THE HIDDEN STORY OF KING JAMES, HIS FRIENDS, AND HIS BIBLE

Today, a large number of Christians consider King James and his King James Bible to be divine or nearly divine. They consider the King James Bible to be the only truly inspired Bible, assuming it represents a perfect translation from the original texts and communicates accurately all that God spoke in the past and wants us to believe today.

Others of us may not go quite so far as to call the King James Bible the only true Bible, but we would give King James a whole lot of credit for all the hard work he did in making sure people could finally read the Bible in English. After all, King James did what he did out of sincere motives, right?

Hi, this is Dolly Webber, and I’d like to share with you some interesting, lesser-known facts about King James, his friends, and his Bible. Let’s jump right in.

King James lived from 1566 to 1625, and by the time he died, he had been king of three different countries: England, Scotland, and Ireland. In 1611, he and those helping him completed a Bible labeled with his own name—the King James 1611 Bible.

In his work History of the English-Speaking People, Sir Winston Churchill stated the following about King James:

“James was much addicted to his favorites, and his attention to handsome young men resulted in a noticeable loss of respect for the monarchy.”

Why did Sir Winston Churchill say such a thing? He said it because it was true. King James was openly bisexual, but he preferred men and never tried to hide the fact.

When James officially arrived in Scotland at the age of 13, people were busy already watching him. He met a man by the name of Esme Stewart, the Duke of Lenox. Esme was almost three times James’s age and also married with five children. Esme was a Frenchman who had very fine taste in clothes. James and Esme hit it off immediately. They also immediately began displaying their affections for one another in public, much to the shock of those who watched.

Scottish Calvinists at the time were so concerned about the king’s public behavior that they began speaking out, saying that Esme was trying to draw the king to carnal lust. Another observer stated that James became “in such love with him that in the open sight of the people, James would often clasp Esme around the neck with his arms and kiss him.”

The relationship caused such concern that in August of 1582, a group of Presbyterian nobles led by William Ruthven, Earl of Gowrie, took extreme measures. They actually abducted King James, forced Esme Stewart to leave Scotland, and held King James at the Ruthven Castle until Stewart was gone.

With the affair behind him, James continued to prefer male company. However, he was compelled to find a suitable wife for purely political reasons and decided on a 14-year-old woman from Denmark. The two of them had never met, but he married her by proxy.

Their early marriage seemed to work out. They managed to have three children who survived to adulthood. However, as time went on, King James’s affection once again shifted back to young men. History records many stories about the two more prominent male lovers that had called King James’s personal chambers their home.

His first male companion after Stewart was Robert Carr, a “pretty young Scot,” as James described him. He had first been King James’s page but then became his close male companion. That companionship lasted from 1607 to 1615 but ended when Carr fell in love with a woman and decided to marry her.

Other close associates of King James were able to find a replacement for Carr, and his name was George Villiers. Of George, King James is recorded as saying, “His legs were wonderful.”

King James was quite proud of his homosexual relationships. Not only was he brazenly public about them, but he also defended his relationship to George Villiers before Parliament. In his speech to Parliament, King James once stated the following incredibly blasphemous words:

“You may be sure that I love the Earl of Buckingham more than anyone else and more than you who are here assembled. For Jesus Christ did the same, and therefore I cannot be blamed. Christ had His John, and I have my George.”

So, to restate that, King James the Sixth—whose name appears on the front cover of millions of our Bibles—announced to his Parliament that day that Jesus was a homosexual too, and His lover’s name was John.

George Villiers went on to become King James’s favorite companion, replacing Robert Carr not only in bed but as Earl of Somerset. King James also promoted Villiers to become Master of the Horse, Earl of Buckingham, and Lord High Admiral. Villiers stood by King James as loyal bedmate and assistant in rulership until the king died in 1625.

That’s interesting. These are actual historical records with historical testimonies on them. I wonder why we never learned about these special friends of the “Bible man” when we were in Sunday school.

We also know that King James was undeniably a Freemason. On April 15, 1601, he was initiated at the Lodge of Scone, Scotland, at the age of 35. In the archives of the actual Lodge of Scone in Scotland, they keep a document called the Perth Agreement. That document attests to several items in the history of the lodge.

The document states:

“Then in 1601, King James the Sixth of Scotland, at his own request, was entered Freemason and Fellow Craft by John Milne, who was the king’s own master mason and master of the Lodge of Scone. And during all his lifetime, he maintained the same as one member of the Lodge of Scone.”

A Freemasonic website out of Canada states the following:

“On the west wall of the lodge hall used by Lodge Scone in Perth, Number Three in Perth, Scotland, you can see a mural depicting King James kneeling at their altar in his initiation.”

On that website and from countless other sources, we find pictures of that mural. As you can see here, the greatest evidence for King James’s heavy involvement with secret societies, however, comes from the very pages of the King James Bible itself, containing an abundant array of Freemasonic, Rosicrucian, and alchemic symbols—starting right on the title page, which you will see in a moment.

Not only was King James himself highly involved in this secret society, but he was very close to another man who was chief of the Rosicrucians at the time—and that was Francis Bacon.

After King James ascended to the English throne in 1603, he knighted Francis Bacon and then appointed Bacon to assist in producing the King James Bible. According to Manly P. Hall, stated during a lecture on Rosicrucian and Masonic origins in 1929:

“The first edition of the King James Bible, which was edited by Francis Bacon and prepared under Masonic supervision, bears more Masons’ marks than the Cathedral of Strasbourg.”

So who was Francis Bacon? He was a prolific writer who wrote The New Atlantis, from which many people call him the father of the New World Order. Rosicrucians today claim that Bacon, even though dead, continues to actively transmit secrets.

Francis Bacon’s involvement with the King James Bible, though substantiated, raises great questions. Not only was he versed in magic and sorcery as a master Mason, Rosicrucian, and alchemist, but Francis Bacon studied under one of the highest magicians ever recognized by man—a man who passed the baton of his wizardry to Francis Bacon himself. That man was John Dee.

So who was John Dee? John Dee is still recognized today as a magician and sorcerer of greater power and knowledge than anyone who has followed him in the black arts. Communicating with the use of a stone given to him by a dark angel, John Dee entered a realm of necromancy and communication with a specific realm of evil spirits called “Macrobes,” which involved scrying, channeling, and Enochian magic. He literally entered a demonic portal, the effects of which we may be witnessing even today.

John Dee cut a long story short and said, “We need another approach. We will not stop with a development hardware, keep that going, but we’re gonna need an altogether different approach.”

And he contacted his patrons—the Queen and her coterie, Lee’s original Illuminati types—and he said:

“What we need to do is go to a completely higher form of intelligence—not extraterrestrial but pan-dimensional. They may be able to help us with this.”

This is not the first time that such a portal has been opened on our earth, and it wasn’t the last. John Dee contacted some being that Thea’s Lewis refers to as the Macrobes. He says that under our level of perception, we have the microbes.

A couple of hundred years ago, if you talked to anybody about microbes and microbial life (bacteria), they’d have laughed at you. They thought you’re insane and probably locked you up if you described that. Then we invent a microscope, and now it’s common knowledge—right? A whole universe of life-forms right beneath our perception of vision.

Well, C.S. Lewis says there is another level above us—on the next level up, almost—which is the same. You can’t have a physical instrument so much to deal with it. The instrument of noticing that and knowing that is the human intuition—or shall we say, the human imagination.

But John Dee, being an occultist—a magician of great, very great power—opened a portal in England in the 14th century (the 15th century was open in England), and he contacted beings of a higher grade of intelligence.

This thing is a whole study in itself to do with occultism or what have you, and he contacted these Macrobes. And these Macrobes actually don’t like being pestered by inferior types like him, and we can’t say they’re good or they’re bad. You know, those times ain’t gonna work with this.

But the long story short is, as his mind is nearly frazzling with their interaction, they actually did say, “Oh yeah, what’s your problem?” And they said, “Oh yeah, that we have no problem with. We can help you with that. We can fix that.”

And he goes, “Well then, let’s do it.” But the only trouble was that in order to do it, the information that they had to pour through his consciousness, he very quickly realized, would take literally thousands of years to manifest in physical time.

When the information started transmitting through his work—and his work was called Enochian magic (for those who happen to be into that)—when you see all those lovely pictures and quaint images of magicians in circles and all these symbols around—in the, you know, the five-pointed pentagram and all that—have you ever noticed how many of those symbols are actually planetary symbols for the stars?

I mean, we’re talking of topism yet they’re mostly symbols of the planets because that also, in some subject, that’s been put before us totally erroneously. I go into that in the book, but what that really is all about and why planetary symbols are used so often—so when you start translating into his Enochian those quaint things you see in museums—all that information that was pouring down, it was too big for his consciousness.

And Edward Kelly and some other people that he worked with, so he had to get all his counterparts in Europe to get on the ball with us. So all his Illuminati families and black nobility intelligence of people—you know, they were all working simultaneously at the same time.

But then, obviously, history would notice this, wouldn’t it? That all of these families start getting into what looks like the occult. So they sold that back to us as a period in history when suddenly there was a renaissance of esoteric knowledge in the world, and everybody was into it—as if it’s sort of something like a vogue thing, you know.

And I’m not saying things like that don’t happen, but all over the planet, all these rich families and rich people start getting into the occult. They’ve got to put it before us in this quaint way—just like to put swashbuckling movies of Errol Flynn in front of you, you know, to tell you something.

Before John Dee died, he passed his secret knowledge onto Francis Bacon. Bacon, using that knowledge, played a major role in the King James Bible project. But what exactly was Francis Bacon’s role?

We do know that after the book was completed and otherwise ready to print, Bacon held on to it for almost a year. So what was he doing with it for all that time? Could Francis Bacon have used what Dee taught him—such as how to transform matter, like we are seeing in the supernatural changes today taking place in the King James Bible?

Without question, the King James Bible was presented to the world completely wrapped in magic. By taking a look at the title page of the King James Bible, we do not see a Christian scene but rather a traditional Rosicrucian scene. It depicts the progressive stages in which the Kabbalistic man can achieve immortality.

We also see the alchemy sun, the Masonic all-seeing eye all over this priest’s robe, the Rosicrucian mother bird with her young picking at her breast while showering with her blood from a self-inflicted wound.

Also on the title page, we see the Satanic ancient Egyptian Phoenix bird with its elongated neck and wings that come to a particularly shaped point—just as a Satanic Phoenix.

You see here we also see a man with an “X” conspicuously shaped out of two logs crossing his chest—and this is the Illuminati and Masonic sign of Osiris, the Egyptian sun god and the coming Messiah Antichrist.

At the very top of the page, we see Hebraic letters identified by an Orthodox Jewish scholar as a Kabbalistic tetragrammaton written in a way that only an occultist would write it.

The King James Bible was saturated with the prominent Masonic handshake found all throughout the genealogy charts. The King James Bible contained for the producers of the King James Bible to include so much Rosicrucian imagery—especially in a book intended for Christians to read—definitely reflected a campaign that was going on at the time.

In 1606, a very mysterious document began to circulate in Europe and in England called the Fama. This is the first word of a string of Latin words: the Fama. And two years later, the Confessio.

What these were were announcements that an alchemical brotherhood was seeking recruits. These are the primary documents of Rosicrucianism. Now, Rosicrucianism was based on a fiction—a fictional person, Christian Rosenkreuz, who was imagined to have lived almost 200 years earlier in the 1540s and been a great alchemist.

And it was claimed that his tomb had been recently opened and that there were books inside it which set the stage for the alchemical revolution of the world. Notice how this occult mind always tries to reach back in time to give itself validity.

And Christian Rosenkreuz was claimed to be the author of a series of books, the chief of which is called The Chemical Wedding. What this was all about—I believe, and the Rosicrucian Enlightenment makes it fairly clear—was Dee, during the period when he had been in Bohemia, had set out to lay the groundwork for an alchemical revolution in Central Europe.

And he had made Johan Andre and Michael Mayer his agents in this plot—and it was a plot—a plot to meddle with European history and to turn the Protestant Reformation toward an alchemical completion.

They felt that Luther and Hus and these people had only gone so far and that the culmination of throwing off the yoke of the church would be the establishment of an alchemical kingdom in Central Europe.

Note the similarities in the picture shown in that clip to the opening theme depicted on the title page of the King James Bible.

Although King James, for the public eyes, stated that he hated magic and the occult, his life stated otherwise—completely otherwise. As a Master Mason, King James had to pass through three degrees, which identically matched the first lower orders of witchcraft.

And as we can clearly see, a project which he would have stated he did for God, he in fact did for other gods—and clearly for other purposes.

Today, there are a few conservative Christians still around who would confront this so-called “Bible hero” about his overt and lifelong homosexual activities. Many conservative Christians would also question him about his overt and unholy involvement with secret societies.

Yet, strangely, there is one denomination that touts itself as both Christian and conservative, and it vigorously markets—as no other group does—the idea that the King James Bible is the only inspired Bible. That denomination also happens to be the group that supports firing pastors who speak up about Freemasonry.

I’m speaking about the Southern Baptists. They boast the highest percentage of members actively involved in Freemasonry while claiming to be both conservative and Christian.

Is there any connection between their conspicuous tolerance of Freemasonry and their conspicuous promotion of the King James Bible? They state vigorously that the King James Bible is the only acceptable Bible to use—just as the Freemason King James also stated.

And why would this Freemasonry-tolerant group be waging a campaign now—right when clearly supernatural, demonic changes are happening to the King James Bible?

But there is more. Not only was King James irrefutably homosexual and also visibly a devoted Freemason, but he happened to be an arrogantly power-hungry king and believed controlling people by using religion.

In March of 1610, King James delivered one of his most famous speeches—a full two and a half hours long—before Parliament, when he said:

“The state of monarchy is the supremest thing upon earth, for kings are not only God’s lieutenants upon earth and sit upon God’s throne, but even by God Himself they are called gods.”

King James considered himself answerable to no one. He refused to keep answering even to Parliament and eventually dissolved it.

The other threat to King James and his power was the recently published Geneva Bible. Contrary to what many of us knew, the Bible already had been translated into English, and it was an extremely accurate translation—thanks to people like William Tyndale, John Huss, Huldrych Zwingli, Myles Coverdale, John Knox, John Wycliffe, and other reformers.

Christians already had an English translation of the entire Bible by 1560, and it was extremely popular. It was also extremely accurate—and that is what King James did not like about it.

Not only did the Geneva Bible contain accurate translation of the original text into English, but the reformers also added notes in the margins to ensure that Christians clearly understood what the Scriptures really said—compared to what the popes and bishops had been teaching them for centuries.

You see, for centuries, the Roman Catholic Church—and then the Anglican Church, with only few variations—promoted a hierarchical church system by purposely mistranslating the original manuscripts, by telling the people that the manuscripts said one thing when they really said something else.

Religion-based governments forced compliances onto the people as though the Scriptures taught the rigid rules the popes and kings were enforcing. Not until Christians had access to Scriptures for themselves could they prove that those rigid rules came from the kings and not from God Himself.

The reformers had made great strides to expose the ungodly religious system, and King James despised what the reformers had done to his absolute power. Reformers showed that Scripture teaches the priesthood of all believers—not just one powerful man at the top.

The believers themselves are God’s anointed ones, and God rebukes even kings for their sake, according to the Scriptures. We do not confess our sins to a priest and then pay him penance but rather go freely to the Father through the blood of Jesus.

In a very power-hungry move, King James would force the Geneva Bible out of the Christians’ hands, replacing it with a new version that would be the only version allowed—the only “authorized” version. Eventually, the king even made it a felony to be found with the Geneva Bible.

King James enlisted the services of people like Francis Bacon, his Bishop Richard Bancroft, and the translators—the exact number of which is reported as between 47 and 54. King James laid down 15 specific, stringent rules for the expressed purpose of regaining those ecclesiastical terms that had been lost due to the translational accuracy of the Geneva Bible.

Following the king’s rules, the translators successfully replaced accurate word translation with church hierarchy word translation. Although they used the accurate New Testament translation prepared by William Tyndale—for which he had been strangled and burned at the stake—they successfully tweaked it by deliberately mistranslating all that they could in order to promote a chain of command.

The translation “people” was changed to a word meaning “temple.” The translation “serving” was replaced with a word meaning “office.” The translation “older” (an adjective) was replaced with a word meaning a particular office (a noun). The translation “guide among” was replaced with “rule over.”

The word “office” is not even found in the original text, yet King James put it there and supported its use wherever the translators could fit it in.

For those of you who would like to hear more details about those deliberate word changes made by the King James translators under the orders of King James, I will include that information at the end of this video. You will hear how the original Greek word actually translates and how and why it was deliberately changed.

Clearly, by King James’s very own admission, his translation of the Bible was not an accurate translation—if you are looking at accuracy from the original Scriptures. His priority was power, and historical record proves that.

As soon as King James presented his new version of the Bible, true Christians immediately recognized it for what it was. They soundly rejected “the wicked Bible from that wicked King.”

Maybe now we can understand why—without even reading it—the artwork revealed its purposes. Christians at the time knew what those images were and also knew the satanic power they contained.

Christians could also see that the reformers’ notes had been discarded and that words foreign to the text now appeared—words they knew didn’t belong there.

Finally, King James officially outlawed the Geneva Bible. He enacted a law to make reading it or owning it a felony. Some Christians kept their Geneva Bibles and faced arrest and imprisonment because of it.

There was going to be only one Bible allowed now—the only “authorized” one—the Authorized King James Bible. Get it? “Authorized” meant allowed, as opposed to not allowed.

Those who had the means and the courage came to America. Many of them did not survive the trip. You know—the pilgrims. We’ve all heard about the pilgrims.

How many of us ever knew that it was King James they were escaping from? How many of us ever knew that it was the 1611 King James Bible—with its demonic art and its deviant word changes—that forced them to leave?

Now we know.

Now we know the artwork on King James Bible, by its own magical imagery, clearly unveils the deeply occult clone on which the King James Bible was built.

Even as the Lord has been revealing in this last hour, those with a demonic agenda in the world do what they do hidden in plain sight. We see this in Super Bowl halftime shows, corporate logos, movies, and commercials. And so it was with the King James Bible from the very beginning.

In the book of John, we read the following:

“In the beginning was the Word”—Jesus, not the Bible—“and the Word was with God”—Jesus, not the Bible—“and the Word was God”—Jesus, not the King James Bible nor any other Bible.

“He was with God in the beginning. Through Him all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has been made. In Him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.”

The Word always referred to Jesus and never to any Bible—leave alone the King James Bible.

Let’s look to Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith. Listen for His voice, obey what He tells you, and never, ever follow the voice of a stranger.

I look forward to talking to you next time. The Lord bless you.

You are about to hear proof of wicked word changes ordered by King James in order to promote a very wicked church hierarchy. This narration comes from The Great Ecclesiastical Conspiracy by George Davis and Michael Clarke. Grab a snack, and let’s go.

The Word “Deacons”

Although the King James Version is called a translation, we should note that in some places, it is not a translation but a paraphrase. We should be leery of all such portions of Scripture.

A word-for-word translation would have left the readers to decide the truth for themselves, but that was unacceptable. This brought about the use of entire phrases to redefine one Greek word in order to promote the ecclesiastical paradigm.

One such case is found in 1 Timothy 3:13:

“For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.”

The words “have used the office of a deacon” were all used to define one Greek word: diakoneō, which is defined as:

“To be a servant, attendant, domestic; to serve, wait on.” (From Strong’s Concordance)

The words “have used the office of a deacon” are a paraphrase of one Greek word, diakoneō, which simply means “to serve.” It is only translated “have used the office of a deacon” in 1 Timothy 3:13.

Throughout the rest of the New Testament, diakoneō never implies office or rule but the service of a slave to his master. The words “have used the office of a deacon” were clearly an attempt to redefine what was once descriptive of the loving service of a slave and make it a hierarchical office.

Romans 16:1 is one of the most revealing passages:

“I commend unto you Phoebe our sister, which is a servant [diakonos] of the church which is at Cenchrea.”

To translate the Greek word diakonos as “servant” when applied to a woman (Phoebe) but transliterated “deacon” when applied to a man reveals the translators’ bias. For to them, a woman could not hold an office, and the idea of serving being an office was what they were trying to justify.

The Greek word diakonos should be translated “servant” in every instance.

The Word “Office”

Throughout the entire New Testament, the word “office” is found nowhere in the Greek text in connection with the ecclesia. Yet it is so used five different times in the King James Version.

One instance is when the King James translators tried to preserve their old ecclesiastical words and imply “office” rather than “service” in Romans 11:13:

“For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office.”

The Greek word diakonia is nowhere else in all of the New Testament translated “mine office.”

Let us look at a few other passages in which the Greek word diakonia is used, as this will give us a greater sense of its meaning.

In Luke 10:40, diakonia is translated as “much serving”:

“But Martha was cumbered about much serving [diakonia], and came to him, and said, Lord, dost thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone? Bid her therefore that she help me.”

Was Martha magnifying her office, or was she just serving? What was the nature of her service? Was it domestic or clerical?

Diakonia is translated:

• “My service” in Romans 15:31

• “To do you service” in 2 Corinthians 11:8

• “Service” in Revelation 2:19

As you can see, diakonia speaks of service to others, not official tenure.

Another instance is found in Romans 12:4:

“For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office.”

The Greek word that was translated “office” here is praxis, which has absolutely nothing to do with office. Praxis means “a doing, deed,” and the above passage is descriptive of the functioning of the individual members of the body of Christ—not every member has the same function.

Praxis in no way implies an elite caste of official ministers defined by title or office. This was a very clever mistranslation designed to overwrite relational body ministry with hierarchy.

This is the only instance in which praxis is translated “office.” We find this extremely interesting, especially considering that this obvious mistranslation is in the context of the every-member participation of the body of Christ.

Praxis is correctly translated in Romans 8:13:

“For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds [praxis] of the body, ye shall live.” (New King James Version)

Again, the word “office” is never used in relation to the ecclesia. Neither the Greek noun hierateia (“priest’s office,” Luke 1:9; Hebrews 7:5) nor the Greek word hierateuō (“to officiate as a priest,” Luke 1:8) are used regarding the community of Christ in the original text.

The concept of office or a special priest class is alien to the purpose and nature of the body of Christ, where differences are defined by function, not by managerial positions.

The arm has a different function than the leg, but does that make one better than the other—thus ruling over the operation of the other?

According to the teachings of the New Testament, the Old Covenant priesthood has been discarded, and in its place is the priesthood of all believers—a priesthood that functions relationally rather than hierarchically.

True first-century serving was not done in the context of a religious service. It was done in the context of life in general—in the homes and on the streets, wherever the needs were. There, the faithful in Christ served.

There was no altar, pulpit, or pew; no starting time or final benediction. There were no clergy and no laity or spectators but a royal priesthood consisting of all believers.

They were not building a church; they were serving Christ and encouraging others to do so. And in that, Jesus built the church.

The Word “Bishopric”

Now let us consider another old ecclesiastical word that has been used to advance this notion of office. “Bishopric” is a strange-sounding word that appears only once in the New Testament, in Acts 1:20:

“For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishopric let another take.”

One of the definitions of episkopē is “visitation,” which we feel comes closest to capturing its true meaning. “Visitation” speaks of a work, not an office.

Nevertheless, the term “bishopric” sure sounds official. It is important to note here that the word “visitation” throughout the Old Testament primarily applies to the judgment of God upon the nations.

Even Jerusalem, the city of peace, would know such judgment. Standing on a hill overlooking his beloved city, Jesus wept as He uttered the following words:

“If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes. For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, and shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation [episkopē].” (Luke 19:42–44)

Jesus selected the apostles for this specific purpose. Just as He stood before the high council as a divine testimony against them, so these men He selected stood before the governors and kings of the nations for a testimony against them.

“And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles.” (Matthew 10:18)

They were to attest to a new kingdom with a new king. This could explain why they were not long upon this earth. They were as ill-treated as their Savior was.

They were not called to execute judgment upon the ecclesia but to lift the standard of the gospel of the kingdom before all, including governors and kings.

They filled up the measure of Jesus’s sufferings. It was a thankless job, rewarded by stripes and imprisonment and finally death. They had been called to suffering.

The Lord spoke to Ananias regarding this call on Paul’s life, saying:

“For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name’s sake.” (Acts 9:16)

Paul commented on this further in 1 Corinthians 4:9, saying:

“For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men.”

They knew the fellowship of His sufferings. They drank deeply from His cup.

Let everyone who aspires to be an apostle fully understand the job description. It is not an opportunity to be first and rule over God’s saints but to glorify Him in being set forth as last—appointed to death, as the filth of the world and the offscouring of all things—as a testimony and a witness.

Do you still want the job?

The Word “Elders”

The Greek word translated “elder” by the King James translators is presbyteros. According to W. E. Vine, presbyteros is an adjective, the comparative degree of presbys—”an old man.”

An elder—of age, whether of the elder of two persons, the eldest of a person advanced in life, a senior.

How is it that the Greek adjective presbyteros (“older” or “elderly”) mysteriously became a noun, represented in the English text by two official-sounding titles—i.e., “presbyter” and “elder”?

Among 54 translators in the King James panel, at least one of them should have known the difference between an adjective and a noun.

They changed the translation of the Greek word presbyteros, which was formerly translated “priest” by the papacy, to “elder” (Tyndale’s translation of the word).

They did, however, do all that was within their power to give the term “elder” the same priestly and hierarchical connotation.

In his book entitled The Royal Priesthood, Karl Koecher’s side exposes this conspiracy, revealing how the Catholic Church, through sophistry, sought to make presbyteros (“elder”) into a priestly office aloof from the rest of the believers.

I quote:

“The original word which is mistranslated ‘priests’ by the Roman Catholic version is the Greek presbyteros, which literally means ‘an aged person.’ The word for ‘priests’ is hiereus. Nothing can be more palpably misleading than the deliberate translation of a word to justify a practice, thus changing the Bible to suit a human system rather than changing such a system to suit the Bible.”

The difference between the orthodox model of leadership today and the first-century model is that one says, “Do as I say,” while the other says, “Do as I do.” One is positional, and the other is relational.

The world is starving for examples. People are desperately looking for heroes—someone to show them the way. The first-century elderly understood that the only power they possessed to influence others was the power of love and of their example.

Perhaps you’re asking, “But doesn’t the Bible say that elders are responsible to rule over the flock?”

It is amazing how much one little word can change the meaning of a passage of Scripture. Such is the case with this word “over.”

Take, for instance, Paul’s words to the Ephesian elders in Acts 20:28, which reads:

“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over [en] which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.”

This is a deliberate mistranslation. It could be nothing else, for it required that the simplest Greek preposition en (which means “in” or “among,” which is used 2,700 times in the New Testament and is nowhere else translated “over”) be translated “over” only here—and that in the context of leadership.

Peter instructs the presbytery of his day regarding the nature of their work, reminding them of the perimeters set by the Lord Himself:

*”Neither as being lords