Bible Correcting: Bishops and Churches I

Recently I came across an article by Cooper Abrams III asserting that the word 'ekklesia' ought not to have been translated 'church', but as 'assembly' or 'congregation'. My contention is that both 'assembly' and 'congregation' – though better than 'church' – are still poor choices to translate 'ekklesia' and that it would be easier to teach and spread 'ekklesia' itself than to infuse these other words with the ekklesia concept. After that I encountered a counter article by Will Kinney criticizing Abrams' assertions, defending the use of the words 'church' (as opposed to 'assembly' or 'congregation') and 'bishop' (as opposed to 'overseer') and making the case that the King James is right in all it says and does.

According to Kinney's article I guess I am a 'Bible Corrector'.

Just for the record I think the King James translators did a fine job and produced a good solid translation, but that is all they did. I in no way believe that the King James is The translation for all English speaking peoples, and further assert that those who carry this philosophy so far as to say that you must have the KJV to be saved are in grave error, to the point of heresy. (Not that either of these two men assert that to my knowledge.) A translation of the Word of God is not of itself the Word of God, but a translation of it. It is a work of men, though a good one, and subject to correction and better understanding. On the high side, these men were barely out of the Reformation and still had a very medieval/Catholic frame of reference regarding the Scriptures. On the low side, these men were appointed by James to perform this work primarily for political reasons, and were specifically restricted by James to established ecclesiastical terminology so as not to rock the completely unbiblical Church of England boat.

I understand why the idea of 'correcting' the Bible would make some sincere believers queasy, especially 'King James Only' believers. To this I simply say that I am not correcting The Bible, I am correcting Translations of the Bible. There is a difference, and it is an important difference. I fully believe that the Bible is our complete and inerrant guide to all matters of living, belief, and practice; individually and corporately. It was given by the Holy Spirit, and is not open to input or feedback from mere humans. Translations of the Bible are not so. They are translated by human beings and we need to take that into consideration when we read them and when we form and teach doctrine or practice from them.


Bishop

I'd like to start with the word 'bishop' simply because that is the easier case to make. Let me begin with what is really a minor point: Kinney going to have a hard time convincing people that 'bishopric' is "...not at all archaic" while using such a phrase as, "I trow not."

The word 'bishop' is a relic from a dark and bygone age when both the scriptures and the truths of scripture were brutally suppressed.

It is interesting and encouraging to me that Kinney correctly recognizes that 'elders', 'shepherds', and 'overseers' are all synonyms for the same biblical office, and that there are to be a plurality of them in each ekklesia – as opposed to a singular clergyman, i.e. 'The Pastor'. Since in Eph 4:11 Paul links the terms Shepherd-Teacher I further assert that many if not most of the references in the NT to 'teachers' are also using this term as a fourth synonym. Thus, in 1 Tim 2:12 (NKJV) "..and I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man..." Paul is in fact referring to elders, since elders are 'those who teach and exercise authority', and he then continues this line of thought in 3:1: i.e., "I do not permit a woman to be an elder ... however if a man desires the office of an overseer, he desires a good work." So we are in agreement on this point.

There are, however, real problems with the idea of using 'bishop' as a synonym for elder, particularly as the King James Translators did not intend it in this way.

• I agree that most translations have followed the lead of earlier translations by rendering 'episkopos' as 'bishop'. Prudence indeed dictates that we should take note of this fact and take care in our consideration of how to understand this subject. But the number of translations on this 'side' does not make it correct. Truth is not a popularity contest.

• From a strictly linguistic standpoint, 'overseer' is the preferable way to translate 'episkopos'. Kinney states, "...'bishop' is the more literal word [than 'overseer'] coming from the Greek New Testament and it means to watch over another." This is incorrect. 'Bishop' is not a translation of 'episkopos' at all, it is a transliteration, which is a very different thing. Clearly, 'overseer' is as literal a translation as you could possibly have for the word 'epi-skopos', and is much more informative to the reader than 'bishop'. The only reason to prefer 'bishop' in translation would be from some potential cultural or social consideration that outweighed mere translation.

• From a cultural/social standpoint, everything about the word 'bishop' mitigates against its usage in translation of the NT. The plain fact of the matter is that everybody knows that a 'bishop' is a high-falutin' guy with a funny hat like the Impressive Clergyman in The Princess Bride. This statement has a comical edge to be sure, and may seem as though I am merely in jest or making light of the question, but actually I am dead serious. We may live in an age where you can turn on the TV and see 'Bishop' Eddie Long, or 'Bishop' Clarence McClendon (neither of which do I recommend), but the plain, straightforward fact of the matter is that the King James Translators knew first-hand exactly what a real live bishop really was. You can try to fool yourself about the meaning and intent of the inclusion of this word in the King James Translation, but those translators lived in the days of real-life, funny hat wearin', unbiblical, persecuting-the-true-believers Bishops (some of the translators apparently went on to be bishops), and this was precisely what they knew by experience and had in mind and yet purposefully included in the King James Bible. You cannot get around that. They knew what a Bishop was, and that was how they chose to translate the word 'episkopos'.

• The usage of the term 'bishop' keeps the waters really muddy about true ekklesia life and government. It is hard to get the majority of Christians to remotely conceive of the idea that there is not supposed to be a 'The Pastor' at their 'church' – or even to conceive of why they should take the time to try to conceive of it. And when their Bible throws in inaccurate, dated, socially charged terms like 'bishop' for 'overseer', or 'Pastor' in Eph 4:11 when it should have said 'shepherd', you have to work all that much harder to get them to see through that churchy mindset. These harmful and unbiblical constructs have been at the center of the 'church' frame of reference for so long that it is quite difficult to get someone to seriously consider the idea that all of what they have known about 'churches' and Christianity all their lives is somehow in error and actually unbiblical. They think of these things as being specifically Biblical, because, after all, their Bible says 'Pastor', and it says 'Bishop'. There it is in black and white right before them.

I am not in agreement with everything that Cooper Abrams said in his article, but I am completely in agreement with his point that, "We can be sympathetic to their situation; but the fact remains that the King James Bible translators and the translators in modern times have had the opportunity to correct this error, yet they failed to do so and contributed to muddying the waters and sadly have upheld a misconception of what a biblical New Testament church should be as the Lord Jesus Christ instituted it." How ironic that Kinney should say that it is we who are trying to clarify these points that are muddying the waters!

It makes a difference! Even though I know and am fully settled in my mind that there is no 'The Pastor' Biblically, I tell you it was a hard won settlement and knowledge, as our house sought out answers to questions while we knew of no place to turn for answers but to the Word itself, and, when we found the answers, found them shrouded in misleading language. It makes a real difference if your Bible says, "..gave some to be pastors and teachers..' instead of 'shepherds and teachers', or better yet, 'shepherd-teachers'. To get over this translational hurdle it is crucial to know that the word behind 'pastors' is actually 'poimen' which is not 'pastor' but 'shepherd', was rendered in all other instances as 'shepherd', and was rendered 'pastor' only here – and without any linguistic justification at all. But it is not enough merely to know about it so that you can do mental gymnastics on the fly as you read, and the kicker is that there is no signpost in your Bible to alert readers to this fact. There is nothing to say, "Pay attention to this particular spot because there is an important issue lurking behind the language!" Without that signpost it can take a long time to stumble across the truth – if you stumble across it at all – as the condition of the 'church' plainly shows.

It should have been translated that way from the beginning. Since it hasn't, it needs to be 'corrected' now. It should have been corrected already.

The whole, entire purpose of a translation is so that people will be able to read and absorb the truths of scripture in their own language! Because it is a barrier to personal growth in Christ for the scriptures to be available only in Greek and Hebrew, men began to translate these truths into the native tongues, and many died for so doing but thought the price worth paying. However, if the translation is done in such a way that the translation itself remains a barrier to understanding, while seeming to have removed the barriers, then most of our brothers and sisters in Christ will never jump over them at all! They will be to them not a hurdle to jump over, but a rope to merely cordon them off and keep them moving in a limited and skewed direction, as it is in fact to this day. We have generations and continents filled with men and women who have named the name of Christ, but have walked in the darkness of churchy, clerical ignorance – working churchy, clerical works – all the while fully believing that this darkness is the light intended in the Bible.

The translators of the various translations have had every opportunity to clear this situation up, yet have refused to do so.