The plea for today needs to be, “search for the ancient order of things,” for all who are, or would be religious. The need to be religious is seen in the many churches throughout the land. New church buildings are springing up and old buildings are being restored and turned into places of worship. Such places of worship are seen in strip malls and main streets in small-town America. The desire of some is to be “undenominational,” the names on the building betray the claim of truly being “undenominational” as the name simply identifies another denomination!
If you were to ask, what is the authority for the church identified on the building, the answer is generally, “The Bible.” Second question, did they “search for the ancient order of things” before starting this new church; to which is replied, “No! We already knew what we believed.” Third question, did they look around to learn if another church in the area believes the same thing they do, before putting the sign with the new name on it? The answer is heard, “No, But we have been members of a number of these churches and we desired something different.” So, in such cases, what about “the search for the ancient order of things?” Was there a true desire to be the church established by Jesus?
Churches of Christ today, as in by-gone years, must send a clear and unmistakable sound; understanding: “for if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?” (1 Cor. 14:8). If there are people who desire to be religious, and there are, then the churches of Christ must sound the trumpet of truth; inspire in the hearts of men and women a desire to “search for the ancient order of things.” If not the churches of Christ, then who will sound the trumpet? James questioned, as he reached into the spirit of the churches of Christ: “Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin” (James 4:17). Does this apply to the churches of Christ? “Good” being understood in the mission of the church, as Paul said in another place: “… the church, Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all” (Eph. 1:22-23). Can the churches of Christ be “the fullness of him that filleth all in all” and fail to do good? The greatest good on earth is teaching the soul saving gospel of Christ to the lost!
Yet, the question keeps returning, how do the churches of Christ build a desire in others for a true “search for the ancient order of things?” It must be made known, being religious is not sufficient; as Jesus condemned religious people! Religious people are driving others away from Christianity! There are by implying that salvation is whatever one desires it to be; by building church buildings wherein is taught that whatever their hearts desire them to do is all right with the “King of kings and Lord of lords,” that it is not true! Taking one verse and building a religion on it is far from “the teaching of Christ,” and does not involve “the search for the ancient order of things!” These folks gladly preach there is one God, one Lord, one Spirit, 2,000 bodies, 3,000 faiths, any number of ways to be baptized and for just as many reasons, and yet, all will give you the one hope. Where is the honest seeker of truth, who will “search for the ancient order of things” and who will not stop the search until it is found?
Is heaven nothing more than a trip to the store to purchase a candy bar? Yes, even a candy bar of your choice! Heaven is the end location of the church Jesus built, not for any other church! Truth is more than a candy bar! Just buy one that is suited to your taste! So, just go out and join the church of your choice; and if you cannot locate one, then, just start another one. Put in it only things of your choice!
Friends, has it never occurred to you, even though Jesus gave you the freedom of will, he keeps saying, it must be the church of my choice if you are to be saved? You see, the Lord adds to his church those who are being saved (Acts 2:47). It was with his efforts that she was built, his blood that purchased her (Acts 20:28), his teaching that feeds her, and his words that will invite her into heaven. Who said, “Church of your choice?” Do you not have enough interest in your own salvation to “search for the ancient order of things?”

— Frank R. Williams

Many people are seeking “religious” fulfillment today, but they are looking in the wrong place to find it. Many of these folks are seeking for personal satisfaction. Just being religious is not the answer, as people have always been religious. Two simple questions will help us understand the point: 1) Were people religious in the time of Jesus? and 2)  Was their religion acceptable to Jesus? Of course, people were religious in the time of Jesus and throughout Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; it is made most clear that Jesus was not happy with their religion!
Just before the year 1800 arrived, there was a desire within the hearts of a few people in early America for the religion established by Jesus. We know this religion as Christianity! Before going further, there is a need to understand and identify what the word “Christianity” means. It is the religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth; believed and obeyed. You really do not have “Christianity” without belief in and obedience to the teaching of Christ! It is generally called New Testament Christianity, as it is in the New Testament that we find the person of Jesus revealed and his teaching recorded. It is of divine origin; meaning the teaching came from God, not man. It does not come in “brands;” it is either “the teaching of Christ,” or it is not Christianity!
This brings our study to the words: “the search for the ancient order of things!” It may be most comforting, pleasing to the heart, and emotionally satisfying, to become part of what is today called, “undenominational” Christianity, but each of these bodies have designed their religion after their own desires. They are for the most part, a feel good religion! Here it is good to recall the words of Jesus in the first century: “This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” (Matt. 15:8-9). Clearly, people may appear to honor Jesus with their lips, in what they teach, pray, and sing, while their heart is far from Jesus. No, these folks do not “feel” that their hearts are far from him; they feel comforted, happy; they are sure in their own hearts that they are near God! So, when does this happen? It happens when the teaching being followed is of man, when believed and obeyed, it is vain! It must be understood, the only way to draw near to God, to enjoy being saved, and having hope of heaven, is to believe and obey “the teaching of Christ!” Therefore, it is incumbent upon all to go in “search for the ancient order of things!”
The words, “the search for the ancient order of things,” refer to an honest search of “Christianity” as revealed in the New Testament. Remember, “Christianity” is nothing more and it is nothing less than “the teaching of Christ!” Salvation can only be found in “the ancient order,” the “order” revealed by the inspired writers of the New Testament. Salvation cannot be found in the teaching of men; no matter how comforting, pleasing, and emotionally satisfying such teaching may be. To all who desire to be saved, now and eternally, a fire must burn within the heart for “the search of the ancient order of things!” Paul said to those in Athens, “I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious” (Acts 17:22). The words, “too superstitious,” (the Greek, deisidaimonesteros) means, they were more religious than others. They were religiously wrong, but religious! They desired to hear something new, maybe even something that brought comfort to their itching ears! But, they were not in “search for the ancient order of things!”
As Peter said: “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). There is no real difference, if we were to change the word “name” to “the teaching of Christ.” Therefore, let us do so: “Neither is there salvation in any other (teaching): for there is none other teaching under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” Friends, you cannot separate Jesus from his teaching! Remember what Christianity is: “It is the religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth; believed and obeyed.” Therefore, religious people need to “the search for the ancient order of things,” as this is the need of the day!

— Frank  R. Williams

Over the last number of years the subject of “undenominational Christianity” has made the headlines. Has it ever occurred to anyone that Christianity is undenominational by its very nature? What is denominational about it : one God, one Lord, one Spirit, one faith, one baptism, one body, and one hope (Eph. 4:4-6)? How do you “denominate” one?
Just what does this word mean? Merriam-Webster gives as the first meaning to the word “denominate:” to give a name to. So, how can you be “undenominational” while giving a name to the group you are a member of? Among some of the first things done by a new group, desiring to be known as “undenominational,” is to put a name on the building and on a sign in front of the building. Take a look at some names found on church buildings: Harvest International Family Church, the Community of Faith, The Church Without Walls, Pathway Church, and the Antioch Community Church. It is here confessed, there is much creativity in these names, but just what do they tell you about those who are members? What do they teach and what do they believe? Yet, the greater question, from where did these names come? Jesus asked about the baptism of John, from heaven or men? The New Testament has not one word about any of these names; therefore, they do not come from heaven! They are very denominational!
On the other hand, the churches of Christ in America have from the early years of this nation, sent forth the clear call of the only true undenominational teaching; Christianity as revealed in the New Testament! It is a call to fellowship with God and Christ as expressed in the words of John, the apostle of Christ: “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine (teaching, FRW) of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son” (2 John 9). Whatever these so-called “undenominational” churches teach, it is not “the teaching of Christ;” therefore, it is not “undenominational.” Each one of these churches “denominates” itself by name and teaching!
A look from another perspective will be helpful just here. Paul wrote: “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10). By the authority of Christ, Paul wrote: “that there be no divisions among you!” When there is “division” between two churches, at least one of them is denominational! It is possible that both are denominational, but it is certain that one is denominational.
In the New Testament, there are at least twenty-two phrases by which the church is described; but never denominated! Look at just a few of these descriptions: 1) “the church, which is his body” (Eph. 1:22-23); 2) “the household of faith” (Gal. 6:10); 3) “the house of God, which is the church of the living God” (1 Tim. 3:15); 4) “he church of God” (1 Cor. 1:2); 5) “the temple of God” (2 Cor. 6:16) and 6) “The churches of Christ” (Rom. 16:16). Do you see any denominationalism in any of these phrases? If so, look again! There is no division, and not one phrase denominates, as each phrase, each term, is addressing the “one body” of which Paul wrote in Ephesus chapter four, and verse four. Remember, division points to sin; for it means some teaching other than the teaching of Christ has entered and produced division!
Read with care Paul’s words to the Corinthians: “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty” (2 Cor. 6:14-18).
Yes, the desire should be for an undenominational church, but the only true undenominational church is the “one body,” that abides in the “one faith,” practices the “one baptism,” worships the “one Father, serves the “one Lord,” obeys the revelation of the “one Spirit,” and looks forward in the “one hope.” Another name is just another denomination!

— Frank R. Williams

The news media, from time to time, gives us subjects that need the attention of Christians. This is the case when a law was passed by the Congress in the state of Arizona. The Governor, Jan Brewer, vetoed the bill, but it got a lot of attention before she did so. It is not the purpose of this article to deal with the specfic bill, but with the subject it affords us the opportunity to address: “The Christian and the Homosexual.”
Please notice the order of the words, “the Christian and the homosexual,” and not the homosexual and the Christian. This article will deal with the manner the Christian is to relate to the homosexual. Let it be said at the beginning of the article, there is a manner of conduct that is incumbent upon a Christian and it does not change! The apostle Paul wrote to young Timothy the following: “But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God” (1 Tim. 3:15). First, the word, “oughtest” (dei) means: it is necessary, as in “binding.” Therefore, it is a necessary and binding behavior “in the house of God, which is the church of the living God.” Second, the word “behave” (anastrepho) is here used metaphorically, in the middle voice, which means, this is something one does for himself. The word is translated in the English “conversation,” in Ephesus: “among whom also we all had our conversation (anastrepho) in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others” (Eph. 2:3). Here the apostle is writing about their former “conversation” (anastrepho); their former behavior. Therefore, when the apostle in the text of 1 Timothy 3:15 uses the word “behave” (anastrepho), he is addressing the manner of life, and there is a necessary manner of behavior incumbent upon all who are in the “house of the living God.”
Now, the question before us; what is the behavior as it relates to the Christian and the homosexual? There are certain commandments given by Jesus that are necessary parts of this required behavior. First, let it be understood in general, a Christian never mistreats anyone! Second, we are to love our neighbor, and our neighbor is defined by Jesus when he said: “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” (Mark 12:31). This is, of course, the second of the two greatest commandments. Thayer says of the word “neighbor,” that it means: “according to Christ, any other man irrespective of nation or religion with whom we live or whom we chance to meet.” Well now, this gets right to the heart of our subject: “The Christian and the homosexual.” We live among people of whom some are homosexuals and we come in contact with them. The necessary behavior does not change in such cases; no, not for the Christian!
The Christian must be kind toward all humankind. Just for a test case, look at Jesus and Judas Iscariot. Was Jesus ever unkind to Judas? Did Jesus ever mistreat Judas? He identified him as the one who would betray him, and he did say unto him: “woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born” (Mark 14:21). These words express truth, but they are not unkind! They even express condemnation, but they are not unkind! Here is a good place to recall what Jesus said: “And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise” (Luke 6:31). Therefore, it is not unkind to point out truth, as it relates to another’s spiritual state. At the same time, the sinner may think it unkind; however, “kindness” is not defined by mankind, but God.
This naturally brings us to another point. It is not unkind to speak the truth! However, it is true that one can speak the truth unkindly! Paul wrote: “But speaking the truth in love” (Eph. 4:25). First, speak the truth in love of God; and second, speak the truth for the sake of one’s own soul; and third, speak the truth in love of others. If love is not the motivation for speaking, then it is best not to speak!
The person who is a practicing homosexual is no different than a practicing drunkard, in that both are sinners! Both are lost and in need of the gospel of Christ! Paul wrote of the Corinthians: “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor. 6:9-11).
The keys words in the Corinthians passage are: “and such were some of you.” They were no longer practicing such things and one of these practices was homosexuality.

— Frank R. Williams

In this final article, a study of the word “church,” the Greek “ekklesia,” attention is called to the Greek scholar Erasmus (1466-1536) and how he translated the Greek “ekklesia” into Latin. In his translation of the Greek New Testament into Latin, he sometimes translated the word “ekklesia” into the Latin words, “concio,” “congregatio,” and “ecclesia.” So, what do these Latin words means?
First, the Latin word “concio” is from “con” + “cieo” and means to summon. The verb means to: bring, assemble, or urge together, collect, muster. Clearly, it does not refer to a physical structure, or authoritative body. It does not relate to the words “Catholic Church,” which is a physical authoritative body.
Second, the Latin word “congregatio” is from “con” + “greg,” (flock) and means “to gather together.” The point being this word is not limited to a “religious” usage. It might refer to a gathering of a flock of ducks. Therefore, it is unlike the modern word “church,” which is limited to a “religious” use. However, this Latin word does not relate to the words, “Catholic Church.”
Third, the word “ecclesia.” There is a real question about this word. Is it Latin, or is it Greek? It is easy to see that the only difference is the two letters, “kk” and “cc” following the first letter “e.” It does appear that all Jerome did, when he translated the Greek word “ekklesia,” was to simply change the letter “k” to “c.” This means, in our efforts to learn the meaning, we must fall back to the Greek word, “ekklesia.” This word means, a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly. This word does not give itself to the idea of authority; as do the words “Catholic Church.”
The reader may be wondering, what is all this about, and rightfully so. Let us go back to the basics here. The Greek word “ekklesia” appears 115 times in the New Testament. It is translated into our English word “church,” but in the following verses, it is translated as “assembly:”
Acts 19:32 – “Some therefore cried one thing, and some another: for the assembly (ekklesia) was confused; and the more part knew not wherefore they were come together;
Acts 19:39 But if ye enquire any thing concerning other matters, it shall be determined in a lawful assembly (ekklesia).
Acts 19:41 And when he had thus spoken, he dismissed the assembly (ekklesia).
Clearly in these three cases the word “ekklesia” has no reference to what is today known as the “church.” This means this word is translated into the English “church” 112 times. Yet, one time it has nothing to do with what is today called the “church.” It is as follows:
“This is he, that was in the church (ekklesia) in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us” (Acts 7:38).
As in the other three cases, it is easy to see the word “ekklesia” is not used in any way referring to what Jesus meant in his words: “I will build my ekklesia.” (Matt. 16:18). As Stephen was referring to the children of Israel having departed from Egypt. Therefore, the word “ekklesia” is used in reference to God’s people in the New Testament 111 times.
Yet, it must be noted, if we are to get the best understanding of the word “ekklesia,” that it is also used in the New Testament, in a few cases where it should be translated into the English word “assembly.” So, where do we find such? The following will answer our question:
1 Cor. 14:4 – He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church (ekklesia – assembly).
1 Cor. 14:12 – Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church (ekklesia – assembly)
1 Cor. 14:33 – For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches (ekklesia – assembly) of the saints.
1 Cor. 14:34 – Let your women keep silence in the churches (ekklesia – assembly): for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
1 Cor. 14:35 – And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church (ekklesia – assembly).
It should also be noted that the word “congregation” would not be the best translation of the “ekklesia” in a few verses. For instance,
1 Cor. 14: 34 – “Let your women keep silence in the churches (assemblies).”
First, Paul cannot mean that women are not allowed to speak, once they are part of the “ekklesia;” as this word is used to refer to the universal body of the saved, the “ekklesia.”
If this were the case, women would never be allowed to speak again after obeying the gospel! Therefore, Paul cannot be using the word “ekklesia” to refer to the universal “ekklesia.” Second, the word is plural, and even the English word “congregations” might not express the word clearly. For example, the Barnes congregation is the Barnes congregation on Monday, when not assembled and on Sunday when assembled together for worship. Therefore, the word “congregation” may refer to local Christians unassembled, or local Christians assembled. However, the English word “assembly,” for the most part, identifies a gathering. Though this is not always the case! Nevertheless, the word “ekklesia” is best understood in the above verses by the word assembly, or assemblies. Therefore, when translating the word “Ekklesia,” care must be given to get the best English word, be it “congregation,” or “assembly.”
The point of these articles has been to help with a better understanding of the Greek word “ekklesia,” and the English word “church.” The word “church” has been separated from other words and is used in a religious sense; whereas this was not the case with the word which was the Holy Spirit’s choice when putting inspiration in the writers of the New Testament. It was never the Holy Spirit’s intention to convey any universal “ekklesia” authority! The “church,” the “ekklesia” never establishes authority; no one on earth today speaks for Christ. The “church” is under and submits to the authority of Christ, as written in the New Testament!
The “church,” the “ekklesia,” is built upon the authority of Christ; the New Testament being the foundation of the “church,” the “ekklesia;” and she only works through local autonomous bodies!

— Frank R. Williams

The word “church” is not a word used by the inspired writers of the New Testament! It is not a true translation of the Greek word “ekklesia.” Of course, you are saying, the writers of the New Testament wrote in Greek and the word “church” is an English word. However, there is more to the story than this simple thought. This English word conveys thoughts and brings to mind what the inspired writers never intended when they wrote the word “ekklesia” in the inspired text! This is also true when Jesus said: “I will build my ekklesia” (Matt. 16:18); he was not talking about building what is now known as a “church.”
The Greek word “ekklesia,” and what it really means was not acceptable as early as the time of Jerome (340-420). Jerome translated the Greek New Testament and what is known as the “Old Latin,” into Latin, near the end of the third and start of the fourth centuries A.D. His translation became known as the Latin Vulgate. It needs to be remembered, the language of the Roman Empire, was changing from Greek to Latin during the time Jesus was crucified. Recall that a superscription was written and place over the head of Jesus: “in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS” (Luke 23:38). This reveals the change in language in the Roman Empire. Over time, the Vulgate would become the accepted version, and equal to the Old Latin Version. In fact, Pope Gregory the Great did just this in the 6th century and by the 12th century the Vulgate was the common version in the Catholic Church. The point here, which made necessary the brief history, is what Jerome did when coming to the Greek word “ekklisia.” Did he translate it into Latin? It appears he did not! He just used the Latin spelling, “ecclesia.” For Example in Acts 8:1, the Latin says “facta est autem in illa die persecutio magna in ecclesia quae erat Hierosolymis et omnes dispersi sunt per regiones Iudaeae et Samariae praeter apostolos.” Here only the spelling is slightly changed, from “ekklesia” to “ecclesia.” But, the question: Why not translate the Greek word into Latin?
It was not due to a scarcity of Latin words for assembly, or congregation, as “contio” and “comitia” were often translated into Greek by ekklesia, when translating from Latin to Greek; and when the Latin is translated into English, the translator would have used the words “assembly” or “congregation” for the Latin “conito.” These Latin words were commonly used when referring to an assembly. It would not do for Jerome to translate the word “ekklesia” into the Latin, “contio, or “comitia” for these words mean, assembly. Remember, the word “ekklesia” is not used in the New Testament only a religious term (Acts 19:32, 39). But, the word “ekklseia” had taken on just such a use by the time of Jerome; as in the “Catholic Ekklseia” – the Catholic Church! However, the word “ekklesia” was never used in the Greek world as a title, for anything, let alone a religious group, as it was during the time of Jerome; such as the “Catholic Ekklesia.” Therefore, it would not do for Jerome to translate the word “ekklesia” into the Latin, “contio, or “comitia” for these words mean, assembly. It would never do to have the “Catholic Assembly.” You see, the word “ekklesia” had taken on a religious title, and stood for an origination of authority, by the time of Jerome (347 – 420 A.D.)!
It should also be kept in mind, even by the end of the first century, the great apostasy (2 Thess. 2:3-10) of which Paul wrote was in the works! The title, “Catholic Ekklesia,” was used as early as the second century. It was done to emphasize the universal scope. The word “catholic” coming from the Greek “katholikos” and means “universal.” Now understand, there is nothing wrong with talking, or writing, about the universal “ekklesia.”. When Paul wrote to Timothy, he did just this, but did so without using the word “universal.” He wrote: “But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the ekkllesia (church) of the living God,…” (1 Tim. 3:15). The singular “house of God, which is the ekklesia of the living God,” is referring to all children of God; thus, the one universal “house of God,” the “one body” (Eph. 4:4).
In conclusion, let us recall William Tyndale and his translation of the Greek New Testament into English. He consistently translated the Greek “ekklesia” into the English “congregation” or “assembly.” Now, do you remember what happened to him? He was convicted of heresy by the Catholics, executed by strangulation (1536), and later his body was burnt at the stake. Why? Because he dared translate the Greek “ekklesia” into the English “congregation;” thus, cutting all ties of the Catholic Church with the New Testament! The challenge is sent out to each reader, go on the internet and search the Greek word “ekklesia.”

— Frank R. Williams

It is interesting to learn that the first English translation of the Greek New Testament, did not translate the Greek word “ekklesia” into the English word “church.” This makes a student of the New Testament to question, why was this is the case? Then, into what English word was the Greek word “ekklesia” translated before it came to be translated “church?” Next question, why is this important to a student of the New Testament?
The first translation of the Greek New Testament into English was done by William Tyndale and he did not translate the Greek “ekklesia” into the English word “church.” So, into what English word did Tyndale translate “ekklesia?” Tyndale did his translation in 1525 A.D. He translated the Greek word into the English word, “congregation.” Tyndale was arrested, jailed, then convicted of heresy and executed by strangulation. Then, his body was burnt at the stake. Though Catholics deny it, it is believed he was put to death because he translated the Bible into English without the approval of the Catholic Church. After his death, his friend, John Rogers, completed the work of translating the Old Testament into English, but used the pen name, “Thomas Matthew,” and this translation became known as the Matthew’s Bible in 1537. He also translated the word “ekklesia” into the English “congregation. It is also important to note, as the subject is studied, the next English translation was in 1539 and is known as the Great Bible, and it also used the word “congregation” and not the English word “church” in translating the Greek “ekklesia.”
This makes us wonder, when was the first time the Greek word “ekklesia” was translated into the English word “church?” More than likely it was Theodore Beza in 1556 who used the English word “church,” when translating the Greek word “ekklesia.” Then, William Whittingham, in 1557, used the word “church” in translating the Greek word “ekklesia.”
Of course, you are asking, what difference does it made? Let us look at the English Dictionary; as it gives the meaning of the word “church.” You may find the first meaning of the word “church” is “a building for public worship.” If the Greek word, “ekklesia” is correctly translated, this meaning would never be found in our dictionaries. Have you ever heard the following: “A church burned in Oklahoma City?” You see, these words would never be used in such statements as: “A congregation was burned in Oklahoma City.” “An assembly was burned in Oklahoma City.” Unless, the people meeting in a building were actually burned to death! With a correct understanding of what the Greek word “ekklesia” means, you would never hear such! So, we are left with the question: “How should the Greek word “ekklesia” be translated?
A good test for any change in wording, is to put the word(s) into the text, and read it. So, let us do just that!
1. Matthew 16:18 – “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my congregation; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
2. Acts 2:47 – “Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the congregation daily such as should be saved.
3. 1 Cor. 1:2 – “Unto the congregation of God which is at Corinth, them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints,…”
4. 1 Tim. 3:15 – “But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the congregation of the living God, …”
These verses were chosen because two of them (Matt. 16:18 and 1 Tim. 3:15) refer to the universal congregation, the house of the living God; while the other two (Acts 2:17 and 1 Cor. 1:2) refer to a local congregations. True, reading these verses with the word “congregation” in them, is a bit awkward, but the more you do so, the less awkward it becomes. However, it is truth we are seeking!
A correct translation of the Greek word “ekklesia,” is the English words, congregation, or assembly. In a third article verses will be studied where the word “assembly” is best used and more history about the word.

— Frank R. Williams

What is the church? Before answering this seemingly simple question question, a few things need to be understood. Did you know our English word “church” comes from the Greek word “ekklesia?” If not, you may not understand the word “church.” More than likely, most people know our English New Testament has been translated from a Greek text. This means, those who translate it, have the obligation to find an English word that best translates the Greek word. At times, this may require two or even three English words to fully express the Greek word.
Take the words, “given by inspiration of God,” found in 2 Timothy 3:16, these words comes from one Greek word, “theopneustos.” This is a compound Greek word having two parts; the two parts are: first, “theo,” which is the Greek word for God; second, “pneustos,” which means “breathed.” Thus, the word “theopneustos” means “God breathed all scripture; therefore, it is important to understand that what Paul was writing at this moment is part of the God breathed scripture. Remember that Peter acknowledged that what Paul wrote was scripture (2 Pet. 3:15-16). It is worth noting that this word does not appear anywhere else the Bible, neither is there any conclusive evidence that this word was ever used before Paul used it here. It is believed by many that Paul, through the Holy Spirit, coined this word.
Now the same thing is true of the Greek word “ekklesia,” as it is a compound word; the first part, “ek,” meaning “out of” and the second part, “klesia,” meaning, “called.” Therefore, the word means, “called out of.” Keep in mind, the word is a noun! However, the word standing by itself has no identity. As it does not reveal from where one is “called out of,” neither does it show what did the “calling;” and it does not reveal who the “called out of” are; thus, it only identifies a fact that there is an “ekklesia.” Notice how the word is used having no relationship to the saved, the “ekklesia of God:” “Some therefore cried one thing, and some another: for the assembly (ekklesia) was confused; and the more part knew not wherefore they were come together (Acts 19:32). As here noted, the word “assembly” is from the Greek word, “ekklesia.” Now, what is the context, “the whole city was filled with confusion,” (verse 29) not knowing what was going on; therefore, the people who formed the “ekklesia,” were “confused” at the time. Nevertheless, they were an assembly, an “ekklesia,” fulfilling the meaning of the word. Continuing to read this text, notice, Alexander (the town clerk) said to this “confused” “ekklesia:” “But if ye enquire any thing concerning other matters, it shall be determined in a lawful assembly (ekklesia)” (verse 39). The “confused” mob was an “unlawful called out” ekklesia. Therefore, “And when he had thus spoken, he dismissed the assembly (ekklesia)” (verse 41). Alexander “dismissed the called out” people. Clearly this event has nothing to do with what is “called out of God!” The point being, there is nothing magical about the Greek word, “ekklesia,” but as used today, the English word “church” has reached the “magical” state of being limited to religious bodies. However, this was not the case in the first century and the word “ekklesia!”
It should be clear, the Greek word “ekkliesia” as the English word “church,” must have identifying terms. It is a noun, the result of action, but standing alone, it is unidentified. It would have been correct in Paul’s time, for one to say: “The ekklesia is a people, who while being in the theater, heard the town crier announcing the king is coming.” In this case, the people would have been the “ekklesia” resulting from the words of the town crier, and they were the “ekklesia” in order to see the king. In like manner, people, who are saved, are the “called out of” the world by the gospel in order to be saved; the saved being the “ekklesia.” This is why Luke wrote: “… And the Lord added to the church (the ekklesia, the saved) daily such as should be saved” (Acts 2:47). This makes “the called out of” the saved!
So, what do we have in reading the following words: “Unto the church (ekklesia, the called out of) of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours” (1 Cor. 1:2). Does it mean more to you, if we read the text, “Unto the called out of God which is at Corinth?” You see, these are the called out of God “that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called saints.” In this case, these people are always the “called out of God,” be they gathered for worship, in their own homes, or places of business. Where a person may be, at any given time, if he is saved, then, he is always part of “the called out of God.”
Now, the next time you read the words, “the Barnes church of Christ,” please understand, these words are identifying a people who have been removed from the world (the lost), and are now an “ekklesia,” the “called out of Christ,” created by obeying the gospel of Christ. In doing so, you will have a better understanding of the Greek word, “ekklesia!”

— Frank R. Williams

One of the things we learned early is to count, one, two, three, etc.; however, this is not the type of counting of this article. The type of counting which is to be addressed here is not so easy to do. Most children are taught to count, as in numbers, very early in life, but the counting in mind here requires spiritual maturity. Some never reach the required maturity to “count” as did the apostle Paul.
What do we know about the man Saul, best known as Paul, an apostle of Christ? He was born in Tarsus of Cilicia, a free city; he was a Roman citizen, he was educated in Jerusalem by the highly respected teacher of the law, Gamaliel; he excelled above his contemporaries in Judaism; and was a tent-maker by trade. He writes of himself that he was a Hebrew of Hebrews (Meaning both is parents were Hebrews.), of the tribe of Benjamin, circumcised the eighth day, as touching the law, a Pharisee, concerning zeal, persecuting the church, touching righteousness which is in the law, blameless (Phil. 3:5-6). In all these Saul had a bright future in Judaism to look forward to. However, this future would never be fully realized.
Saul is introduced to the reader of the New Testament in the following: “Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord, And cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man’s feet, whose name was Saul. And they stoned Stephen …” (Acts 7:57-59). From here, Luke gives us the following: “And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem, … As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison” (Acts 8:1,3). Just how high in the Jewish religion he would have reached no one knows, but his leadership and respect among the Jews is unquestionable! It is to these that Paul writes: “But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ” (Phil 3:7). Paul relates the word “gain” to those things of the Jewish religion and his station among the Jews. It is here that the idea that spiritual maturity is required in order to honestly “count” such “gain” as “loss for Christ!”
A few words about the word “count” which is the Greek “hégeomai” and means as used here to consider; Paul in his spiritual maturity had learned to consider all his former life among the Jews as something he willing gave up. The word in Greek is in the middle voice, which means, he did this himself for himself. It was a personal action to benefit him! Salvation requires a personal action which benefits the one doing it! It is like what Ananias said to Saul: “And now why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). The words might be translated: “And now why tarriest thou? Stand up and get yourself baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” Saul was to get himself baptized for his own benefit! Therefore, in the same way, Paul was able, in his spiritual maturity, to “consider” all he had “gained” and might have gained in his former life, “loss for Christ!” Paul was able to count!
On the other hand, just as spiritual maturity is required to “count” gain as “loss for Christ,” spiritual maturity is required to “count” our spiritual blessing received in Christ. In a world filled with heartaches, family problems, bad health, loss of jobs, murders in our neighborhoods and shopping malls, and now acts of terrorism; how is one able to count his spiritual blessing? Yes, it does call for spiritual maturity! It also requires that we allow our mind to go back to earlier years and just start counting: one, two, three, etc. As the beautiful song, written by Johnson Oatman, Jr. rings out: “When upon life’s billows you are tempest tossed, When you are discouraged, thinking all is lost, Count your many blessings, name them one by one, And it will surprise you what the Lord hath done.”
Yes my brethren, stop and count your many blessings and name them one by one!

— Frank R. Williams

(Oatman was born April 21, 1856, near Medford, New Jersey, and died September 25, 1922 in Norman, OK. And wrote the lyrics for 5,000 songs, some of which are: Higher Ground, The Last Mile of the Way, No Not One, just to name a few.)

Yes, at first it may appear to be a little late to be writing about Christmas, as we are in the month of January. However, this is the right time; the emotions of the debate have cooled; therefore, cooler heads may be able to think about the subject more clearly.
Each year it appears there is an attempt to remove “Christ” from Christmas. Business folks are encouraged to greet customers with a “Happy Holidays,” and not with the common words, “Merry Christmas.” However, the debate is much larger than Christmas. There are some who desire to remove Christianity from the public square. Therefore, to take Christ out of Christmas is just one small step, but this is not the only objective!
First, a study of the word “Christmas” is in order. It is a compound word, meaning “Christ’s Mass;” the “Mass of Christ.” It is Catholic in origin and was first used, according to the best information found, in 1038. This means, “Christmas” has no part in Christianity, as all that is of Christianity was completely revealed when the New Testament was completed (1 Cor. 13:8-10). After more than forty years of study, it is my opinion that all the New Testament books were written before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A. D. Just a little food for thought, the prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem is a major point in the teaching which Jesus did, recorded in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21; (Also in the Old Testament, Dan. 9:26-27) and, referred to in a number the other books. If not one New Testament writer referred to the destruction of Jerusalem in the past tense; as an event which had already happened, is this not evidence that the event had not taken place?! All the New Testament books were written before the destruction of Jerusalem and nothing which came after this is part of Christianity. “Christmas” is not part of the New Testament, having no part in Christianity! Therefore, Christ was never in Christmas in the first place.
Second, it is generally understood, “Christmas” is regarded and celebrated as the birth of Jesus. Much of the world celebrates the birth of Jesus on December 25th, but for more than 300 year after the completion of the New Testament, it was not so. The best evidence found shows the first time the birth of Jesus was celebrated on December 25th, was in A.D. 336. So, what does this mean? It means the celebration of the birth of Jesus, as in “Christmas,” has no part in New Testament Christianity. It is generally admitted that no one really knows the date of Jesus’ birth. It was a sixth century monk, Dionysus Exiguss, who dated all history from December 25th, the year of our Lord  1. On the other hand, others have identified mid-November to late March as the birthday of Jesus. However, the most important evidence comes from the New Testament itself. Luke covers the birth of Jesus more than any other New Testament writer, but Luke, writing by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, never gives a date for the birth of Jesus. It should be noted, no where, nor at any time, did the early church (thus, Christians) celebrate the birth of Jesus. Therefore, the celebration of the birth of Jesus, as in “Christmas,” has no part of Christianity!
Yet, it is troubling to see people try to take “Christ” out of Christmas; when in fact, “Christ” has never been in Christmas! The reason for this concern is that it is a much larger subject. It is not that people are trying to take “Christ” out of Christmas that is so troubling; no, they are trying to remove Christ, to remove God, thus, Christianity all together out of America! It was June 17, 1963 that the Supreme Court of the United States ruled, with an overwhelming majority (8 to 1) that Bible reading and prayer in school were unconstitutional and with this, the battle was on: God must go! Here is a good question: “Just what religion is established in the reading of the Bible?” If one reads the Old Testament, is Judaism established? If one reads the New Testament, is Christianity established? In reading the Bible is any one denomination, such as the Baptist, the Methodist, the Lutheran, or the Presbyterian, church established? Then, there is this question: in the reading the Bible is the Southern Baptist, First Baptists, the Missionary Baptist, Landmark Baptist, or the Free Will Baptist, church established? It should be easy to understand that reading the Bible does not establish Judaism, nor Christianity, neither does it establish any one of the many denominational churches.
Has America become a better nation through the years that have followed the above ruling by the Supreme Court? Will America improve if we take Christ out of “Christmas?” Be assured, big business does not desire to remove Christmas; as this is their biggest money making time of the year. So, it is not Christmas that businesses, which only give in to the “screeching” of the anti-religion folks, are seeking to remove; even if they desire to remove Christ from Christmas. However, if it is possible, at some point in time, to remove Christ from Christmas, what would be left? A secular meaningless “Holiday” having no root in anything! What kind of “Holiday” would it be?

— Frank R. Williams