Titus 1:5; Heb. 11:2; James 5:14; 1 Pet. 5:1; Rev. 4:4, 10; 5:5-6, 8, 11, 14; 7:11, 13; 11:16; 14:3; and 19:4, is an adjective! It is not a noun! The "elder" as designated in modern "churches" is a noun. The Bible is giving a description. It is an aged person, a senior. (It might even figuratively designate a spiritually mature person.) It is not a title, an office, or a position!

The words for "overseer" in 1 Tim. 3:1 and 2 are nouns. But how do the following passages shed light as to what these words actually mean? Luke 19:44; Acts 1:20; and 1 Pet. 2:12. Acts 20:28; Phil. 1:1; Titus 1:7; and 1 Pet. 2:25. An episkopos is a watchman, a look out, a guardian, a superintendent who would voluntarily care for and protect the Church, much like a shepherd caring for his flock. This is a person's function. It is not a title, an office, or a position!

The word for "deacon" in 1 Tim. 3:8 and 12 is a noun. But how do the following passages shed light as to what this word actually means? Matt. 20:26; 22:13; 23:11; Mark 9:35; 10:43; John 2:5, 9; 12:26; Rom. 13:4; 15:8; 16:1, 27; 1 Cor. 3:5; 2 Cor. 3:6; 6:4; 11:15, 23; Gal. 2:17; Eph. 3:7; 6:21; Phil. 1:1; Col. 1:7, 23, 25; 4:7; 1 Thess. 3:2; and 1 Tim. 4:6. A diakonos is an attendant, a minister, a servant of the Church. This is a person's function. It is not a title, an office, or a position!

Ephesians 4:11 is falsely translated as "pastors." Every single other occurrence of this word in the Bible is translated correctly as "shepherd." What are the responsibilities of a shepherd? A shepherd's responsibility is the safety and welfare of the flock. He is not to drive the flock, but to lead the flock (by example, not as a ruler). He is to feed the flock, keeping a watchful eye out for poisonous plants. He is to protect the flock from predators, being willing to lay his life down to protect them. He is to bring healing to the flock. A poimen is someone who cares for and protects the flock. This is a function. It is not a title, an office, or a position!

“Therefore, I exhort the elders [presbuteros] among you, as your fellow elder [sumpresbuteros] and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, shepherd [poimaino—tend to, take care of] the flock [poimnion] of God among you, exercising oversight [episkopeo] not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; nor yet as lording [katakurieuo—control, subjugate, dominate] it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock. And when the Chief Shepherd [archipoimen] appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. You younger men [neos], likewise, be subject to your elders [presbuteros]; and all of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, for GOD IS OPPOSED TO THE PROUD, BUT GIVES GRACE TO THE HUMBLE.” 1 Peter 5:1-5

Remember, the Bible must be its own interpreter. You cannot proof-text verses to support whatever doctrine or tradition you choose to believe. Everything must be understood in context! The context of the passages containing these words does not support the hierarchical structures that most denominations utilize.

Modern denominations have it wrong, and have had it wrong since the time of Emperor Constantine. When the Reformation took place, they reformed some of the corrupt doctrines and beliefs, but failed to reform the corrupt hierarchy and practices. They pretty much retained much of Catholicism and its traditions, tweaking them here and there. But the fact remains, the elements of modern structures and practices can be traced back to their pagan roots in both the Roman senate and the pagan religions. Modern structures and practices were foreign to the early Christians.

Now, before you get all accusatory, levelling ad hominem at me, falsely charging me with having an issue with authority and not wanting to be held accountable, let me clue you in as to what the Bible has to say about this.

• "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector." Matt. 18:15-17
  
• "Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted. Bear one another's burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ" Gal. 6:1-2
• "be subject to one another in the fear of Christ." Eph. 5:21
• "Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God." Col. 3:16
  
• "Therefore encourage one another and build up one another, just as you also are doing." 1 Thess. 5:11
  
• "confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed." James 5:16
• "My brethren, if any among you strays from the truth and one turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins." James 5:19-20
  

This also includes every single "one another" statement found in the New Testament. There is to be no hierarchy in the Church of Christ Jesus. All are equal, and we are to humbly place ourselves in submission to each other, being accountable to each other. When the Church functions in this manner, each member being allowed to contribute as the Lord Jesus moves him/her, the wonder of the Church flourishes and the world stares in awe.

Jesus On Tithing and Giving

There is a pattern within Jesus' teachings, and it does not concern tithing. So what did Jesus actually teach His followers?

 

WHAT JESUS TAUGHT ABOUT TITHING

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others. Matthew 23:23

But woe to you Pharisees! For you pay tithe of mint and rue and every kind of garden herb, and yet disregard justice and the love of God; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others. Luke 11:42

And He also told this parable to some people who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and viewed others with contempt: "Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and was praying this to himself: 'God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. 'I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.' But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, the sinner!' I tell you, this man went to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted." Luke 18:9-14

That is it. That is all that Jesus had to say about tithing. So why do so many preachers and "churches" spend more time speaking about tithing than did Jesus?

 

WHAT JESUS TAUGHT ABOUT GIVING

Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you. Matthew 5:42

Give to everyone who asks of you, and whoever takes away what is yours, do not demand it back. Luke 6:30

Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.' Then the righteous will answer Him, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink? And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?' The King will answer and say to them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.' Matthew 25:35-40

If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. If you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. If you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners in order to receive back the same amount. But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil men. Luke 6:32-35

But give that which is within as charity, and then all things are clean for you. Luke 11:41

Sell your possessions and give to charity; make yourselves money belts which do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near nor moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. Luke 12:33-34

And He also went on to say to the one who had invited Him, "When you give a luncheon or a dinner, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, otherwise they may also invite you in return and that will be your repayment. But when you give a reception, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, since they do not have the means to repay you; for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous." Luke 14:12-14

For whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because of your name as followers of Christ, truly I say to you, he will not lose his reward. Mark 9:41

But a Samaritan, who was on a journey, came upon him; and when he saw him, he felt compassion, and came to him and bandaged up his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them; and he put him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn and took care of him. On the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper and said, 'Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I return I will repay you.' Luke 10:33-35

And He looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury. And He saw a poor widow putting in two small copper coins. And He said, "Truly I say to you, this poor widow put in more than all of them; for they all out of their surplus put into the offering; but she out of her poverty put in all that she had to live on." Luke 21:1-4

Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven. So when you give to the poor, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be honored by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. But when you give to the poor, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving will be in secret; and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you. Matthew 6:1-4

Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." But when the young man heard this statement, he went away grieving; for he was one who owned much property. And Jesus said to His disciples, "Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." When the disciples heard this, they were very astonished and said, "Then who can be saved?" And looking at them Jesus said to them, "With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." Then Peter said to Him, "Behold, we have left everything and followed You; what then will there be for us?" And Jesus said to them, "Truly I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or farms for My name's sake, will receive many times as much, and will inherit eternal life. But many who are first will be last; and the last, first." Matthew 19:21-30

Looking at him, Jesus felt a love for him and said to him, "One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." But at these words he was saddened, and he went away grieving, for he was one who owned much property. And Jesus, looking around, said to His disciples, "How hard it will be for those who are wealthy to enter the kingdom of God!" The disciples were amazed at His words. But Jesus answered again and said to them, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." They were even more astonished and said to Him, "Then who can be saved?" Looking at them, Jesus said, "With people it is impossible, but not with God; for all things are possible with God." Peter began to say to Him, "Behold, we have left everything and followed You." Jesus said, "Truly I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or farms, for My sake and for the gospel's sake, but that he will receive a hundred times as much now in the present age, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and farms, along with persecutions; and in the age to come, eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and the last, first." Mark 10:21-31

When Jesus heard this, He said to him, "One thing you still lack; sell all that you possess and distribute it to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." But when he had heard these things, he became very sad, for he was extremely rich. And Jesus looked at him and said, "How hard it is for those who are wealthy to enter the kingdom of God! For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." They who heard it said, "Then who can be saved?" But He said, "The things that are impossible with people are possible with God." Peter said, "Behold, we have left our own homes and followed You." And He said to them, "Truly I say to you, there is no one who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who will not receive many times as much at this time and in the age to come, eternal life." Luke 18:22-30

And Paul, recounting the words of the Lord Jesus, said, "In everything I showed you that by working hard in this manner you must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He Himself said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'" (Acts 20:25) New Testament giving is much different than Old Testament tithing. Christians are not under the Law! So why do so many preachers try to place, or keep, their congregants under the Law?

 

Ignorant individuals will always accuse the more mature, biblically-minded Christians of being "greedy," "stingy," "making excuses for people not to give," and "telling people they should not give to their local 'church'." If these people bothered to read anything I have written on the subject, they will see that I have taught no such things. I do teach something similar with regard to the last one because your local "church" does not need your money. The poor do! Typically, your local "church" has more than enough, and even that is more than they deserve. Not only that, but it is not about money to begin with, but rather about food!

 

Are we biblically required to give money to our local "church"? No, you are not! You are not required to pay your "pastor's" salary, nor are you required to pay for the bills and maintenance of the building. This is poor stewardship, and does not meet the biblical requirement for giving. If you want to do so, that is entirely up to you, but the Bible does not contextually teach such a thing anywhere within its pages! It must be derived by means of proof-texting. First John 3:17-18 says, "But whoever has the world's goods, and sees his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him? Little children, let us not love with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth." Acts 2:42-45 says of the early Christians, "They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone kept feeling a sense of awe; and many wonders and signs were taking place through the apostles. And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common; and they began selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need." Jesus Himself said, "For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.' Then the righteous will answer Him, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink? And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?' The King will answer and say to them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.'" (Matthew 25:35-40)

If you are doing anything but what Jesus prescribed, then you are being disobedient to Scripture, ignoring the grace of God, denying the Lord Jesus, and have chosen to obey men with their godless traditions who have placed you under the Law, making it a compulsion for you to give money to your local "church" instead of giving the way God intended and how God intended.

English Bible Versions

There are apparently over 450 English translations in existence. This page is not designed to address each and every single version available, whether as a complete Bible or merely the New Testament alone, but to address the more common or more recent versions. Some versions use a combination of two different approaches to translation, and so they were organized under the translation method that they are identified with and is most recognized within their pages.

Word-for-word (Formal Equivalent) Bibles are actual translations. These versions are usually good, reliable Bibles to use as a study Bible. Thought-for-thought (Dynamic Equivalent) Bibles are interpretations, paraphrases that range from the conservative to the extremely liberal. The conservative versions are usually good Bibles to use as a daily reading Bible, but the liberal versions should be avoided. Paraphrases (Functional Equivalent) are commentaries, and usually extremely bad ones at that. These versions, along with versions that have been completely re-written to favour a particular theological bias, should be avoided like the plague. They are not "Bibles" in the least. Is it not interesting that the further you go on the translation spectrum away from the Literal side, the farther from Jesus you go? As men become bolder with manipulating the Word of God, newer modern thought-for-thought versions are actually and truly paraphrases. “Political correctness” and “gender inclusiveness” are merely terms for liberal interpretation and modern nonsense. These versions are often enjoyed by the lost and the spiritually immature because they accommodate their feelings and opinions.

Whether or not I would recommend any Dynamic Equivalency (thought-for-thought) versions depends on how far they have gone with their “political correctness” and “gender inclusiveness,” as well as their treatment of some very important passages of Scripture. For example, in the original Hebrew for Psalm 8:4-5 and the original Greek for Hebrews 2:7-8, the grammar is in the masculine and the singular. These passages are prophetically referring to the Lord Jesus. If these passages have been translated as gender neutral and plural, then I do not recommend those translations because such a rendering teaches a clear and outright heresy. Mankind is not the fulfillment of those passages.

Political "correctness" and gender neutrality over foolish "offense" is sheer asininity! If you are "offended" over a word (such as "mankind," "man," or "he"), then you have much bigger psychological problems that need to be dealt with in your life. Grow up and get a life!

FORMAL EQUIVALENT (WORD-FOR-WORD) VERSIONS
ALV — American Literary Version (2016)
AMP — Amplified Bible (1965)
ASV — American Standard Version (1901)
BBE — Bible in Basic English (NT:1951; OT: 1949)
BISHOP — Bishop's Bible (1568)
BSB — Berean Study Bible (2016)
COVERDALE — Coverdale Bible (1535)
DBY — Darby Translation (1890)
ESV — English Standard Version (2001)
GNV — Geneva Bible (1560)
GREAT — Great Bible (1539)
KJV — King James Version (1611) [a.k.a. AV — Authorized Version]
LEB — Lexham English Bible (2010)
LSB — Legacy Standard Bible (2021)
LSV — Literal Standard Version (2020)
MATTHEW — Matthew's Bible (1537)
MEV — Modern English Version (2014)
MJLT — Messianic Jewish Literal Translation ()
NASB — New American Standard Bible (1971)
NKJV — New King James Version (1982)
RSV — Revised Standard Version (1952)
RV — Revised Version (1885)
TYN — Tyndale New Testament (1526)
UASV — Updated American Standard Version (2022)
WEB — World English Bible (2000)
WYC — Wycliffe Bible (1388)
YLT — Young's Literal Translation (1862)

DYNAMIC EQUIVALENT (THOUGHT-FOR-THOUGHT) VERSIONS
CEB — Common English Bible (2011)*^
CJB — Complete Jewish Bible (1998)
CSB — Christian Standard Bible (2017) [formerly HCSB (2004)]
EXB — Expanded Bible (2011)
ISV — International Standard Version (2011)
NCV — New Century Version (1991)* [revision of ICB]
NEB — New English Bible (1970)
NET — New English Translation (2005)
NIV — New International Version (1978) [2011 edition*^]
NIVI — New International Version Inclusive (1996)*
NLT — New Living Translation (1996)*
NRSV — New Revised Standard Version (1989)*^
OEB — Open English Bible (NT: 2010; OT: WIP)
REB — Revised English Bible (1989)* [revision of NEB]
TNIV — Today's New International Version (2005)*

FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT (PARAPHRASE) VERSIONS
CEV — Contemporary English Version (1995)*
ERV — Easy-to-Read Version (1989)
GNT — Good News Translation (1976)* [or GNB; a.k.a. TEV]
GW — GOD'S WORD Translation (1995)*
ICB — International Children's Bible (1987)
MSG — The Message (2002)
NIrV — New International Reader's Version (1998)*
TEV — Today's English Version (1976)* [a.k.a. GNT or GNB]
TLB — The Living Bible (1971)
TV — The Voice Translation (2012)

RE-WRITTEN PER-VERSIONS
JST — Joseph Smith Translation (1867) [Mormons]
MB — Mirror Bible (2012) [New Age Mysticism] This version is anti-gospel and anti-Christ.
NWT — New World Translation (1960) [Jehovah's Witnesses]
PWB — Pure Word Bible (2017) [Prophecy Watchers]
QJB — Queen James Bible (2012) [Homosexuals] This version rewrites 8 particular passages.
TPT — The Passion Translation (2017) [New Apostolic Reformation]

CATHOLIC VERSIONS
DRB — Douay-Rheims (NT: 1582; OT: 1609-1610)
JB — Jerusalem Bible (1966)
NAB — New American Bible (1970)*
NJB — New Jerusalem Bible (1985)* [revision of JB]

* = Gender inclusive
^ = Politically correct

The Passion Translation (TPT)

The Passion Translation (TPT) is not only not a "translation," but it also does not qualify as a "paraphrase" or a "really bad commentary." It is a complete re-write of the Scriptures that is not worth the paper it is printed on. Not only does it contain and teach a lot of heresy, such as falsely attributing Psalm 8:4-5 and Hebrews 2:7-8 to mankind instead of the Lord Jesus, but it is also highly endorsed by numerous false teachers, false prophets, and heretics, such as Bill Johnson, Patricia King, Che Ahn, Bobbie Houston, Chuck Pierce, Lou Engle, Andi Andrew, Bianca Juarez Olthoff, etc. Not one single legitimate preacher, theologian, or scholar endorses it! And with good reason.

 

The sole author of this work, Brian Simmons, is part of the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR), which is a huge Charismatic cult with many New Age and other demonic teachings and practices (including "Grave Soaking"). The Passion Translation website makes several extremely concerning statements:

"… the meaning of a passage took priority over the form of the original words. Sometimes in order to communicate the correct intended meaning, words needed to be changed."

"The Passion Translation is more in favor of prioritizing God’s original message over the words’ literal meaning."

In other words, the Bible does not mean what it says and needs to be changed in order to say what it should say—according to the beliefs of its author. This goes beyond the danger of reading the Bible through the filter of your belief system, which is dangerous enough as is, to completely rewriting the Bible according to your belief system.

One of the simplest ways to determine whether a translation is reliable and trustworthy is to examine the above two passages. In both the Hebrew and Greek, the grammar of these passages is not only masculine, but it is also singular. So rendering these passages as gender neutral and plural—referring to the entire human race instead of to the Lord Jesus—results in false teaching and heresy. If a translation cannot remain true to both the original languages and the receiving language, and if the translators cannot pay attention to the context of what they are translating, then that translation is a waste of a perfectly good tree.

This version could be more accurately referred to as the Toilet Paper Translation. This per-version is not only worse than The Living Bible or The Message, but it is also on par with the New World Translation!

Dating Revelation

"For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and WILL THEN REPAY EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS. Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." Matthew 16:27-28

They also said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven." Acts 1:11

BEHOLD, HE IS COMING WITH THE CLOUDS, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen. Revelation 1:7

Reading Revelation 1:7, it is understandable why we want to assign an early date to the writing of John. After all, it says that "even those who pierced Him" would see Him, and how could this be if they are already dead? Apparently there were some kind of angelic appearances in the sky in A.D. 66, which many attribute to the coming of the Lord. While this may have been a fulfillment of some kind, or at least a sign of some kind, it still remains extremely problematic.

First, Irenaeus, the disciple of Polycarp who was the disciple of the apostle John, vies for a later date.

Second, the internal text says that John was on the Isle of Patmos at the time of his writing. External evidence says he was exiled there during the reign of Domitian, which was well after A.D 70. Clement of Alexandria says he returned from Patmos after the death of Domitian.

Third, when Paul wrote to the Ephesians in A.D. 61-63, he commended them for their love. It is doubtful to believe that in just 3 years Jesus would be admonishing them for having left their first love. Not to mention, if Timothy was in Ephesus looking after the church there, after Paul had founded the church in Ephesus, when did the apostle John look after them?

Many good arguments can be raised based on how certain individual verses are written, but we cannot isolate certain verses at the expense of others. We need to pay attention to everything. When Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple, His disciples had asked Him two questions. The answer to the first was fulfilled in A.D. 70. There was likely a sign in connection with this, such as the angelic appearances in A.D. 66, but the Second Coming of Jesus did not occur. Even the text of Matthew 16:27-28 opposes this belief. Was "every man" repaid "according to his deeds"? Were every man's works tested and judged? Did the separation of goats and sheep happen? No! Of course not. The resurrection of all men, some to eternal destruction and some to eternal life, never happened on this date. The judgment of all men never happened on this date. The destruction of sin and the defeat of death never happened on this date.

The Bible makes it clear that when Jesus returns, sin and death will be defeated, all mankind will be judged, and eternity will be ushered in. Men will no longer be able to sin. Death will no longer reign. There will be no need for faith and hope. All of these are things that still persist today. So clearly Jesus could not have returned already. Not to mention that Acts 1:11 says He will return exactly as He left. It does not say He will merely return in the clouds. Again, if He merely returned in the clouds without stepping down on Earth, and all true believers were "raptured" to Him at this time, that means the Holy Spirit would have been removed and there would be no way for anyone post A.D. 66 to be preached to and come to a knowledge of the Saviour. That means that there should be records of mass groups of people suddenly vanishing, or, better yet, being witnessed of being received into the sky. This kind of event would definitely make the news.

Also, if Revelation was written earlier than A.D. 70, because there is no mention of the destruction of Jesusalem, then the Gospel of John would have to be written later than A.D. 70 for the same reason. Do you really believe that if Revelation were written prior to A.D. 70, with the destruction of Jerusalem on John's mind, that he would not have written in his Gospel to warn people to flee the pending destruction, which was only about 4 years away? Either way, the full Preterist view fails because there are books of the Bible written after A.D. 70 and there are events fulfilled after A.D. 70.

Emperor Nero is not the "Anti-Christ." This calculation fails on numerous accounts. First, you have to use Hebrew in order to calculate it. Second, you have to add his title—"Caesar"—to his name in order for it to work. Third, you have to drop one of the Hebrew letters in order for the calculation to work out correctly. Fourth, you have to use Latin in order to calculate the variant of 616. The book was written in Greek. It calls Jesus the Alpha and Omega, which are the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet. In order to calculate the name, you have to use Greek—not Hebrew and not Latin. Titus is a much better fit for the "Anti-Christ" as his name—in Greek—amounts to 666, as does the word "Lateinos" (Λατεινος) and the phrase "the Latin Empire" (η Λατινη Βασιλεια).

By the way, under Nero, Peter and Paul were murdered. If the book of Revelation were written during the time of Nero, why would Nero merely exile John? It is extremely inconsistent with his practices. But it is entirely consistent with Domitian's tortures.

Constantine NEVER Became A Christian!

Christians and historians argue for the conversion of Emperor Constantine to Christianity in the year A.D. 312. However, despite the glaring ignorance of both these groups of people (which sometimes overlap), and the plethora of webpages chock full of error and misinformation, Constantine never converted to Christianity!

Constantine never became a Christian! This fact is supported from his having murdered three of his own family members—his eldest son, his nephew, and his brother-in-law—after having supposedly "converted" to Christianity. Do I have to remind anyone what the Bible has to say on this subject?

Constantine was a sun worshiper long before his supposed "conversion," and he remained one long after it. In fact, Constantine was highly superstitious. In order to cover all his bases, he included the God of Christianity among the plethora of gods he already worshiped.

Emperor Constantine modeled his "church" buildings after the pagan temples and Roman state buildings. Constantine introduced temples into Christianity, where none had existed prior, in order to give a legitimacy to it. Every other religion had their temples, including Judaism, and now so would Christianity. He even named each of his temples after dead saints the way the pagans named theirs after their gods. Christianity was effectively married to the Roman culture under Constantine, and it has stuck ever since.

Constantine also introduced the priestly caste, modeled after the Roman state (for clothing) and pagan religions (for rituals). Though the Church began seeing signs of it during the second century, this was the first time that the Church was divided into two classes—the clergy and the laity. Clergy were viewed as more spiritual Christians, while the laity were viewed as lesser Christians. Many different groups have created their own versions of this two-class system, including Dispensationalism, which teaches the classes of spiritual and carnal Christians. Others teach a "second blessing" distinction. All different ways of men trying to make themselves out to be better than their peers.

Constantine gathered pagan relics from all over the empire and decorated his "Christian" temples with them. Under Constantine, Christians received their own sacred temples, their own sacred priestly caste, and their own sacred relics. Priests even began to receive pay for delivering their message. This "Christianity" was modeled after the world. All its worship practices find their origins in the Roman state and the pagan religions. These pagan practices still exist within most denominations to this day! The Church has never recovered from this.

To the flesh, it might have appeared to be a good thing for the Church to suddenly be on top. No more persecution. Money from the empire provided for her. She had become protected. But this is not the way in which we learned the Lord Jesus. This is not what the Scriptures teach us. If you read carefully through each book of the New Testament, you will find that every single book promises believers suffering via trials, tribulations, and persecution. That is what we have to look forward to, which is why Jesus told us to count the cost of what it means to follow Him. Are we prepared to give up everything for Him?

The same is happening once again. While President Donald Trump has accomplished many great things (not only in his first term, but within his first year), nevertheless the protections he is providing for the Church are not necessarily good things. Yes, they appeal to our flesh, but they are contrary to the promises of Scripture. They might look like blessings for believers, but as with Constantine they are more than likely going to turn out to be curses for the Church. Christians who look for this kind of security and glory in it are not very good Christians, if Christians at all. Following Jesus in this life is not about peace, comfort, and security. If that is why you came to Christ, you came under false pretenses through a false gospel, which means your root is most likely extremely shallow and at the first sign of trouble you will eject from the faith.

Because Christians gathered on the first day of the week after sunset—Sunday, and since most of the empire celebrated the Unconquerable Sun on Sunday, Constantine made Sunday a legal holiday to be a day of rest. St. Peter's in Rome reveals a mosaic of Christ as the Unconquerable Sun (Sol Invictus), demonstrating Constantine's affinity for sun worship. His title was Pontifex Maximus, which means "Chief of the Pagan Priests." Constantine functioned as the high priest of paganism to his dying day. He even used pagan magic formulas to protect crops and heal diseases. If he had ever converted to Christianity, this would not be a title he would appropriate.

With all that you learn about Emperor Constantine, not only was he not the first Emperor to convert to Christianity, but he never converted to Christianity. He was a pagan until his dying day. Everything he did to the Church opened the doors for pagans to call themselves "Christians" all the while bringing their pagan practices into the Church and corrupting it from the inside out. The same practices exist within Catholicism today. But other denominations are not exempt because their worship practice is modeled after the Roman state and the pagan religions. The Church today is a far cry from the Church of the early Christians.