What is commonly referred to as the Second Commandment can be found in two places in Scripture.

You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain. – Exodus 20:7, Deuteronomy 5:11

A friend of mine posted a status update on his Facebook wall, where he called into question the use of the acronym OMG (Oh My God) by Christians and its apparent condemnation in Scripture. Unfortunately he had to delete his status update because so many of his friend were offended, feeling like they had been called out for breaking the Second Commandment.

I have a few thoughts on this topic and I would like to share them. I do not believe “God” is God’s name. In fact, a good theology teacher would admit to you that we do not really know what his name is. According to most, it seems to be YHWH which is usually pronounced Yahweh (Ya-Way). This comes from Exodus 3:14. There are no vowels in written Hebrew — well there weren’t any vowels when the Old Testament was written. So the pronunciation of YHWH is a tradition. Most decent theologians should admit that the true pronunciation of YHWH is lost. Many believe that the Jewish nation was so afraid of using God’s name in vain, that they used the vowel sounds of the Hebrew word for Lord and transposed them onto YHWH which is where we get Yahweh. They did this to be extra careful not to actually say his name (in case it was in vain).

There is one other place in Scripture where God refers to himself by name. But it is not YHWH, if you look at Exodus 34:14 God says, “for you shall not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.” God’s name might not actually be “Jealous” it could be a “you are what you eat” thing. You can call God, Jealous, because he is jealous. I am not going to get into what he is jealous of or even if it is his actual name, it’s merely an interesting place in Scripture where he names himself.

Presently, we refer to God as “God” and treat that as if it were his real name — but it clearly isn’t. So I have a couple of questions…

1. Is saying OMG breaking the 2nd Commandment? In other words, is the mere reference to God breaking the 2nd commandment if it is done in vain?
2. Is saying OMG but meaning “Goodness” or “Gosh” more acceptable?

I would love to hear your input on this. I am really torn on this subject. Personally, I try not say “God” in vain… but I am not entirely convinced that it is wrong either.

What is said and done behind a pulpit is serious business to the average churcher. Sometimes you might hear someone say, “Can you believe what he said behind the pulpit?” [1] Another may believe that the pulpit is a ministry that is “absolutely essential to the vitality and health of the church as a whole. ” [2] Some even believe that a pulpit shows our dependence on God and his Scriptures. [3, 4] I could go on and on about what people see the pulpit as; or believe what the pulpit means.

Usually at this point on this series, I would discuss the various mistranslations from the Hebrew or Greek Scriptures or the obvious transliterations. However, I cannot do this for the word “pulpit.” Why? Because there is no word in Scripture, whether old or new, that equates to pulpit. Not a single word, either translated or transliterated, will bring you to our current practice of using a pulpit.

Believe it or not, I have actually heard a “biblical” defense of the pulpit before. There is a single verse in  Scripture, Nehemiah 8:4-8, which reads:

Ezra the scribe stood at a wooden podium which they had made for the purpose. . . . Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people for he was standing above all the people; and when he opened it, all the people stood up. . . . Then Ezra blessed the LORD the great God. And all the people answered, “Amen, Amen!” while lifting up their hands; then they bowed low and worshiped the LORD with {their} faces to the ground. . . . They read from the book, from the law of God, translating to give the sense so that they understood the reading.

I do not believe this is a biblical defense for pulpits though… that’s like saying that we should all use nets because in scripture John used a net.

I’m going to ask you; how did a piece of furniture get so highly elevated in our faith that we frown upon people who misuse (or don’t use) it?

A couple weeks ago Arthur Sido posted about Academic Responsibility. His post was about a popular Christian History textbook’s misuse of Scripture regarding the description of a “Deacon”. I spent a few moments gathering some data for a comment on his post and felt like “Deacon” should be my next, “Words Not Found in Scripture.”

Deacon is a really good word for this series because it is more than just a meaningless word. In Christendom we have whole theologies built around the idea of the deacon office. But do we really understand what a deacon is? The word “deacon” occurs five times in the NKJV (Philemon 1:1 & 1 Timothy 3:8,10,12,13). However, the word itself is a transliteration of the Greek word, “διακονος”. διακονος (and it’s verb version διακονεω) occur in the New Testament a total of 66 times. Basically, around 7% of the time, the word is transliterated (or added to the translation)… obfuscating the true definition of the word. According to BDAG the meaning of διακονος is:

1. one who serves as an intermediary in a transaction, agent, intermediary, courier
2. one who gets somethign done, at the behest of a superior, assistant

and the meaning of διακονεω (the verb form) is:

1. to function as an intermediary, act as go-between/agent, be at one’s service
2. to perform obligations,
2a. perform duties, render assistance, serve
2b. wait on someone at table
3. to meet an immediate need, help
4. to carry out official duties, minister
5. care for, take care of

The Facts

1. διακονος (n.) occurs in the Greek New Testament 29 times
   • Translated “servant” (and it’s derivatives) 18 times – NKJV.
   • Translated “minister” (and it’s derivatives) 8 times – NKJV.
   • Transliterated “deacon” (and it’s derivatives) 3 times – NKJV.
2. διακονεω (v.) occurs in the Greek New Testament 37 times.
   • Translated “serve” (and it’s derivatives) 20 times – NKJV.
   • Translated “ministered” (and its derivatives) 14 times – NKJV.
   • Translated “administered” twice (2 Corinthians 8:19,20) – NKJV.
   • Translated “provided” once (Luke 8:3) – NKJV.
3. 1 Timothy 3 has the word διακονος twice, in 3:8 and 3:12.
   • Both times it is transliterated as “deacon”, but in 4:6, it is translated as “servant” or “minister”.
4. 1 Timothy 3 has the word διακονεω twice, in 3:10, 3:13.
   • In 3:10, the word διακονος is not in the Greek at all, yet the translators felt it was necessary to add “as deacons” after “let them serve”. Where “serve” is the actual translation of the word διακονεω.
   • Similarly with 3:13, the word διακονος is not in the Greek at all. The translators add “as deacons” after the “for those who served.”
5. Jesus was called a διακονος (Romans 15:8).
6. Paul was called a διακονος (1 Corinthians 3:5, 6; Ephesians 3:7; Philippians 1:1; Colossians 1:23,25).
7. Jesus came to διακονεω (Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45; Luke 22:27).

Conclusion

Based on my research and studies, I have come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as a “deacon” in the traditional sense of the word. A “deacon” is merely a servant, not an office to hold. The noun and verb in the Greek is translated “serve” 38 times, “minister” at least 22 times (25 if you count “administered” and “provided”). Only 3 times is it transliterated as “deacon” and twice it is added to the English text. So why did the translators believe that they should not translate the word in those places? Frankly, I find this very disturbing.

So, for all of you churchers who argue about deacons during business meetings. I’m sorry to tell you, you’ve wasted a lot of time. A “deacon” is not an office, it’s not someone who is voted on, a deacon is the person next to you who has been serving you and ministering to your needs. A deacon is the person who does not care about the title “deacon” as much as they care about the needs of those around them.

I will continue my series on Words Not Found in Scripture with the word “baptize”. Technically you will find “baptize” (and it’s derivatives) throughout your English translations. In fact, technically you will find “baptize” in the original Greek. The actual word though is “baptizo” (βαπτιζω). And that is exactly the problem.

You see, the word “baptize” is not actually a real English word. It is a transliterated word and like “church” was used by King James as a form of deception. When you use a word that has no meaning, you can assign any meaning you want to it. Then you require a professionally trained individual to tell you what it means. Of course, the word “baptize” for 1500 years has been twisted and distorted and even today, there are people who misuse or mistranslate it.

According to Merriam Webster, baptize means:

1 : to administer baptism to
2 a : to purify or cleanse spiritually especially by a purging experience or ordeal b : initiate
3 : to give a name to (as at baptism) : christen

And, baptism means:

1 a : a Christian sacrament marked by ritual use of water and admitting the recipient to the Christian community b : a non-Christian rite using water for ritual purification c Christian Science : purification by or submergence in Spirit
2 : an act, experience, or ordeal by which one is purified, sanctified, initiated, or named

βαπτιζω in the Greek means literally the “act of immersion or dipping”. It does not mean, “to immerse in water”. It only means “to immerse,” however, in the context of water, it would mean that you immerse in water. Similar, in the context of fire, it would mean that you immerse in fire. It can be used to describe a ship sinking, washing your hands, or even washing your dishes.

The Facts

1. The word “baptize” (and it’s derivatives, including baptism, baptist, etc.) occurs 106 times in the NASB.
2. βαπτιστης (the noun form for Baptist or “Baptizer”) occurs 14 times in the Greek and is always in reference to John the “Baptist”.
3. βαπτιζω (the verb form for “Baptize”) occurs 77 times in the Greek New Testament. In Mark 7:4 it is referring to ceremonial washing; Luke 3:16 “he will baptize you with the holy spirit and with fire”; Luke 11:38 refers to ceremonial washing of hands before dinner; and more.
4. βαπτισμα (the noun form for “Baptism”) occurs 22 times in the New Testament and is always transliterated as “baptism”.
5. βαπτισμος (another noun form for “Baptism”) occurs 4 times in the New Testament, is transliterated as “baptism” once in Col 2:12; and refers to ceremonial washing or other washing in Mark 7:4, Hebrews 6:2, 9:10.

Conclusion

I have a pretty big problem with transliterations. Mainly because they do not mean anything to the reader. Actually, they mean a great deal to the reader. For instance, to a Catholic the transliteration of “baptize” means, “an infant who had water poured on its head to wash away its original sin so that if it dies it will spend less time in purgatory.” But baptize, literally means “immerse”. Now, this post is not about which modes of baptism are acceptable in God’s eyes, frankly, just because the word means “immersion” does not mean (to me) that people who are “sprinkled” are not real Christians. Why? Well because there is a ceremonial definition to the word Baptism. It is a symbolic act done as a proclamation of your acceptance of Jesus’ gift and acknowledgment that he has purified your soul.

I believe “immersion”, “dipping”, or “washing” are suitable translations in replacement of our current transliterations. As BDAG puts it, “the transliteration ‘baptize’ signifies the ceremonial character that NT narratives accord such cleansing, but the need of qualifying statements or contextual coloring in the documents indicates that the term ‘baptize’ was not nearly so technical as the transliteration suggests.”

As it turns out, I was talking to Alan Knox about this post and he reminded me of some research he posted on his blog about the word βαπτιζω. Here are some links to his series on Baptism:

• Baptism in the LXX
• Baptism in Philo
• Baptism in Josephus
• Water baptism in the New Testament
• Other Baptism in the New Testament
• Ambiguous Baptism in the New Testament

As Alan’s research shows “we must recognize the importance of context in understanding the meaning of the verb. The verb does not always mean ‘to submerge under water’.”

I’ve decided to start a series of some of the theological words and terms that we use in our everyday Christian lives that are not found in Scripture. The first word I want to talk about is “church”. Right now you’re probably screaming that the word “church” (and it’s derivatives) appear 112 times in the New Testament (NASB). Well, many of the words that I am going to talk about are actually all over our English translations. This may sound contradictory, but I assure you it isn’t. Just follow along and you will see what I am talking about.

Because there are words in our Bibles that are not valid translations, it causes confusion and goes against the very nature of scripture. Our Old Testament scriptures were written in Hebrew (and some Aramaic), the language of the Israelites. Our New Testament scriptures were written in what is called “Common Greek”. In other words, our scriptures were written in the languages of the people. Remove ourselves from those languages, put in 2000 years of mixed up Christian history and you get translations and other doctrine that is full of words and terms written for professionally trained or educated individuals.

So, back to the word “church”. What does it mean? Where does it come from? Well, the English word for ‘church’ actually comes from the German word “Kirche” which is a translation of the Greek word “kuriakon”. Kuriakon means “belonging to the Lord” but was eventually used to designate buildings.

So, what’s the problem? Well, I’m not finished yet. You see, the word “church” in the Bible is never being used to translate the word “Kuriakon”. Instead, it’s being used to translate the Greek word “ekklesia”. The word “ekklesia” does not mean “belonging to the Lord” it means “assembly” or “congregation” — that’s it. You see, King James told the translators to use “church” to translate “ekklesia” instead of using “congregation” or “assembly” which was used by some of the earlier translation. Oh, if anyone tells you “ekklesia” means “called out ones” punch them square in the mouth.

The Facts

1. The word “kuriakon” which again means “belonging to the Lord” occurs twice in the New Testament. It is not translated “church” in either case (1 Corinthians 11:20 & Revelation 1:10).
2. The word “church” occurs 112 times in the NASB. It is never a translation of the word “kuriakon” (from which is it derived).
3. The word “ekklesia” occurs 115 times in the New Testament. It is translated “church” 112 times, “congregation” 2 times, and 1 time it is translated “assembly”.

Conclusion

I hope you see where I am going with this. The word “church” does not actually exist, it is meaningless. In fact, it was originally used as a form of deception! We held onto the word because of tradition (and maybe because of more deception). We have used the word “church” to mean the building, the time, pretty much everything except what the Scriptures actually intended. The rest of this series will be about these nonsensical words. Hopefully we will all to stop using them and replace them with words that actually mean what God intended when he inspired these writings.