Our Lord's ekklesia

Is There a Hierarchy of Authority?

2012-01-21T08:35:00.000-08:00

We all approach the Bible with predetermined interpretations. The important thing is to avoid forcing predetermined interpretations on Scripture. Instead, we must allow Scriptures to mold our interpretations. It may be necessary to determine the original meaning that the author intended readers to understand before attempting to understand and apply Scripture. Determining what the author had in mind for his readers to take away from the text may require taking into account what the author would have expected his readers to bring to the text. What would the original readers have known and brought to their reading of the text? Their perception and understanding of things -- the filter through which they read and saw things -- would have been very different from someone of a 21st century Western civilization. ¹ If we give little or no thought to the context, we may find ourselves reading more into a Scripture than what the Spirit of God intended. We would likely misinterpret the Scripture. Our application and teaching would be incorrect. The reason for misinterpreting and misapplying the Scripture and teaching error is we imposed our predetermined interpretations and meanings of words and phrases on Scripture.

INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS . . .

A case in point of a forced interpretation is the idea that for a community of God’s people to be as God intends, they must have or work toward having a hierarchal structure. Hierarchy is a system of persons or things ranked one above another, a government by ecclesiastical rulers.² It is common for people to approach the Bible with a predetermined interpretation that God intends for a community of His people to have a hierarchy. Some believe the hierarchy can take in several communities (e.g., a district or a diocese). Others argue the hierarchal organization does not exist above the local level or community of God’s people (i.e., the local church). Regardless of the degree to which people imagine the hierarchal structure to be, they approach the Bible with a predetermined interpretation that a hierarchy exists. As a result, they look for it in Scripture.

Perhaps one reason people have a hierarchal mindset is they have an institutional concept of what the Messiah said He would build (Matthew 16:18). Instead of primarily thinking in terms of a community of individuals who place their faith in Yeshua for salvation and who try to share with others their knowledge of Him and of what God accomplished through Him, people tend to think in institutional terms. Part of their institutional concept of what a community of Christ-followers looks like is the idea of a hierarchy. Even some fellowships that claim to be non-denominational have some form of a hierarchy of authority.

SCRIPTURES THOUGHT TO SUPPORT A HIERARCHY OF AUTHORITY. . .

Are people who believe in a hierarchy reading more into the Scriptures than what the authors intended? Do the Scriptures support the idea of a hierarchy of authority among a community of God’s summoned people, His ekklesia? To word it differently: did first century churches have a hierarchy? At the outset, we should take note that this writing does not examine everything that relates to the subject. For this reason, we should not expect this writing to be a definitive answer to the question of whether Scriptures support the idea of a hierarchy. We will however look at a few key passages that people believe support the idea of a hierarchy. By listening for what the Scriptures actually say, we will discover that the Scriptures we look at do not support the concept of a hierarchy.³

Hebrews 13:17. "Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you." (New American Standard Updated) (NASU)

Both the King James (KJV) and the American Standard (ASV) Versions have, “obey them that have the rule over you, and submit”. The words “obey”, “rule over” and “submit” certainly suggest the idea of a hierarchy of authority. Before assuming a hierarchy of authority to exist, we need to do a word study and we need to take into account the larger context.

“Obey. . .”

The word obey represents the Greek peithō (pi'-tho). William E. Vine in his Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, defined peithō as “to persuade, to win over”. In regard to Hebrews 13:17, he believed “the ’obedience’ suggested is not by submission to authority, but resulting from persuasion”. He went on to say there is an etymological connection between peithō, translated obey, and pisteuō, meaning trust. When the Hebrew author wrote “obey your leaders and submit to them,” he was speaking of obedience produced by trust.⁴

“. . . them that have the rule over you. . .”

“Have the rule over you” represents the Greek hēgeomai (hayg-eh'-om-ahee). It occurs in not only Hebrews 13:17 but also Hebrews13:7 and 13:24. Mr. Vine gave “to lead” as the definition of hēgeomai. The NASU Version puts across the meaning of the Hebrews 13:17 more accurately in that it has “your leaders” whereas the ASV and KJV read, “have the rule over you”. In expounding on the meaning of hēgeomai, Mr. Vine called attention to a marginal note in the Authorized Version for verses 7 and 17 that reads, “are the guides" and "guide”. Mr. Vine, who knew the Greek language, understood the Hebrew writer to be speaking of not rulers but guides or leaders, individuals others knew and trusted.⁵

“. . . and submit to them.”

The Greek word for submit is hupeikō (hoop-i'-ko). The word does not occur anywhere else in Greek New Testament Scriptures. The entry for submit in Vine’s Dictionary reads, "'to retire, withdraw' (hupo, under, eiko, 'to yield'), hence, 'to yield, submit,' is used metaphorically in Heb. 13:17, of 'submitting' to spiritual guides in the churches".⁶ Earlier in the same context, the Hebrew writer had instructed his readers to “remember those who led [them], who spoke the word of God to [them]; and considering the result of their conduct, imitate their faith” (Hebrews 13:7). The word translated "led" in Hebrews 13:7 is hēgeomai, the same word for "rule" in Hebrews 13:17. In verse 7, the writer said they were to “remember those who led [hēgeomai]” them because “they spoke the word of God” to them. In verse 17, the writer says they are to “submit” to those that “have the rule [hēgeomai] over” them. Considering the meaning of the words used and the context, the logical inference is they were to yield not to authority but to the knowledge, experience, and conduct of individuals whom they knew and trusted and who they looked to as guides or leaders.

First Thessalonians 5:12. "But we request of you, brethren, that you appreciate those who diligently labor among you, and have charge over you in the Lord and give you instruction." (NASU)

At first glance, we can see how the words “have charge over you” definitely appear to support the idea of a hierarchy. The Greek text has proistēmi (pro-is'-tay-mee). The King James Version (KJV) translates it “ruleth” (Romans 12:8, First Timothy 3:4), “rule” (First Timothy 3:5, 5:17), and “ruling” (First Timothy 3:12).⁷ Are we to understand from reading First Thessalonians 5:12 that a community of God’s people can have certain individuals who have authority to impose their will on others within their fellowship?

Mr. Vines defines proistēmi with “lit., ‘to stand before,’ hence, ‘to lead, attend to’ (indicating care and diligence)”.⁸ The passage is speaking of individuals who stand out as leaders. What sets them apart is their diligent labor and admonition (cf. Romans 12:8). Our responsibility is to appreciate them for their diligent care and instruction. A person does not necessarily have to be a ruler or have some official power in order for him to stand out as an example, to demonstrate care and compassion, and to give instruction. A more likely scenario is that a community of God’s people will have individuals whose faith and knowledge of God’s grace motivates them to such a degree that they involve themselves in the lives of those around them. We need to appreciate them because of their diligent care and because they stand out and give instruction.

First Timothy 5:17. “The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.” (NASU)

No one can argue the point that a local fellowship can have elders. There were elders among the people of God in Jerusalem (Acts 11:30, Acts 15:2). On Paul’s first missionary journey, he and Barnabas revisited places where people had received the gospel and “appointed elders for them in every church” (Acts 14:23). When Paul was at Miletus, during his third missionary journey, “he sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders of the church” (Acts 20:17). Paul left Titus in Crete to “set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city” (Titus 1:5). The issue is do elders hold a hierarchal position. Are they governing officers?

Some fellowships believe elders are individuals chosen from among them, who meet certain specific qualifications, and who hold a position of authority above them. The authority they have is legislative authority. According to their theology, the appointment makes qualified individuals elders. Prior to their appointment, they are not elders. It is common to find among these fellowships individuals who are older in the faith, more advanced in knowledge, experience, and wisdom, are held out as examples, teach, and have their “senses trained to discern good and evil” (Hebrews 5:14) but the members do not consider them elders.⁹ In essence, these qualified individuals -- although not officially appointed elders -- are doing what the Holy Spirit is calling them to do by leading, teaching, and showing diligent care and compassion toward others. The members recognize them for their good work, they look to them for wisdom, instruction and guidance but until their appointment to be elders, they are not elders. Does their theology regarding elders make sense? Is it what we find in the Scriptures?

The word translated elder is presbuteros (pres-boo'-ter-os). It means older or of a greater age.¹⁰ An elder by definition is someone more advanced in comparison to others. The Holy Spirit appointed to elders the work of watching and looking carefully with the intent of seeing the needs of others provided for. Their involvement compares to the relationship of a Bedouin shepherd with his sheep. In a manner of speaking, the older and more experienced are to shepherd the individuals who know and trust them and who seek their counsel and wisdom. The imagery of a shepherd has nothing to do with authority. It does call to mind such concepts as trust, care, compassion and sacrifice. When older ones shepherd God's people, they are doing what the Holy Spirit has gifted and appointed them to do. (Cf. Acts 20:28.¹¹) Their work includes teaching and addressing problems that affect fellowship (First Timothy 5:17). Any person who desires the work if he is to be effective, should first consider his own character. He must be “above reproach” (First Timothy 3:1-2, Titus 1:5-9).

In what sense do elders rule? The word rule is proistēmi. We saw in our discussion of Hebrews 13: 17 that proistēmi means to stand before, to lead or guide. We are to hold in high esteem the men and women of faith who are comparatively older and who, because of their diligent labor, their compassion, their conduct, and their knowledge, stand out. They go before us as leaders or guides.

CLOSING COMMENTS . . .

Do the Scriptures reveal a hierarchy of authority among a community of God’s people?

We did not examine everything necessary to answer the question. We did however look at some Scriptures believed to support the theology of a hierarchal organization. What we discovered is the wording and context of the Scriptures we looked at do not describe a community of believers having a hierarchy of authority. What happens all too often is people approach Scriptures with a predetermined mindset that a hierarchy exists. They look for a pattern for the organization of the church expecting to find it in Scripture. As a result, they see in Scriptures a hierarchy among a faith community when it does not exist.

Endnotes

A Jewish audience living in the time of Yeshua would bring their knowledge of the Septuagint to the things they heard and saw (Acts 17:11). At times, they misunderstood or did not see the intended meaning of the Scripture (e.g. Matthew 9:13). What they did not do was dismiss the Scriptures. Anyone speaking or writing to them of salvation or judgment would expect them to use the Septuagint as the basis for understanding what they heard and saw.
“hierarchy." Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hierarchy. (Accessed 24 Sep. 2011)
When we say the Scriptures do not support the concept of a hierarchy, obviously we are not talking about Yeshua (Jesus) or Jehovah. There should be no argument among Our Lord’s disciples that Jesus received from the Father all authority (Matthew 28:18). Our salvation requires surrendering ourselves to Him as Lord (Romans 10:10). The question is what are we to believe about the existence of a hierarchy among the redeemed, the women and men of faith who in their collective sense are the ekklesia?
William Vine, “Topic: Obedience, Obedient, Obey.” Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. http://www2.mf.no/bibelprog/vines.pl?word=obey. (Accessed 01 Jan. 2012)
William Vine, ”Topic: Rule (Noun and Verb).” Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. http://www2.mf.no/bibelprog/vines.pl?word=rule. (Accessed 19 Jan. 2012)
William Vine, “Topic: Submit,” Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. http://www2.mf.no/bibelprog/vines.pl?word=submit. (Accessed 19 Jan. 2012)
Rick Meyers, e-Sword®, Copyright© 2000-2011 (Version 9.9.0) [Computer program], Available for download at http://www.e-sword.net/ (Accessed 20 Jan 2012).
William Vine, Topic: Rule (Noun and Verb), Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. http://www2.mf.no/bibelprog/vines.pl?word=rule (Accessed 20 Jan. 2012)
Some members of these fellowships believe it is the preacher’s responsibility to appoint men elders. The members hire the preacher. The preacher receives from the members a salary as compensation for his studying the Scriptures and teaching. Some hired servants believe their work includes appointing elders. A Scripture often used to support the belief that preachers appoint elders is Titus 1:5.
The Greek Dictionary of the New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance, p. 1677. William Vine, “Topic: Elder, Eldest.” Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. http://www2.mf.no/bibelprog/vines.pl?word=elder. (Accessed 20 Jan 2012)
Paul told the elders from Miletus that the Holy Spirit had made them “overseers to shepherd the church of God”. The Greek word for “overseer” is episkopos. It means to look carefully into someone’s needs with the intent of supplying those needs. William Vine, “Topic: Bishop (overseer).” Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. http://www2.mf.no/bibelprog/vines.pl?word=bishop. (Accessed 20 Jan 2012)

Uninstitutional

2012-01-20T20:58:00.000-08:00

by Jon Zens¹

We expect the proliferation of institutions and hierarchies in the human realm — business, government, the military, education. But there is no place for such things in the Lord’s ekklesia because it is not a human organization. It is a spiritual temple whose Builder and Maker is Christ.

Probably most of us have been part of some group in school, college, church or society that started out with excitement and verve, but after a period of time ended up in stagnancy and micro-management. The members found themselves maintaining the shell when in fact the original vibrancy was gone.

Bob Lupton makes some astute observations along these lines in his article, “The Cycle of Life.” However, there is one fatal flaw in the article: he assumes that when a group moves from its organic beginnings to its institutionalization that it somehow always remains organic. Not so. Becoming established as an institution is a retrogression that kills organic life. Listen carefully to what Bob says:

The Western church is in such a decline. Viewed against the backdrop of history, however, the current demise of denominations is predictable. In time, all institutions follow a similar pattern. They begin as fresh movements, new and exciting, abundant with vision and creativity. But in order to survive, a movement must development structural strength – mission statement, doctrinal distinctives, leadership structure, decision-making processes.

Vigorous change takes place during this organizational phase as a seedling becomes established, sinking its roots and spreading its branches. Staff are hired, budgets are created, policies are instituted, goals and objectives are set, property is purchased. As the organization matures it becomes a source of security for its employees. Health insurance, vacation pay, cost of living raises, retirement benefits are negotiated. Gradually the mission shifts from the founding visionaries to hired employees and with each subsequent ring of management the passion that originally inspired the movement becomes slightly diluted. Marketing, management, and funding consume increasing amounts of organizational energy. With its own sturdy root system, it now commands its fair share of sunlight and space on the forest floor.

By the time the organization enters the institutional phase of its development, it is fully vested in its own self-preservation. Instead of a movement spending itself on behalf of a noble cause, it has become a respectable institution consumed with preserving its own viability and legacy. It may still use the same stirring language of its past movement days, and it may still perform important work, but it spends the lion’s share of its energy on buildings, communication systems, internal politics and self-promotion to ensure its longevity. Good stewardship demands its preservation. It is the way of all institutions” (Bob Lupton, Cycle of Life, September, 2010, http://fcsministries.org/blog/cycle-of-life/. Accessed 07/21/2012.)

I think an overview of human history would justify the observation that people have a propensity to move from simple beginnings to bureaucratic mazes at the end of the day. This is certainly what occurred as history moved on from the early church to the post-apostolic church.

Take the Lord’s Supper, for example. What began as believers remembering the Lord in a simple meal morphed into a complicated liturgical “sacrament” which had to be officiated by a specially ordained religious person. Emil Brunner documented many such occasions where simplicity was overtaken by complexity in The Misunderstanding of the Church (1952).

James D.G. Dunn noted that “increasing institutionalism is the clearest mark of early Catholicism,” and that “such features were absent from first generation Christianity, though in the second generation the picture was beginning to change” (Unity & Diversity in the New Testament, Westminster Press, 1977, p. 351). Bob Lupton suggests that “in order to survive, a movement must development structural strength – mission statement, doctrinal distinctives, leadership structure, decision-making processes.” These are the crucial questions we must face: Must the communal life of Christ in believers be institutionalized in order to survive? Was the movement from early church simplicity to later church bureaucracy inevitable and good, or a terrible distortion and tragedy?

The truth is that in our practice we have tried to institutionalize the living Christ. That which is organic cannot thrive in an institutional environment. The DNA does not match. Of course, it must be said that there are people in many church-institutions who are expressions of the living Christ. But the living Christ is not a fit for institutional structures. It would be like hoping that an orchid would flourish in a barren desert, or that a cactus would do well in a rainforest.

If we believe that the simplicity of Christ is truth worth continuing, then we must resist our tendency toward institutionalism with every fiber of our being. If believers were satisfied with Jesus Christ alone, institutions wouldn’t have a chance of taking over.

Frederick Buechner pointed out that churches could learn a lot from support groups like AA. They do not own buildings and have virtually no overhead. “They make you wonder,” he went on to say, “if the best thing that could happen to many a church might not be to have its building burn down and to lose all its money. Then all that the people would have left would be God and each other” (cited in my A Church Building Every ½ Mile: What Makes American Christianity Tick? 2008, p.72).

Mary Pipher perceptively noted, “Too often [health] institutions are about the needs of the institution, not of the patients” (Another Country, 2000, p. 167). Jesus did not come to start another religious institution with every candle and pulpit in its proper place. By giving his life in crucifixion, taking his life back in resurrection, returning to Father by his ascension, and pouring out his Spirit on the day of Pentecost – he assured that his people would express his life in them as the Body of Christ on earth – organically, not as an institution.

Postscript

For additional information that relates to the preceding article, Uninstitutional, see Is There a Hierarchy of Authority?

Uninstitutional is from Searching Together. The web address for the article is http://www.searchingtogether.org/blog/?p=28. (Accessed 01/20/2012)

Confined to the Kitchen? The Lord Doesn't Put Women in This Box

2012-01-20T10:48:00.000-08:00

by Jon Zens¹

It breaks my heart to see the same worn-out ideas about the “woman’s role” parroted over and over again in source after source. During our recent travels a brother gave me an article, “The Godly Woman’s Role & Influence” by Marlin Kreider (Reaching Out, #69, 2011, Living Waters Mennonite Church, pp.5-6). I would like to deal with several aspects of this article in hopes of helping us discern Christ’s will concerning the full-functioning of the brothers and sisters in his body on earth.

The author expresses a desire to find “God’s way of doing things,” but important information is omitted from the Biblical story that does not fit the box that women are put in.

For example, the first point regarding the “role for women” is “submission.” The article gives the impression that submission is specifically a female issue. This distorts Paul’s thought. Paul mentions the submission of wives only after setting forth the beauty of mutual submission of all believers one to another. Submission is first of all a manifestation of the Spirit among those in the ekklesia. In other words, it is just as important for males to be submissive as it is for females. To lift submission out of its body context and primarily connect it to females is to open the door for dangerous distortion and abuse.

Further, the article states that “suitable helper” translates into meaning that a woman “fill a subordinate role under the direction and protection of a godly father or husband.” This position creates some serious problems, for the Hebrew word “ezer” is most often used of the Lord, who is said to be “the helper of Israel.” Doesn’t this show once and for all that “suitable helper” cannot mean a “subordinate role” for the woman? If anything, it would highlight the strength of Eve.

Building on these mistaken assumptions, the article then suggests that

“God never planned for a woman to fill a man’s role. She is out of her God-ordained place when she assumes leadership in the home, the workforce, the church, or the nation. She was not created to be an executive, wear a hard hat, and the like.”

This statement reveals a central issue: an either/or mentality sets up a false alternative – either the woman stays at home and stifles Christ within her, or she expresses Christ outside the home and forsakes her domestic responsibilities. This approach flies in the face of the Biblical narrative.

What about Deborah and Huldah? They were both prophetesses and both expressed their gifts outside the home in the community of Israel. Yet, they were both married, and probably had children (Judges 4:4; 5:7; 2 Kings 22:14; 2 Chron. 34:22). Deborah also functioned as a Judge – “Deborah would sit under the Palm Tree of Deborah, which was between the cities of Ramah and Bethel, in the mountains of Ephraim. And the people of Israel would come to her to settle their disputes” (Judges 4:5).

What about the many women who traveled with Jesus and the male disciples (Luke 8:1-3)? They even supported Jesus and the twelve with their own resources. Shouldn’t they have been dutifully in their homes cleaning, cooking and baking? It was scandalous for a rabbi to have female disciples, and even more scandalous to have them traveling with Jesus’ entourage!

What about Phoebe? She was a deacon in the ekklesia of Cenchrea (Romans 16:1-2). What about Junia? She was outstanding among the apostles as an itinerant worker (Romans 16:7). Why does Paul designate some women as “co-workers,” the same word used for apostolic assistants like Titus and Timothy? Why does the New Testament not have any problem with sisters praying and prophesying in the gatherings of the saints (Acts 2:17-18; 1 Corinthians 11:5)?

As a side note, it is interesting to observe that those who place a heavy emphasis on a woman’s head being covered also usually forbid women to speak in the assembly. But that is the opposite direction from where Paul landed. Paul’s goal was for women to function with praying and prophesying, not to silence them (1 Cor. 11:5, 13).

The view that women are confined to the kitchen is usually linked with the idea that all good believing girls will get married and have children. But under the new covenant singleness is a viable option for men and women (Matthew 19:11-12; 1 Corinthians 7). To put younger and older women under heavy guilt if they do not pursue marriage is to deny the freedom Christ has bestowed upon us.

In Luke 10:38-42 we find a beautiful story that shows us vividly the Lord’s heart. Mary was in the “men’s space,” learning at Jesus’ feet. Martha was carrying out the responsibilities connected to having guests. She was frustrated that Mary was not helping with the preparations, but abiding in the living room with the male disciples. Jesus in no way put down what Martha was doing, but he did make it clear that Mary’s choice to be outside the kitchen was an excellent and acceptable one.

Nothing I have said should be taken as a downplaying or demeaning of motherhood. I am simply trying to bring needed perspective to a view that tightly and narrowly defines the “role” of women in a way that is seriously out of alignment with Christ’s revelation. Deborah held the public position of Judge, she publicly carried out her gifts as a prophetess, and yet she was also a “mother in Israel.”

Confined to the Kitchen? The Lord Doesn't Put Women in This Box is from Searching Together. The web address for the article is http://www.searchingtogether.org/blog/?p=100. (Accessed 01/20/2012)

The Clergy-Laity Institutional Lie

2012-01-18T09:41:00.000-08:00

When we think about the people saved by grace who enjoy renewed fellowship with God, there is but one community: the ekklesia of God. Yeshua said He is the true living way, “no one comes to the Father but through [Him]” (John 14:6). God’s community exists throughout the world but we are not of the world. God calls us to seek fellowship with one another. We come together as communities of individuals who place our faith in Yeshua for salvation and who endeavor to share with each other and the world our knowledge of Him and of what God accomplished through Him. The sad thing is many people have an institutional concept of what the communities of God’s people look like. Their institutional mindset includes a clergy system.

Before the Messiah came, a clergy system did indeed exist. Jehovah set the tribe of Levi apart from the other tribes. He called them for a particular service. Members of the tribe of Levi served in ways that Jehovah forbade others from doing under penalty of death. (E.g., Numbers 18:6-7, Deuteronomy 10:8-9.) Then the Messiah came.

The saving work of the Messiah included His wiping out distinctions that existed previously, one being the clergy-laity system. Now, every member of the family of God is a priest (Revelation 1:6). There are no items of service reserved for only a special class of individuals to provide. Every child of God is a minister / servant.

In the following video, Jon Zen shares his thoughts on what he calls “the clergy laity institutional lie”.

The Clergy-Laity Institutional Lie is from Searching Together. The web address for the video on the Searching Together website is http://www.searchingtogether.org/new.html (Accessed 01/22/2012). You can also see the video on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnAYSQrCtYw (Accessed 01/22/2012).

How Did We Stray So Far From The Truth?

2012-01-10T18:34:00.000-08:00

by Deanna Rodriguez¹

How did we stray so far from the truth? When did this all start? Why can’t we feel confidant in our relationship with God outside the walls of a church? Why do we need the affirmation of a movement or a prophetic word to believe we are on the right track with the Lord? I asked these questions over and over again and found the answers to all of these questions and more were right in front of me in the pages of my bible all along; Warning me, calling out to me, even begging me not to fall into the allure of the traditions of man and allowing them to take the throne of adoration in my life.

The bible showed me that it is natural for our sinful nature to follow after form and fashion. We believe we have biblical faith but our heart still strays after the things our eyes can see. Just like when the children of Israel asked Samuel to anoint a king as ruler and representative of God’s divine presence, we utterly pushed the omnipotent unseen God aside and traded the Creator for the created. You can see this so alive and obvious in the beliefs that have been adopted by the most widely spread religion in the US, Catholicism. This religion is so popular because it takes a mere mortal and places them in the place of mediator between God and man, completely pushing the role of Christ aside and giving it to Mary. She is someone whom they can grasp and relate to, thus nullifying the cross of Jesus or the need for His blood for the remission of sins. We as Christians have followed after a less obvious example of this by replacing our personal relationship with Christ with a contrived institution that we so confidently refer to as the Church. We do so even though throughout scripture we are told that God does not dwell in buildings built by the hands of men, and that we as the saints of God are the living stones that make up the True Church of Christ. As we grow more and more accustomed to our ritual of Sunday morning services and our reliance on the affirmation of a man we call Pastor or Teacher we grow less and less dependant on the Cross and the need for Christ’s blood for the cleansing of our sin, or the sound of His voice guiding us and directing us in all truth. The bible says that it is the little foxes that nibble away at the fruit on the vine, meaning that it is the subtle occurrences over time, that eventually eat away at any good fruit that has grown by the Spirit. Have we traded our relationship with Jesus for tradition? To find the honest answer to this ask yourself these questions?

Do you feel like God is unhappy with you if you decide to stay home instead of attend church on Sunday?
Do you measure how you are doing with God, on how others respond to your outward displays of Christianity?
Do you feel that the only way you can stay on track with God is to attend Church regularly?
Do you feel unless you make a conscious effort to read your bible a certain amount of time that you are not fulfilling your responsibilities as a Christian?
Do you feel guilty when you decline a request to volunteer at your church?
Do you feel as though you are not covered spiritually if you are not part of a church fellowship?

Where does the basis for this type of thinking come from? Is there any biblical foundation for any of these feelings? If you take the time to closely examine the scriptures, you would find yourselves just as shocked and amazed as I was when I set out to discover the truth. I, in all my desperate and sincere efforts had traded God’s truth for tradition. I was shown through the numerous stories in the Old Testament that the children of God would almost predictably, turn from their faithfulness and begin to follow after foreign teachings, which of course eventually led to the worship of other Gods. Everything from fashioning cakes after the Queen of Heaven to offering foreign fire before the alter of the Lord can be found it the pages of these books. These things are still prevalent among the children of God today. Much more subtle in its persuasions, but still the same spirit at work none the less in the practices of modern church. Paul talked about the secret work of iniquity at work in the church, and it being revealed at the appropriate time. 2 Thes 2:7. Why do you think that Paul spent so much time warning the believers not to follow after another Jesus or to even listen to another Gospel than the one that he preached? Do you suppose that even back then, there was the constant threat of falling for a counterfeit? When did the gospel message turn into a profitable business a fortune 500 one at that? I can’t help but be drawn to such scriptures as this:

1Timothy 6:3-10 – If anyone teaches differently, and does not consent to sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching according to godliness, he has been puffed up, understanding nothing, but is sick concerning doubts and arguments, out of which comes envy, strife, evil-speaking, evil suspicions, meddling, of men whose mind has been corrupted and deprived of the truth, supposing gain to be godliness. Withdraw from such persons. But godliness with contentment is great gain. For we have brought nothing into the world, and it is plain that neither can we carry anything out. But having food and clothing, we will be satisfied with these. But those purposing to be rich fall into temptation, and a snare, and many foolish and hurtful lusts, which plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all evils, by means of which some having lusted after it were seduced from the faith, and they themselves pierced through by many pains.

Doesn’t Jesus clearly state in His word “Freely you have received, freely you must give”? then how can the church justify selling its merchandise, and claim tax-exempt status when clearly they are selling wares and we are being charged for them? Oh but they cleverly mask it behind the terms “Love Offering” or for a “Gift of $20.00 or more” they are still charging and making a profit off of truth (if it really is truth?) that they received freely by the price Jesus paid on the cross for them 2000 plus years ago. The temple of the Lord has indeed become a Marketplace and a den of Thieves!

And why must there be so much emphasis on positions of authority? Didn’t Jesus teach us that this must not be so among us who believe? Mark 10:42-43 so many so called Christian movements today place so much emphasis on the seating arrangements at the table of the Lord, that they forget the whole reason why we were invited to begin with “To sup(dine) with HIM! Rev 3:20, so why do so many get hung up on where their place card is positioned at the table? Didn’t we see this very scenario played out in scripture with the sons of Zebedee and their desire to have seats of honor at the right and left side of Jesus when He would come into His glory? Mark 10:35 Do you remember the point that Jesus was trying to make to them after they made such a request? Let me refresh your memory: He was saying that everything that they knew concerning honor and authority, and governing rule was going to have to be cast aside because it didn’t line up with the principles of truth in the Kingdom of God. Jesus was saying that the seating positions of those who are called to share in his life, death and resurrection were pre-determined designations not meant for any man to ponder or even request. Jesus also redirected their thinking concerning greatness in the Kingdom by telling them that the greatest among those that believe would be the servants. Actually, that scripture in Greek reads more like this: Whoever is determined to be great in position among you must be your servant (diakonos), which literally translated means waiter or attendant that serves at a table or other menial duty. In Mark 10:44 Jesus goes on to say that to be considered the best at servant hood means being a slave to all! Now, let me see a show of hands of those that still are consumed with positions of greatness and authority? When examined in the light of truth these words of Jesus bring back into perspective a covered over truth that has been carefully swept under the rug of religious piety and the recognition of man. When you are a servant of God, you are merely acting as a waiter, serving and administering what God has carefully pre-prepared for those who would receive of HIM. Let me ask you this? How many waiters or waitresses do you see cooking the food in the kitchen and serving it to you at your table? My point exactly, you don’t really, that’s because their job is to serve the food and not to prepare it, that job is reserved for the chef alone. I believe much of the blame for the straying from the truth can be directed to servants (waiters) that try to play chef and put their hands on what has already been prepared by the Lord. These men take truth that has been freely revealed and kneed in tradition and doctrines of man, (which is the yeast of the Pharisee’s that Jesus was warning us about) and sell it in their market places.

I just want to see people get back to a true and personal relationship with Christ that isn’t tainted or gauged by the doctrines that are formed and fashioned by men that desire positions of authority or lavish outward displays of what men would consider blessing. I think that in light of just these few small examples that have been laid out, we can conclude in all humility, that we have strayed from the fundamental message of Christ and been subtlety swayed into the conformity of the modern Christian status quo.

The Wisdom of God is like Gold that has been refined by the fire 7 times.

I pray that this article has you thinking, and has challenged you to investigate the scriptures in all their fullness to either prove me wrong or prove them right…

The preceding article, "How Did We Stray So Far From The Truth," is from TruthForFree.Com. http://www.truthforfree.com/?p=511 . . . accessed 01/10/2012.

Music Videos (Chris Tomlin)

2011-11-26T09:52:00.000-08:00

Our Lord’s ekklesia has several articles and hyperlinks to other websites where you find additional articles. The following is different. I want to share a few videos of Contemporary Christian music by Chris Tomlin. The videos are available to view on the Internet. I embedded the codes for viewing them on this site. Unauthorized reproduction of music videos by Chris Tomlin is a violation of applicable laws.

Chris Tomlin - I Lift My Hands (Official Music Video)

"All My fountains"

"Amazing Grace (My Chains are Gone)" music video

"Our God is Greater"

Changes We Would Do Well to Make

2011-11-26T07:41:00.000-08:00

The following list is twenty-four changes that Cecil Hook believed it necessary for him to make. Are any of the changes ones we should consider making?¹

God’s basic requirement is for us to love him and one another. That is simple enough, but we have complicated it into a tedious system of religion.
We are all sinners — always! Because of our faith, the grace of God counts us as though we were sinless. Rightness with God is never accomplished in us either by God or ourselves, but it is imputed, accounted, or credited to us.
The new covenant is neither a code of law, the New Testament Scriptures, nor a book.
The New Testament Scriptures are not “the faith once for all delivered to the saints.”
The entire New Testament writings are not gospel. They contain both gospel and doctrine/teaching. There is a difference between gospel and doctrine and also a difference between preaching and teaching.
We can be right doctrinally on most everything and still not be right in the things that count most.
All Biblical teachings are important, but they are not equally important. There are some weightier matters.
Even we who have discovered salvation by grace continue to try to answer questions about such matters as marriage and divorce, the role of women, and the qualification and role of elders by legal concepts.
If unity is by conformity, it is brain-dead. All true unity is in Christ where we accept each other in spite of diversity.
Our tradition has been to reject and try to convert all who differ from us doctrinally; so we have approached them on an adversary basis. To accept all believers as fellow disciples and to try to mature their understanding on an accepting basis is more sensible, non-judgmental, and effective.
Rather than serving to unite, doctrinal confrontations tend to polarize extremes.
Being in fellowship with a person does not mean that we approve or endorse all that he teaches or practices.
Our unity is in Christ rather than in compatible doctrinal beliefs and practices.
The person who tries to bind his convictions on others is guilty of being divisive. He becomes a judge, not just discerning for his own conscience, but condemning others for what their consciences allow.
When we are saved, the Lord adds us to his universal church rather than to local congregations. We join local groups. That is the way we get into sectarian churches of Christ.
The very message that we have proclaimed, intended to promote unity, is divisive by its nature. We have proven by our many self-produced divisions that legalism, patternism, and restorationism make unity impractical, if not impossible.
Generally, our congregations are formed on the basis of doctrinal agreement rather than by people being drawn into association by love. So, when one of our number begins to disagree with the doctrinal stance, we find it hard to love him.
One may be in a sect without being sectarian. A person may be in a church which rejects others who are in Christ while he himself is non-judgmental and accepting of all who are in Christ. He does not allow himself to be limited by the exclusive attitude of the group. He has a non-sectarian spirit.
Generally, we in the Church of Christ have not been geared to convert others to Christ. We tend to find others who already believe in Jesus in other denominations and then we try to convert them to a different set of doctrines. Even our overseas missionaries (Bless them!) have done too much of that.
Preachers and elders are the two greatest causes of friction in our congregations. If we would let elders shepherd the flock instead of being authority figures, they would be removed from controversy. Everyone would love men who would be concerned with their personal problems, pray with them, and give them loving encouragement. When the role of the preacher is truly preaching (evangelism) instead of being a surrogate elder/pastor serving the needs and whims of a congregation, he will gain respect instead of criticism.
Few of our people ever learn of their heritage in the Stone-Campbell Movement. They feel that they are not influenced by their heritage. A person might as well deny the influence of his inherited genes as to think that his thinking is unaffected by his religious heritage. We can better understand ourselves by reading our history.
Our worship is not limited to five acts or to certain rituals performed in an assembly at specified times and in measured amounts. When we commit ourselves to God in Christ, our whole lives are offerings of worship.
Regrettably, most of us have had constant tensions related to our service in the church. Most of that problem is caused by our efforts to work in an organized congregational system where elders and committees assign the use of our gifts and resources. When we use our gifts in exercise of individual, private ministries, all that tension of trying to please a system is relieved.
Jesus assured us that his yoke/law is easy, that his burden is light, and that his commandments are not burdensome.

The list is from Free to Change, by Cecil Hook. Cecil Hook (died 06/01/07) was a preacher with the church of Christ and an author.

Miscellaneous writings on a variety of topics . . .

2011-11-15T20:54:00.000-08:00

“Miscellaneous Writings on a Variety of Topics” is where you find links to articles that I wrote. Our Lord’s ekklesia also has articles by different authors. Since the website is primarily of my making and a reflection of where I am, I wanted to dedicate a page to my writings. This is it. I attempted to sort the articles under different headings. I hope visitors take a moment to browse through the various topics.

♦ On a personal note . . .

❒ An Introduction to Our Lord’s ekklesia	❒ My Creating this Website	❒ My Journey with Yeshua
❒ My Approach to Preaching	❒ My Thoughts of the Hired Hand

♦ “Ekklesia”; what are some things that the Scriptures tell us of “ekklesia”?

❒ Its Meaning?	❒ Its Significance?	❒ Its Descriptions?
❒ Its Membership?	❒ House to House	❒ In one's house
❒ Pillar and Support of truth	❒ the Covenant People in Christ	❒ Many dwelling places

♦ A study of words and their meanings

❒ Anglicized Words	❒ Apostle	❒ Christian
❒ Church	❒ Deacon	❒ Elder
❒ Evangelist	❒ Heresy	❒ Yeshua / Jesus
❒ Kingdom	❒ Office	❒ Overseer
❒ Pastor	❒ Preacher

♦ Kingdom Teaching

❒ The Davidic Covenant

❒ The Messiah's Sovereignty

❒ Understanding the word Kingdom

♦ Salvation

❒ The Most Important Decision	❒ Be Reconciled to God	❒ Have You Come to Yeshua?
❒ Focusing on Jesus	❒ Obedience From the Heart	❒ Be Baptized / Immersed
❒ Serving by the Spirit	❒ Called to Serve	❒ Fasting, Patches and Leathern Bags

♦ Back to Basics

❒ Timeline

❒ Bible Study

♦ Potpourri; an assortment of writings on a variety of topics

❒ Traits of an effective elder	❒ God Gave Jesus as Head	❒ Heresy
❒ Indwelling of the Holy Spirit	❒ Jesus Spoke with Authority	❒ Musical Instruments
❒ One Body In Christ	❒ Is There a Hierarchy of Authority?	❒ Soul and Spirit
❒ They Are Without Understanding	❒ The Assembling of Ourselves	❒ The Church Jesus is Building

Lecture with Edward Fudge

2011-11-12T02:19:00.000-08:00

"Around the world today, evangelical Bible scholars are giving hell a serious second look. Would the God who gave his Son to die for sinners finally keep billions of them alive forever to torment them without end? Does Holy Scripture require such a conclusion or offer a different vision?

"The story of how the great majority of Christians came to teach unending conscious torment is as fascinating as any mystery or 'Who-done-it'. In this lecture, Edward Fudge will identify scores of generally-overlooked Scriptures, then lead a tour through some paths of church history that are less well traveled, and which are haunted by pagan philosophy, medieval law and Reformation politics."

The Lecture with Edward Fudge is from Lanier Theological Library on Vimeo, a video-centric social networking site.

NOTE: Your web browser will begin downloading the video once you click “play”. Depending on your internet speed, you may want to click “pause” and allow time for the video to download before watching it. Edward Fudge’s lecture is about one hour and ten minutes in length. You might also consider clearing your browser’s temp directory before attempting to download the video.

History of Religion

2011-11-11T05:55:00.000-08:00

[A Shockwave Flash showing the history of religion]

How has the geography of religion evolved over the centuries? The following gives a brief history of the most well known religions: Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Judaism. The video is short, about ninety minutes in length, and shows how the geography of religion evolved over a 5,000-year period.

Get Flash

The History of Religion is from the Maps-of-War website. The creator of Maps-of-Wars describes himself as “a Flash-Designer hobbyist and professional history buff.” He says, “Each map is well-researched and based in fact, and none of the work is meant to be biased . . . just fact-based. . . “

Click here to download and save the Shockwave Flash (SWF) "History of Religion".

To email this map, enter the email address in the field below and click the “SEND” button.

Yeshua / Jesus

2011-07-04T09:04:00.000-07:00

by Richard Amick

When people think about the only begotten Son of God, the name Jesus usually comes to mind. It is not surprising given that our English translations have “Jesus” as the name of the Child born to Mary (Matthew 1:21, Luke 2:21). Yet there are people who insist Jesus is not an accurate translation of the Greek. They claim “Yeshua” communicates more accurately the meaning of the word.

Is it inappropriate to speak of the Messiah as Jesus? Would Yeshua be a more proper term?

In the Bible, names are significant

Many of the names we see in the Bible were not mere labels. They were usually descriptive of the person, of his position, of some circumstances affecting him, or some hope entertained concerning the one to whom the name belonged.^{1, 2} One example is Moses. Pharoah’s daughter found an infant among the reeds along the Nile River. The Bible says she called him Moses because she drew him out of the water (Exodus 2:10). “Moses” represents the Hebrew môsheh (mo-sheh'), which is from mâshâh (maw-shaw'), a word that means pull or draw (out).³ Other examples include Abraham (Genesis 17:5), Isaac (Genesis 21:6), Abimelech (Judges 8:31), and Samuel (First Samuel 1:20).

God’s name is certainly significant. The Bible says when Moses asked God His name, it was the same as asking about his character (Exodus 3:13). On another occasion, God said to Moses, “I Myself . . . will proclaim the name of the Lord before you.” As we read further into the account, we find the following.

the guilty

God’s name is not a mere word but the whole of His Divine manifestation. It is synonymous with His character as revealed in His relations and dealing with His people (compare Exodus 9:16).⁴

The name given to the Son of God is significant

Looking beyond our English translations to the Greek text, we learn Gabriel told Joseph to name the Child Ἰησοῦς (Iēsous, pronounced ee-ay-sooce'). Iēsous is a transliterated form of the Hebrew or Aramaic Yeshua or Y’shua (ye-SHOO-a).

Yeshua

Yeshua was a common name among the Jews. It occurs twenty-nine times in the Hebrew and Aramaic Scriptures. ⁵ The English form of Yeshua is Jeshua or Joshua. Joshua the son of Nun succeeded Moses in going before the descendants of Israel as their leader. He led them across the Jordan River into Canaan. Yahweh, the covenant God of Israel, used Joshua as His instrument in leading Israel to several victories as they took possession of the land of Canaan.

Some scholars believe Yeshua is the oldest name containing the divine name Yahweh (YHWH). Yeshua means “Yahweh is help” or “Yahweh is salvation”.⁶ It is a form of Yahoshua (yeh-ho-shoo'-ah), meaning Jehovah-saved.

The Gabriel told Joseph that he was to call the Child Iēsous, which in Hebrew or Aramaic is Yeshua, “For He will save His people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21). The angel did not say through Him, Yahweh will save His people. He said, “He” – that is the Child miraculously conceived by God’s Spirit and born of Mary in the city of Bethlehem – “will save His people.” When John the baptizer saw Him, he said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). The author of Hebrews described Him as “without sin” (Hebrews 4:15). Peter said, “He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross” (First Peter 2:24). John’s account reads, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . . And the Word became flesh” (John 1:1, 14). “He” who “will save His people” was God in the flesh! He was “Immanuel, which translated means, ‘God with us’” (Matthew 1:23).

Knowing what we do of the Person born to Mary in Bethlehem, His obedient life and the work He accomplished in saving us, we understand why the angel said his name was to be Iēsous or Yeshua. Anyone familiar with Hebrew or Aramaic who accepts the message of reconciliation knows why the angel told Joseph to name the Child Yeshua.

How did the Iēsous (ee-ay-sooce') become Jesus (G-Zus)?

The answer to how a word pronounced ee-ay-sooce' became “Jesus” is simply a matter of changes in the English language. In Old English, the Greek Iēsous was “Iesus”, pronounced Yesus. The spelling of “Iesus” was with a “J”. At the time, people who spoke old English pronounced the letter “J” with a “Y” sound (Yesus). Later, the “J” began to have a harder sound so that “Iesus” became “Jesus”. Jesus (G-Zus) is a transliterated form of the Old English “Iesus” (Yesus), which was a transliterated form of the Greek Iēsous (ee-ay-sooce').

Concluding comments . . .

We serve a God who understands and recognizes all languages. We use language as a means to convey information.

For people who know something of the Hebrew or Aramaic language, the information conveyed in the name “Yeshua” is YHWH is help, YHWH is salvation, or YHWH saves. “Yeshua” was the name Gabriel told Joseph to call the Child. “Yeshua” dwelt among people who knew Hebrew and Aramaic. For many of them, the reason for calling Him “Yeshua” became clear after His resurrection from the dead. He was God in the flesh who came so that "the world might be saved through Him" (John 3:16).

We do not speak Hebrew or Aramaic. It is not necessary to call the Messiah by either His Aramaic or His Greek name. What is important is we know and we communicate to others the significance of His name.

Endnotes

The New Bible Dictionary, second edition, 1987, p. 430
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (or I.S.B.E.), April 1980, Vol. III, p. 212
The New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance of the bible, Hebrew-Aramaic Dictionary, 1981, p. 1356
Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, 1981 edition, Vol. I, p211; I.S.B.E., second edition, 1981, p. 215
Yeshua occurs once in First Chronicles, once in Second Chronicles, 10 times in Ezra, and 17 times in Nehemiah.
New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, copyright 1976, Vol. 2, p. 330

The Lord's Supper; The Assembly

2011-06-20T19:00:00.000-07:00

by Jay Guin¹

The Lord's Supper

The Lord’s Supper is so rich with meaning that it’s hard to know what to emphasize. Let’s go with –

(1Co 10:16 ESV) 16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation [koinonia] in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?

The grammar tells us that “participation in” is to share in the object of the participation (or fellowship). A similar construction is found in –

(Phi 3:10 NAS) that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship [koinonia] of His sufferings, being conformed to His death;

(Phi 3:10 NRS) I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the sharing [koinonia] of his sufferings by becoming like him in his death,

Paul means by “fellowship of His sufferings” that he shares in Christ’s sufferings by actually suffering as well. A “participation in the blood of Christ” means a sharing in the sacrifice of Jesus by actually becoming sacrifices ourselves.

Thus, the Lord’s Supper — the “blood of the covenant” — is a covenant meal in which we bind ourselves to make the sacrifice of Jesus real in our lives. We offer ourselves as co-crucified people. We promise to become like Jesus by sacrificing ourselves for his sake.

Worshiping in the assembly

Thus, we see that the New Testament doctrine of worship and the New Testament doctrine of the assembly are heavily overlapped. They all point toward Jesus, with the goal of drawing us toward a life like the life he led — a life of submission, service, and sacrifice.

The purpose of the assembly is not to rehearse a discrete list of authorized acts, but to help each other grow closer to Jesus — to be built up, encouraged, comforted, and stirred to love and good works. Part of God’s mission is to restore his people to his image, and we participate in that mission by helping each other grow into Jesus and the life that he lived — and this is ultimately empowered and reinforced by God’s Holy Spirit. We aren’t alone.

Therefore, the assembly is not about satisfying the demands of a vengeful God. The assembly is first and foremost for the benefit of the Christians present-

(1Co 14:6 ESV) 6 Now, brothers, if I come to you speaking in tongues, how will I benefit you unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching?

The test of what is and isn’t appropriate in the assembly is whether those present are benefited consistently with the purposes of the assembly — that is, helped to grow more and more like Jesus, into ever-increasing glory.

Of course, as we become more like Jesus, our hearts are more attuned to God, and we will worship — not because we’ll go to hell if we don’t, but because we can’t do otherwise.

Consider the “five acts.”² Singing very often — routinely — is designed to encourage our fellow members. “Sing and Be Happy!” is an encouragement to the believers present, not to God. Yes, we also sing praise songs, but not just praise songs. Some songs are horizontally directly and some vertically, but even when we sing vertically, we are encouraging our fellow believers to focus their attentions on God.

You see, singing is a corporate, community activity. It’s fashionable to argue that worship is solely directed toward God and so we must only sing praise songs. But that’s not the messages of the scriptures. We are called to sing to “one another” in Ephesians 5:19, because the objects of our singing is often our fellow believers. It doesn’t say “sing to God.” But, of course, the text urges us to sing Psalms, and the Psalms are routinely directed toward God. The assembly has both a vertical and horizontal element. We should not emphasize one to the exclusion of the other.

Just so, the sermon is preaching to other members, not to God. When done right, it’s preaching on behalf of God, but the sermon is directed to the congregation.

The Lord’s Supper is directed toward God, but it’s a community meal shared with God. It’s a reminder of God’s covenant with his church. It’s horizontal and vertical. It’s something we do as a church.

The contribution does not make it to heaven. Most of it gets spent within the congregation — for the benefit of the church — to pay the building payment and the power bill and the preacher’s salary. Some (hopefully) large portion goes to mission work and care for the poor, but in most churches, the largest share is for each other. It’s all for God, of course, but God uses a lot of it for his children, whom he loves.

Prayers are directed toward God, but we routinely pray for one another. The usual beneficiaries of our prayers are the sick and hurting among our members and friends — but we also pray for the spread of the Kingdom. We aren’t the only beneficiaries of our prayers, but we are among those benefited.

Some argue that the quality of the singing or preaching is beside the point, as the worship is directly exclusively toward God — but it’s not. The assembly is not all about performing acts that please God so that the impact on our members doesn’t matter. In fact, God loves us so much that he designed the assembly for us.

It’s “for us” in the sense that we benefit from it more than he does — but one benefit we need is to be reminded of our place in the scheme of things — that God is over all, that Jesus died for us, and that we must live our lives based on those certain facts.

We worship in the assemblies because God is present and because, as we’re reminded of these truths, we can only respond in worship. But we don’t worship to conform to a prescribed list of rituals. We worship in response to being reminded of the generosity and love of God. We worship because, as we are drawn toward Jesus and seek to imitate him, we have to worship.

Quality matters

The following is from a Church of Christ website and is very typical of our thinking:

A lot of the problem is that people have lost the true purpose of worship. Worship is supposed to be an act done by us and directed toward God. Many churches today seem to have turned that around. They have made the focus of worship the individual in the pew. He is to be entertained, made to feel good, gotten excited, stroked. But, true worship is supposed to be adoration and honor rendered to God by the individual in the pew. In worship we’re not there to have something done “for us.” We’re supposed to be there to do something “to God.”

In fact, we’ve lost the true purpose of the assembly, which is to benefit the members by shaping them more and more into the image of Christ — an image of sacrifice and self-emptying. We are to be built up or edified to be like Jesus. And this will please God far, far more than getting the rituals right.

And so, both positions mentioned in the quote are wrong. I agree that the assembly is not about entertainment, but I just as strongly disagree with “we’re not there to have something done ‘for us.’” You see, God loves us so much that he is most happy when we are being benefited. He doesn’t need our singing, but we need each other’s singing — if the singing helps shape us into the image of God.

True worship is being shaped into God’s image. We do that through adoration and honor of God, but also through mutual edification and encouragement. And therefore it matters whether the assembly is fact edifying. God is part of the audience, but so are the members and the visitors. Quality matters because quality affects whether we are accomplishing God’s purposes.

Now, in actuality, our conduct is closer to what the Bible teaches than is our rhetoric. We like to say that it’s all about God, but we preach sermons to the members, sing songs that encourage the members, pray for the members, and otherwise have services that often very member-centered. And this is good – if the goal is forming the members into the image of Christ.

But many are concerned that changes in the assembly will lead to error — and they certainly could. But changes force us to re-discover what the assembly is for. What is the test that decides whether a change is a good idea or not? And so some are inventing a rhetoric that the assembly is not for the members in order to resist change – that is, we’ve invented a theology to avoid change, rather than testing the need for change against theology.

And a proper understanding of the purposes of the assembly tell us that it should be tested, as Paul wrote, by whether it benefits the members by helping to shape them into the image of Christ.

(Gal 4:19 NRS) My little children, for whom I am again in the pain of childbirth until Christ is formed in you...

Therefore, within the purposes of the assembly, we have great freedom. It’s not about whether X or Y is authorized, but whether we can fairly conclude that they will edify the body. And we therefore have room to experiment and be very creative — to use the full range of gifts God has given us to form our members into the image of Christ.

The article The Lord's Supper; The Assembly by Jay Guin is Part 9 in a series called Real Worship. It is from the website One in Jesus. According to the website's Home page, it is for “members of the Churches of Christ searching for a deeper understanding of God's grace, the Holy Spirit, and more. Ultimately, the mission of this site is to set forth and understanding of the Bible that will allow for the unity of all followers of Jesus.”
Many people who identify with the church of Christ believe a pattern for acceptable corporate worship exists. They believe the pattern to be quote “five acts of worship”. The Lord’s Supper or the communion is one part of their five-act method of worship. The other four acts are singing, praying, giving, and preaching.

The Lord's Supper, A Study of 1 Corinthians 11:17-34

2011-06-18T10:01:00.000-07:00

John Zens

Introduction

In the New Testament we should be struck by the utter simplicity that characterized life in the early churches. We are given a broad picture of church life, but many particulars - which are troublesome for us - are left untouched by the New Testament. As time elapsed, the visible church lost its original simplicity and became enmeshed in a quagmire of ecclesiastical machinery and theological speculation.

The Lord's Supper is a case in point. There is a simplicity about this ordinance in the sketchy New Testament data. Yet in post-apostolic times the rembrance meal (1) became embedded in hierarchical church structures so that it became a mysterious ritual to be "administered" by the "ordained," and (2) ended up being the source of endless speculation about "what happens" in the "sacrament."¹

The evidence indicates that this remembrance meal, and the instruction which accompanied it, was a centerpoint in Christian assemblies (cf. Acts 20:7). Eating together in the "breaking of bread" and remembering the Lord in the Supper were virtually synonymous in Christian worship.² Obviously, many things have changed in our practice since the early days. In this article, I would like to explore some basic points concerning the Lord's Supper - based on 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 - and compare them with our conceptions and practices.

The Historical Structure of the Supper

First of all, it will be helpful to isolate the threefold historical structure that exists in the institution of the Supper itself. Only by holding these three perspectives in proper balance can we even hope to approach the Supper correctly.

1. Remember the Past

In the Lord's Supper we remember the past. The covenant that brings us the forgiveness of sins was ratified, or "cut," by the shedding of Christ's blood. The Lord instituted the Supper on the eve of His impending death in the context of a Passover meal. "Remembrance" itself is a covenantal word. The Israelites were often commanded to "remember" God's acts of covenant faithfulness. In the Supper, Jesus has given us an ordinance by which we continually remember that our blessings were purchased through a costly price.

2. Enjoy the Present

In the Lord's Supper, we enjoy the present. Jesus has brought us into fellowship with others in the new covenant. When we come together "as a church," we can eat as a body in the presence of the Lord Jesus. The emphasis here is on a joyous meal, a covenant celebration. Again, in the Old Testament covenantal meals which celebrated the mighty acts of God on their behalf were enjoyed (Exod. 24:11). The pattern of redemptive history is that celebrative meals follow covenant enactment.

3. Look Forward to the Future

In the Supper, we look forward to the future: "you do show the Lord's death until he comes." This ordinance is to be repeated ("as often as you do it") until Christ returns. Each time we proclaim His death in the Supper, we are also reminded that He is returning. In His death, burial and resurrection Christ was removed from us physically. The Holy Spirit now gives us Christ's presence. When He returns, our faith will become sight.

Given these three dimensions - past, present, future - it is no wonder that in the early church the Lord's Supper was "the central action in Christian worship."³ Although there is overlap, we might rightly generalize and say that in the Supper our faith looks back to the cross (Rom. 3:25), our love for Jesus and the saints is kindled by the Spirit (Rom. 5:5), and our hope is stirred up as we long for His return (Heb. 9:28; cf. 1 Cor. 13:13).

The past dimension gives the Supper its objective character - we come together to remember the definitive work of Christ. The present dimension emphasizes the Supper's social character - in order to remember His body, we must be one body (1 Cor. 10:16,17). The future dimension recognizes the tension of Christian experience - we enjoy now only the first-fruits, and long for the full harvest (Rom. 8:18,23).

The Historical Setting of the Supper

An Overview of 1 Corinthians 11:17ff

In the remark, "your meetings do more harm than good" (11:17), Paul probably has in view all the concerns he covers through 14:40.⁴ These issues relate to "the disorders...in the public assemblies of the congregation."⁵

The first issue Paul isolates has to do with divisions evident "when they came together as a church" (11:18). These divisions had a different twist, but certainly could not be totally divorced from the divisions described in 1:10-12; 3:3,4. Specifically, these divisions came to expression in connection with their practice of the Lord's Supper (which also involved a meal together; 11:20-22).

Paul does not condemn the meal aspect of their gathering. Rather, he rebukes their contradiction of what the Lord's Supper signifies - the unity of the body of Christ (1 Cor. 10:16,17). The way they were coming together reflected schism, not bondedness. They were not eating together as a unit. The poor were thereby humiliated. The giving nature of Christ was not reflected in their sharing of food with one another. In such a setting, the Lord's Supper could only be done "unworthily" because the very way in which they came together was a denial of all that the Supper signified.

In order to correct this horrible situation, Paul recalls the apostolic tradition he delivered to them concerning the institution of this ordinance (11:23-26). Obviously, the focus of the Supper is Christ - we come together to remember Him. But this has social implications. It is impossible to eat the Lord's Supper if the brethren come together in disunity - eating at different times, and clustering in various separated groupings (11:20).

Verses 27-32 reflect the implications that Paul sees when the true meaning of the Supper is applied to the Corinthian situation. It is a very serious matter to go through the motions of the Supper together in a state of disharmony and division. Contextually, eating and drinking in an "unworthy manner" refers to the divided way in which the Corinthians were coming together (this is reinforced in vv. 33,34).

There is such a vital, organic connection between Christ and the body of His people on earth, that to eat and drink the Supper when the church is in a divided state is to sin against the body and blood of the Lord. You cannot sin against the brotherhood without also sinning against Christ (1 Cor. 8:12; cf. Acts 9:4). Thus self-examination is in order with a view toward maintaining, and not violating, the unity of the body that is mandatory in the remembrance of the meal. Various visitations of God upon the saints occurred here because of their selfish, loveless actions that resulted in body divisions (11:30). Godly repentance is in order so that the body would be healed, and again reflect the oneness Christians have in Christ (11:31,32).

In vv. 33,34 Paul returns to where the problems began with some concluding remarks. Again, Paul assumes the propriety of their "coming together to eat" (11:33a). But in such meetings, they must wait until all are gathered before they eat (11:33b). If some are hungry and cannot wait, they should "fill up" at home. This would ensure that at the public gathering, the body would be one at the table, and not divided by (wealthy) early eaters who thus left the poor with nothing.

Some Implications/Questions

Is A Meal Part of the Lord's Supper?

At this point, I would have to answer the question by saying that to isolate the bread and the wine of the Lord's Supper from a meal is certainly unnatural. All the evidence points to the integral connection of the Lord's Supper with a meal. Consider the following:

The old covenant Passover involved a meal "which was meant to satisfy hunger as well as to commemorate the Exodus."⁶ The evidence in Matthew, Mark and Luke suggests that the Last Supper was a Passover meal.⁷

Since Christ ate the Passover dinner with His disciples before He instituted the ordinance, the early church continued that practice by eating an evening meal (often referred to as a "love feast") together before the Lord's Supper was observed.⁸

The "blood of the covenant" language (Matt. 26:28) suggests a parallel of the Lord's Supper with Exodus 24, where after the Mosaic covenant was ratified with blood, a fellowship meal was enjoyed (24:11).

In the context of Jesus' institution of the Supper, He and His disciples were eating a meal: "while they were eating" (Matt. 26:26; cf. 1 Cor. 11:25).

The accounts in Acts indicate that the brethren were fond of "breaking bread" (Acts 2:42,46; 20:7) together. Few would deny that "breaking bread" and the "Lord's Supper" were almost synonymous in the practice of the early church.⁹

In 1 Corinthians 11 we find that "coming together to eat" (v. 33) and "coming together as a church" (v. 18) coincide.

These meals were called agapae - love feasts - and became a marked feature of the early church. On a fixed day, generally the first day of the week, the Christians assembled, each bringing what he could as a contribution to the feast: fish, poultry, joints of meat, cheese, milk, honey, fruit, wine and bread. In some places the proceedings began by partaking of the consecrated bread and wine; but in other places physical appetite was first appeased by partaking of the meal provided, and after that the bread and wine were handed round.¹⁰

Lenski asserts that "the Agape is not a divine institution. Therefore Paul lays down no regulations concerning it."¹¹ However, while there is truth in his remark, it would seem that the burden of proof rests on him to show what sense Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 make if the ordinance is removed from a meal context. Just how do we propose to relate the Lord's Supper to the little piece of bread and the sip of wine that characterize our services?

Hodge puts a wedge between the Lord's Supper and a "common meal." Thus he believes Paul's words in 11:23-26 "are specially designed to separate the Lord's Supper as a religious rite from the social element with which it was combined."¹² But it is not a question of "either/or." The Lord's Supper was embedded in a common meal. What Hodge separates, the early church viewed together. The Corinthian abuse did not rule out the meal dimension (11:33).

It was apparently "the very purpose of these congregational gatherings to celebrate the Lord's Supper."¹³ But the disorderly actions of the Corinthians made it impossible to have the Supper.

Instead of taking all the food that was brought and apportioning it to all who were present so that each should receive a proper share, cliques were formed, and relatives, friends, those of one clique at together, probably at private tables, the rich and prosperous separated from the poor, letting those who could bring little or nothing sit by themselves....when the Agape ceased to be an Agape, the Sacrament was also virtually impossible.¹⁴

Thus, for Lenski to say later that "to discern the Lord's body means to perceive that in the Sacrament that body is really present and received"¹⁵ totally misses the point of the context. The Corinthian problem was not related to "the elements" in the Supper, but to their broken relationships in the body of Christ.

The warnings and judgments of 11:27-32, therefore, must be seen in light of this problem which is twice articulated by Paul before and after the "institution" section (11:23-26). It appears to me that 11:23-32 has more often than not been considered in isolation from that which surrounds it. This has led to serious misunderstandings concerning taking the Supper "unworthily" and examining one's self.

What Does "Unworthily" Mean?

Clearly from the context, it means that the Corinthian gatherings were for the worse, and brought judgment, because "in their partiality and divisive spirit, they contradicted the truth of oneness in Christ."¹⁶ Historically, the focus has been on the individual discerning the Lord properly "in the elements,"¹⁷ but, as Barclay points out:

The person condemned is not the person who does not discern that the elements he takes in his hands are the Lord's body. The person condemned is the person who does not discern that Christians are the Lord's body, and must be in unity before they dare approach the sacrament.¹⁸

Why Is There "Self-examination"?

If it were not for the problems in Corinth, we would be left with only the Gospel accounts of the Last Supper. Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 to a disorderly church. He was speaking to a situation where God's hand had come upon Christians. It seems to me that we have removed "self-examination" out of its context and blown it out of proportion. Would Paul direct words parallel with 1 Corinthians 11:27-32 to a basically orderly gospel church? Given the state of many churches today, Paul's warnings are certainly in order!

Traditionally, "examine yourself" has focused on the preparedness of an individual for taking communion. As Lenski comments, "the communicant is to test himself as to his fitness for the Sacrament."¹⁹ There is a place for self-examination, but when the Supper has been removed from its fellowship-meal context - its social dimension - the tendency has been for self-examination to be misunderstood and misapplied.

What Should the "Mood" Be in the Lord's Supper?

It should be one of celebration and joy. The table should not be a place of "gloom."²⁰ However, in too many cases the atmosphere at the Lord's Supper is more like a funeral than a festival. We cannot be like the two sorrowfulmen on the Emmaus road (Luke 24:17,21). These mens' hearts came alive with joy when Jesus made Himself known to them in the "breaking of bread" (Luke 24:30-35).

Obviously, our blessings have come through a great price. We cannot reflect on the cross without a due sense of sobriety. But even from Christ's perspective there was "joy" mixed in with the knowledge of His impending death (Heb. 12:2). With jooywe can remember His death in the past, enjoy His presence with us now, and look forward to His glorious return.

Do We Share Our Goods in the Supper?

Most of the time, the Lord's Supper in the early church was an occasion to share with the poor.

For many, for the slaves and the poor, the Lord's Supper must have been the one real meal of the week. The idea of a tiny piece of bread and sip of wine bears no relation at all to the Lord's Supper as it originally was.²¹

There is something here in the spirit of all this that we need to recapture in our Lord's Suppers.

Why Do We Practice the Supper in Such a Different Way?

It is obvious that there is little, if any, resemblance of our Lord's Supper practice to that of the early church. Hodge admits that "these disorders [in Corinth] were of such a kind which, according to our method of celebrating that sacrament, seems almost unaccountable."²² Barclay observes:

There can be no two things more different than the celebration of the Lord's Supper in a Corinthian home in the first century and a cathedral in the twentieth century. The things are so different that it is almost possible to say that they bear no relationship to each other whatsoever.²³

The essential characteristic of our practice is its non-fellowship, non-meal setting. We try to have a Supper without a meal! The question we must face is this: are we right in continuing this individualistic approach? In light of all the Biblical evidence, does not our practice look out of order? On what textual basis can we continue our "tiny piece of bread and sip of wine" method?

The history of what happened is easy to trace. In time, the Agape was separated from the Supper, and it was "prohibited" by the Council at Carthage (AD 397).²⁴ Abuses of the Agape are given as the reason why it faded out of church life.²⁵ But every doctrine and practice have been abused in some way. We would not do anything if we stopped because of abuses. The New Testament answer is to correct abuses, not to cease doing right because of abuse.

Implementing the Lord's Supper

If the New Testament data would suggest that our practice of the Supper needs to be changed, then how are we going to do it?

First of all, the fact that our Lord's Supper practice is so "out of context" from early church practice is indicative of a broader problem: our church life in general is out of whack. Thus, the Lord's Supper issue is an indicator of some deeply-rooted problems in our overall conception of "church."

This means, secondly, that in most churches a period of time involving patient instruction and responsible experimentation and change is necessary. Traditions that block obedience and stifle edification die hard. So we must function in a tension where we consider (1) the necessity to obey light discovered from the New Testament, and (2) the necessity to bear patiently with those who are struggling. If we emphasize #1 without #2, we will cause strife to abound. If we emphasize #2 without #1 nothing will ever change and the status quo will go on.

Thirdly, it is important to see that capturing the spirit of the New Testament church life is the key. We are not talking about just changing the form to a situation where the Lord's Supper is celebrated in the context of a fellowship meal. Rather, when we get a vision of the kind of care and fellowship that should characterize Christian assemblies, we will see the value, blessing and edification of remembering the Lord together in a meal context. Changing a form cannot produce life. Instead, vibrant life brings with it a strong desire to employ those forms which will maximize edification.

As churches get a hold of New Testament principles, they can freely work out creative ways to implement a remembrance meal that meets the needs and particulars of their circumstances. I believe that many saints know (painfully) in their hearts that there is something missing in the churches' practice of the Supper. May a consideration of the historical structure and setting of the Supper help us in recovering the truth as it is in Jesus.

Notes

William Barclay, The Lord's Supper, 1967, pp. 102,104.
Ibid., pp. 56,57.
Ibid., p. 16.
Charles Hodge, 1 Corinthians, p. 216; R.C.H. Lenski, The Interpretation of 1 & 2 Cor., p. 455.
Lenski, p. 454.
Marcus Dods, The Expositor's Bible: 1 Cor., V, 1940, p. 683.
Barclay, pp. 27,28.
Robert G. Gromacki, Called to Be Saints: An Exposition of 1 Cor., 1977, p. 141.
Hodge, pp. 214,215.
Dods, p. 683.
Lenski, p. 462.
Hodge, p. 235; cf. pp. 216,219,220.
Lenski, p. 457.
Ibid., pp. 458,459.
Ibid., p. 482.
Gromacki, p. 144.
Hodge, p. 231.
Barclay, p. 109.
Lenski, p. 480.
Hodge, p. 233.
Barclay, p. 100.
Hodge, p.214.
Barclay, p. 99.
Hodge, p. 210; Lenski, p. 488; Barclay, p. 60.
Hodge, p. 219; Barclay, pp. 60,61.

The article The Lord's Supper, A Study of 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 is from the Christian Ministry website.

Worship at All Times, But Meet Primarily to Edify

2011-05-31T18:03:00.000-07:00

by Steve Atkerson¹

"Worship service" is a term we often use to refer to a church meeting. But is worship the primary reason why Christians should meet together?

It is common for people to refer to a church meeting as a “worship service.” Articles appear regularly in evangelical publications explaining how to experience true worship in church. Some regard the Sunday morning worship hour with a fear and trembling similar to that felt by Israel at Mount Sinai. Others understand the worship service to be a time of celebration, joy, and praise. Which approach is warranted by Scripture? What should take place in a church meeting? Just what is a “worship service”?

All the Hebrew and Greek words for “worship” reflect one of two basic ideas. The concept of worship most commonly held today is seen in the word proskuneo. Pros means “toward” and kuneo means “to kiss.” According to the lexicon of BAGD this word designated “the custom of prostrating oneself before a person and kissing his feet, the hem of his garment, the ground, etc.; the Persians did this in the presence of their deified king, and the Greeks before a divinity.” Thus the word means to “(fall down and) worship, do obeisance to, prostrate oneself before, do reverence to, welcome respectfully.” As can be seen, proskuneo is an attitude of humility, reverence, appreciation, fear, adoring awe, and wonder. The emphasis is on inner love and devotion.

The second concept of “worship” is reflected in the word latreia, which essentially means “service” or “work.” This word originally referred to the labor of slaves or hired servants. In contrast to proskuneo, latreia is an action word.

Thus, Biblically, to “worship” God is to “work” for Him in an attitude of “adoring awe.” Furthermore, Jesus told the Samaritan woman that “a time is coming when you will worship (proskuneo) the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem . . . God is spirit, and His worshippers must worship in spirit and in truth” (Jn 4:21-24). Worship has nothing to do with any particular location or time; it is to be done every place the believer happens to find himself and at all times. So why do we primarily associate worship with church buildings at 11:00 on Sunday mornings?

Surprisingly, the NT never refers to a church meeting as a “worship service.” Ro 12:1 does make mention of a “service of worship” (NASB), but this refers to offering our bodies to God as a living sacrifice; it has nothing to do with the church meeting! Certainly there is nothing wrong with worshipping God during the church meeting (1 Co 14:22-25; Eph 5:19b; Col 3:16b), but is this to be the primary objective of the meeting?

Many Christians go to the OT to justify making worship the chief reason for a church assembly. Under the Mosaic Covenant God’s people were required by divine law to make several annual pilgrimages to the one and only temple site (the “house” of Yahweh) and there to present offerings and sacrifices. Their worship consisted of sabbaths, feast day rites, and performances done by prescribed Levitical mediators; it was scheduled, localized and ritualized. By contrast, the New Covenant introduced a radically different manner of worship. The “new” way made the Mosaic Covenant (and its worship) “old,” obsolete, and ready to disappear (Heb 8:13)

1 Co 14:26 clearly states the prerequisite for anything that goes on in a church meeting: “When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church.” The word “strengthening” is from oikodome and means “edifying, edification, building up.” Certainly as we worship God corporately we are indeed strengthened. However, the ultimate focus of the meeting is to strengthen the church. It is not the Lord who stands in need of strengthening, but the Lord’s people. In this sense, the weekly assembly is for the benefit of the people present. A church gathering is to be designed to edify believers and to this end it is to be man-centered as well as God-centered.

Notice how this concept of strengthening is supported by Heb 10:24-25: “Let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds. Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another–and all the more as you see the day approaching.” Once again, the reason for “meeting together” is to “encourage” one another. We are to think of ways to “spur” one another on toward love and good deeds. In this sense, the church meeting is to be designed to equip the believer to go out and worship during the week. As Francis Scott Key wrote, “And since words can never measure, let my life show forth thy praise.”

The church meetings revealed in the NT were interactive, informal and small. Simplicity was the rule of the house-church meetings. Somewhere along the line (about the time of Roman Emperor Constantine’s Edict of Milan) we moved out of homes and into awe-inspiring, majestic “sanctuaries” (which formally belonged to pagan religions). We exchanged interaction and mutual encouragement for monologue. Intimacy was lost as the masses gathered in huge lecture halls called cathedrals. Informality gave way to liturgy, pomp and ceremony. Church meetings became a spectator sport with the congregation watching a performance by the spiritually elite. In such an atmosphere, fulfilling 1 Co 14:26 became increasingly difficult. About all that could still be fulfilled was Eph 5:19b and Col 3:16b, so “worship” became the primary focus of these performance shows.

At the other extreme, just as church meetings are not fundamentally to be “worship services,” neither are they to be therapy groups for the wounded. A church meeting is not supposed to be a counseling session focused on the needs of one person. For instance, to center primarily on healing is to violate the “prime directive” of 1 Co 14:26. “All” must be done for the strengthening of the entire “church.” Yes, the whole church can be edified through the miracle of healing, but as with worship, this must not be an overemphasized channel through which all strengthening is routed. This would be like plucking a one string guitar!

In conclusion, all things that occur in a church meeting must be “unto edifying” (1 Co 14:26, KJV). As long as we label our church meetings “worship services,” people will tacitly assume that worship is the chief reason for the meeting. If edification does occur, it will be incidental or at best haphazard. It is an axiom that institutions drift away from their original purpose for existence. Could it be that such is the case with our church assemblies?

The article “Worship at all times but meet primarily to edify” is from a page found at the New Testament Restoration Foundation website.

Is Christian Our Name?

2011-05-30T21:53:00.000-07:00

By Cecil Hook¹

A person may be known by character or by name, or by both. Jesus wants us to be recognized by character with love being the identifying trait. Since he did not give us a name as a mark of identity, we should not invent this easy route to recognition. It is much more convenient to tell people that we are Christians, to wear a button, or to display a bumper sticker proclaiming our discipleship than to be known by our fruits. The disciples are given no proper name to wear, either individually or collectively.

My reaching the conclusion that Jesus gave us no name to wear has ruined some of my once favored lessons concerning our new name “which the mouth of Jehovah shall name” (See Isa. 62:1-5; 56:5). I interpreted those passages to be prophecies of the name Christian. To support such a contention, they must be taken out of their context. In fact, in the first reference, the very text tells that the new name would be Hephzibah! The latter reference promises that their name, or heritage, would not be cut off.

The very fact that Christian is used only three times in the Scriptures should be enough to arouse some skepticism about it being a new, God-given, proper name for God’s people. Also, it was about ten years after the beginning of the church before anyone was ever called a Christian. Furthermore, there is no record of any disciple calling another believer a Christian or of applying that designation to himself. Luke writes that “the disciples were called Christians,” not “the disciples called themselves Christians.”

The first appearance of the word Christian is in Acts 11:25-26 where Luke informs us, “So Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul; and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the church, and taught a large company of people; and in Antioch the disciples were for the first time called Christians.” In Antioch they were disciples who were called Christians. Disciples is what they were; Christians is what somebody began to call them. From this point in historical record, Luke did not begin to refer to them as Christians, but he continued to refer to them as disciples.

Matthew uses disciples 72 times, Mark 44 times, Luke in his Gospel 38 times, John 77 times, and Luke in Acts 30 times. However, in the remaining 22 portions of the New Testament writings, the word is not used at all, which would indicate that disciple was no proper name either.

The self-designations used by inspired writers were believers (or those that believe, etc.); brothers 132 times; saints 50 times; church 85 times; and other such designations as elect, servants, and those “that call upon the name of the Lord.” There is no indication, however, that any of these self-designations were to be considered as a proper name for Jesus’ followers.

From the writings of those times, it is seen that the adjectival ending -ianos denoted the adherents of an individual or party. So, adherents to the Christ were called Christianos, Christians. It is a Roman ending which would not likely originate among the Jews, especially in Judea. It is evident that the name did not originate with the disciples themselves, but it was applied by those outside their community, either in derision or as a sort of nickname, a common folk designation. Certainly, the unbelieving Jews would not use the name of their Messiah to apply to those whom they considered as adherents to a false messiah. So, we had to wait about ten years for the church to spread among the pagan Gentiles for such a popular designation to come into use. Among the unbelieving Jews, disciples were scorned as “the sect of the Nazarenes” (Acts 24:5).

No doubt, the pagans of Antioch were familiar with the Jewish religion in the local synagogues. Now, a new religion had separated itself from the synagogue proclaiming salvation through one Jesus, the Christ. So, the people began to distinguish them from the Jews as adherents of Christ — Christianos, Christians. Groups may protest a designation given by outsiders but later accept it, as was the case with Lutherans, Protestants, and Mormons. Secular history reveals that the disciples later gave universal acceptance to this name since it honors Christ. Like the cross of shame, which became a venerated symbol of God’s love, this name rose from its unlikely beginning to the highest place of honor.

Let us consider the three mentions of Christian in the Scriptures. In Acts 11:26, as we have noted already, the first use of the designation was evidently by the pagan populace of Antioch in Syria rather than by the disciples themselves.

In its second mention, we hear the time-honored exclamation of King Agrippa in King James Version language, “Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian” (Acts 26:28). This has been interpreted by common people as a sincere admission by Agrippa. But if he were so sincere, why did he break off Paul’s discourse? Being King, he could call for, as a command performance, the continuation of Paul’s speech. Evidently, he was making no admission of being almost converted to Jesus.

Instead of seeing a convicted king, we see a man who is being put on the spot by a religious zealot. His dignity is being insulted; so he scoffs at Paul, “In a short time you think to make me a Christian!” (RSV). In other words, Agrippa was saying, “Paul, you think that in one short presentation of your fanatical claims you can make a Christian of me,” and the inflection of his voice as he sneered the word Christian must have been insulting. Notice, too, that Paul avoided using the name as applying to himself in his reply to Agrippa.

For the third use of Christian, we look to 1 Peter 4:16, but the entire chapter serves as a context. Believers were suffering fiery ordeals of persecution for Christ. They were being accused of various wrong-doings, and listed among them was that of being a Christian. To encourage these persecuted saints, Peter wrote, “But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or a thief, or a wrongdoer, or a mischief-maker; yet if one suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but under that name let him glorify God.” Being called Christians in a derogatory manner was a part of the reproach heaped upon them. Peter urged that they glorify God under that name of reproach which they had not chosen. Righteous persons have always received taunting and derisive appellations from those who oppose them. Their worth is proved by being unashamed to wear those disparaging names.

In spite of all of this which I have brought to your attention, I do not object to being called a Christian, for I am an adherent of Christ. I just refuse to accept it as a proper name given for us to wear to distinguish us in our religion. And, by the way, I do object to deliberate failure to capitalize Christian. Adjectives formed from proper nouns should be capitalized in correct grammar. Christ is a proper noun; hence, Christian should not be written as christian.

Now, I come to a more important point of this treatise. This name Chnstian has become a mental and emotional block to prevent our acceptance of others who follow Christ.

We define who is a Christian and how to become a Christian, but the Scriptures do not accommodate our definitions. In telling how to become a Christian, we use the examples of the conversion of those on Pentecost, the Samaritans, the Ethiopian treasurer, Cornelius, and Saul.

Their acceptance of Jesus made them believers and disciples, but not Christians, for no one had ever been called a Christian at the time of their conversion.

After defining a Christian as one who hears, believes, repents, confesses faith, and is baptized, we have consistently refused any acceptance of, or fellowship with, any who have not measured up to our scruples about those actions of obedience. We have drawn a convenient line there that excludes most of the Christian world as being unbelievers and non-Christians.

When we think of a person as a believer or disciple, that convenient sectarian line disappears.

While a believer/disciple will obey the “five steps” as he learns and is convinced of the need, he will also continue to learn and obey all the Scriptural directives for his discipleship as long as he lives. He will never cross the line into the ultimate. At what point can we say that he became a believer/disciple whom we may accept? Is it not when his faith is initiated causing him to take his first feeble steps to follow? He is then a believer and follower and, hopefully, he will continue to grow and advance in his relationship with Christ. I can accept him as a believer/disciple even though I might consider him to be at a less advanced stage than I enjoy.

We can grow together. I am not to become his judge, especially to judge him by the artificial standard that I have made by defining when a person becomes a Christian. He is a believer and disciple — learner, follower, adherent — at every point on the road of his spiritual progress. The concept that I am rejecting is that he becomes a Christian, whom I can accept, only at one point in his spiritual journey, and that, thereafter, he is a Christian whether he progresses as a learner and follower or not.

Jesus told us to make disciples, not Christians. There may be no difference in the two, but we have made one to accommodate our sectarian distinctions.

(References: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, V. 1, p. 621f; Commentary on Acts by Coffman, p. 232f; Restoration Review, V. 25, No. 9, p. 166; An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, W. E. Vine, p. 191)

Cecil Hook’s article “Is Christian Our Name” is chapter 17 of his book Free to Speak. His book is available to view and download in a Portable Document File version.

To read more on the term Christian, see “Understanding the Meaning and Biblical Use of the Term Christian”.

Instrumental Music

2011-05-30T09:46:00.000-07:00

by Cecil Hook
Free to Speak, Chapter 14

The introduction of instrumental music in worship was one of the issues which caused us to distinguish ourselves in a separate body; hence, a cappella singing has been one of our identifying marks. To deal favorably with this subject in the Church of Christ is to stir emotions and to labor against strong conditioning.

As I was growing up, any “gospel meeting” included a lesson against the use of instrumental accompaniment in singing. Countless other lessons in the regular teaching program had points against such music thrown in. This was in reaction to the bitter disputes which had resulted in division, all of which was still fresh in the minds of that generation.

Now, much of the old animosity has subsided. The great grandchildren of the division cannot understand how such a matter could have been allowed to divide. So, this generation hears little teaching on the subject because there is lack of conviction against its use.

Condemnation of the use of instruments in worship has been one of the emphatic points of my “gospel” also. Relaxation of my former conviction about it has not come out of my desire, for I have had strong prejudice against its use, and I still am restrained by years of emotional conditioning. My change has come through my conviction that I must be intellectually honest in my approach to the scriptures. In this effort, I shall set forth some points that I formerly overlooked or evaded in my dealing with the subject.

For best effect, this essay should follow Chapters 14, 15, and 16 of my book, Free In Christ. Please read those chapters before you read this in order to better understand the content of this chapter.

Chapter 14 calls attention to the fact that the whole life of one committed to Christ is an offering / service / worship. Such a person is an indwelt temple whose whole function is a worship offering through acts of devotion addressed to God, through acts of service to his fellowman, and through all the more mundane activities of daily living which are necessary to the upkeep of the temple. These are all parts of the whole-life daily offering. One does not go to worship, but the whole life is worship.

In Chapter 15 we sought to emphasize that we do not serve a God who binds arbitrary whims, demanding exactness of his children, in order to satisfy a divine ego problem. We have turned our assemblies into vertical services in an effort to obey detailed commands rather than to accomplish the intended purpose of edifying disciples.

Then, in Chapter 16, we observed that persons gave homage to Jesus in ways that he had not authorized, specified, commanded, or even suggested. He did not reject this devotional worship but, rather, he openly accepted it and called attention to their loving, spontaneous acts.

After writing those chapters and subjecting them to the scrutiny of a private study group, I went through my old lessons, tracts, and other literature on the subject and made a list of the texts and arguments generally used against the use of instrumental music. Our study group found little relevance of those texts and arguments to the subject. For the remainder of this essay, I shall deal briefly with the chief texts and main points.

Proof-Texts

2 Peter 1:3: “His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness...” We have interpreted this to say that the scriptures have guided us into all matters of worship and, since they do not guide us to use instrumental music, it is sinful. Does Peter really say, or imply, that? The things that pertain to life and godliness are far more than “worship services.” These include all the blessings received “through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence” — his “precious and very great promises.”

2 John 9: “Any one who goes ahead and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God; he who abides in the doctrine has both the Father and the Son.” The traditional argument is that, since Jesus did not authorize instrumental music in worship specifically, it is not the doctrine/teaching of Christ; hence, the person who uses it has not God.

Such an explanation ignores the contextual meaning of that passage inexcusably. Much of John’s writing warns against the prevalent Gnostic teaching/doctrine that Jesus did not come in the flesh. In verse 7, John identifies the offenders as “men who will not acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh; such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist.” This doctrine/teaching of/concerning Christ is basic to the gospel. To deny that he became flesh is to undermine the basis of the gospel without which no one could have Christ or God. It is inexcusable to apply this text to the use of music.

Revelation 22:18-19: This passage warns against adding to the prophecies given to John and recorded in Revelation. It takes some artistic twisting to make that apply to instrumental music.

Galatians 1:6-9: I have quoted this (and the above passages) hundreds of times in an effort to condemn the use of mechanical music in worship. But in so doing, I was not only misusing the passage, but I was also jeopardizing myself by making a legal system out of the gospel, which very thing this text warns against! Even if instrumental music were wrong, its acceptance would not be a perversion of the gospel, or the preaching of another gospel. But efforts of justification by keeping details of law is such a violation.

1 Corinthians 4:6: Here Paul writes, “I have applied all this to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brethren, that you may learn by us to live according to scripture, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another.”

Here Paul is dealing with the party spirit which was dividing the church in Corinth. Paul put his and Apollos’ names in place of the guilty, divisive leaders and applied the lesson in a figure as though they were the guilty ones. He did this to teach them not to violate the scriptural admonitions to be united in purpose and judgment. It is farfetched to make this apply to practices of worship.

Matthew 15:9: Jesus was confronted about his violation of traditions. He responded by asking them why they kept tradition which evaded law in preference to keeping the law. He applied Isaiah 29:13 to them, “In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.” Continuing his comment, he explained that the heart is defiled by impure motives rather than by violation of traditions. It is difficult to see how this can apply to singing aided by instrumental accompaniment.

Colossians 3:17: To limit the concept of worship, this passage has been used countless times: “And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus.” I once applied that to our exercises in the assembly, and there alone, as a demand for specific authority for each activity. However, the context is about the kind of life we should lead, with special directives to wives, husbands, children, and slaves. Then, in verse 23, he sums up, “Whatever your task, work heartily, as serving the Lord and not men.” He calls for whole-life honoring of our Lord as we wear his name. This is the context for instructions to teach and admonish one another in song. Compare Ephesians 5:15-20. Assemblies are not under consideration here.

Romans 14:23; 10:17: We have also coupled “whatsoever is not of faith is sin” with “faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” in a misapplication of scripture to limit the concept of worship. In the first passage, Paul is speaking of a person violating his conscience by going against his conviction. In the second, Paul is arguing for the acceptance of the Gentiles and the universality of the offer of salvation proved by the fact that Christ sent his message and messengers to the Gentiles. Worship is not under consideration in those texts. We must not (mis)apply this to Abel’s offering.

2 Timothy 3:16-17: To see the context to this much quoted proof-text, let us begin with verse 14: “But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All scripture is inspired of God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”

Let us examine this passage a bit. It was directed to a “man of God,” an evangelist who spoke for God, not to all generally. The scriptures were to make him complete, equipped efficiently for every good work, not for worship as we traditionally apply it. These scriptures were the Old Testament writings which he had been taught from childhood, not the New Testament writings, which were nonexistent in his childhood and still very incomplete and uncollected. To say that this passage anticipates the completion of the New Testament scriptures puts them out of reach of Timothy. How, then can this be a proof-text against the use of instruments in praise of God?

A Call for Authority

Our great stress has been on the need for authority for all that we do in worship. We have emphasized the ritualistic worship aspect. But where is our authority for segmenting worship from our daily and constant offering of self in whole-life worship? Where do the scriptures say that our assemblies for edification are to be changed into “worship services”? Where do we read such expressions as “go to worship” (regarding Christian assemblies), “begin our worship service,” “after the worship is over,” and “missing worship”? Where do we read of the “five acts of worship” or a list of things specified for our assemblies? Where do we find a limitation of the means whereby we may praise God and edify one another, either in or out of assemblies? Has our privilege of praise been granted in only a few activities? Do we worship only in rituals? Are assemblies for the purpose of performance of rituals?

The Privilege of Praise

In various ages we see persons offering unspecified acts of worship that were accepted. All people of all ages have been granted the privilege of praise. God has expected, and accepted, sincere worship even from those who had no direct or written revelation. He has looked upon the heart of the worshipper more than the technique of his praise. Men have been permitted to worship in methods that expressed the feeling of the worshipper’s heart so long as it accomplished the purpose of praise while avoiding sacramental and idolatrous concepts and the veneration of objects. Let us look at some Biblical precedents that give basis to this premise. We usually overlook or misapply these.

There is no indication that God gave instruction to Cain and Abel about their worship. I, like many others, have long misapplied a combination of Hebrews 11:4 and Romans 10:17 in an effort to prove that Abel’s faith was by hearing instructions from God. But what the Hebrews passage reveals is that Abel, who was already righteous and a man of faith, offered a more acceptable sacrifice: “By faith, Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain, through which he received approval as righteous, God bearing witness by accepting his gifts....” God bore witness to his faith and righteousness by accepting his offering.

Cain, it is implied by antithesis, was neither faithful nor righteous; hence, his rejection was due to the condition of his heart rather than what he offered. God bore witness of this by rejecting his offering. John urges that we be not “like Cain who was of the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own deeds were evil and his brother’s righteous” (1 John 3:12). By his subsequent actions, Cain demonstrated what God had witnessed as true, that his heart was evil. There is no record of God ever rejecting humble and sincere efforts of devotion and praise of anyone.

When it is stated that, in the time of Enosh, “men began to call upon the name of the Lord” (Gen. 4:26), and when Abram “built an altar to the Lord and called on the name of the Lord” (Gen. 12:8), there is no indication that they did this in response to a command or specification of God.

Jacob took the stone he had used for a pillow, made an altar of it, and poured an offering of oil on it in spontaneous worship without “authority” from God (Gen. 28:18).

Without instruction from the Law of Moses, the Jews had added wine to the Passover (Luke 22:1418; Matt. 26:2628), dancing before the Lord (2 Sam. 6:12f; Psalms 149:3), and the entire synagogue service. They were not condemned for those unauthorized activities of worship. They were privileged to serve/worship in those ways.

Nadab and Abihu were killed for offering strange fire, but they had been given complete instructions which they defied. In the other examples above, except for Cain, there was sincere effort to honor God rather than to defy him (Lev.10: lf; 16: 12). Wholesale abandonment of God’s specified law, rather than an innocent infraction concerning the Ark of the Covenant, brought Uzzah’s death (2 Sam. 6:3).

Israel, in the time of Samuel, “gathered together at Mizpah, and drew water, and poured it out before the Lord” (1 Sam. 7:6) as an act of homage. Even though the action was unspecified, it brought no disapproval from God.

In Chapter 1 of Romans, Paul declared that the Gentiles were without excuse because, having known God as revealed in nature, they “did not honor him as God or give thanks to him…” (v. 21), “and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator” (v. 25). How could they have properly honored God, given thanks of praise to him, and worshipped and served the

Creator since they had no revealed law? God has given all men, even the uninstructed, the privilege of praise and worship!

Paul commended the Athenians, declaring, “For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, ‘To an unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you” (Acts 17:23). Although their understanding of God’s nature was very limited and they knew not any code of laws from him, they had the

privilege of worship. Paul did not condemn their devotion to the “unknown god” but enlarged on their understanding about his identity.

In the New Covenant writings we see numerous “unauthorized” actions of worship which were undemanded, unrehearsed, spontaneous, and extravagant; yet they met with approval. Although these were not done in Christian assemblies, they were expressions of approved worship and they illustrate the principle of acceptable worship.

The Wise Men offered birthday gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh to Jesus without instructions to do so (Matt. 2:1-11). It was their privilege to praise through that means.

Mary was neither rebuked for anointing Jesus without authorization nor considered presumptuous in using nerd without instruction to do so (John 12:1f).

The sinful woman was not commanded to wash Jesus’ feet with tears nor to use her hair as a towel (Luke 7:36-50). She was exercising her privilege of spontaneous worship.

According to the rules we have made, Paul sinned in cutting his hair in a ritual relating to a vow (Acts 21:23-26) and when he purified himself ritually and arranged for an offering in accordance to the Law of Moses. We would also have to censor the Judean disciples who “are all zealous for the law” (Acts 21:23-26).

With the sacrifice of Jesus, God did not suddenly come to hate the worship rituals of the law. Disciples could still keep those rituals of worship so long as they did not seek justification by that means. Neither should we assume that, when Jesus died, God began to hate praise which was accompanied by instruments, which thing he had accepted for centuries.

We have contended that the silence of the New Covenant writers on the subject of instrumental accompaniment IB evidence that God does not want us to use it. However, since singing was commonly accompanied in all societies, and since the Jews had used it under the law, the failure to mention it would only seem to indicate that it was of no matter with God.

In view of these examples, can we not say definitely that God has given the privilege of praise to all men at all times? Can we not agree that men offered acceptable worship without specific command or instruction in various instances? Have we not been authorized to glorify him in all things that we do and granted the privilege of using methods which utilize our talents in expressing it — through spiritually oriented art, drama, songs, literature, jewelry, plaques, bumper stickers, signs, and architecture?

The Law of Exclusion

Traditionally, we have argued strongly that, when a thing is specifically authorized, it excludes everything not specified. We have called that “the law of exclusion.” As with most man-made rules, we have applied that one very selectively. If we let someone else select the activities to be measured by our rule, we are devastated. Let me list some illustrations which should convince

us that we don’t take our “law of exclusion” seriously.

Since the holy kiss is specifically “commanded” five times, that would eliminate the
handshake as a greeting.
James tells the sick person to call the elders to his bedside. That would make it sinful to call
the preacher or the doctor. They were told to use oil, not Ben Gay or penicillin, which would have been excluded by silence.
It is specified that elders were ordained with fasting, prayer, and laying on of hands. That would eliminate any other method, but I have never seen the exemplified method used!
In the assemblies of disciples, “let all things be done for edification” (1 Cor. 14:25). That chapter is emphatic on this point. Are we right in making it a “worship service” instead?
Applying the rule to our actions, when we baptize someone with the baptizer stating the purpose “for the remission of sins,” does that not exclude by silence all unspecified purposes — to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, to be born again, to be in the one body, etc.? (Actually, a man cannot baptize another for the remission of sins. He is told to baptize into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but not for the remission of sins. The person being baptized is submitting to it for the remission of sins, but the purpose is in the one being baptized, not the baptizer. The baptizer might have that in mind, or say it, but it is ineffective unless it is the purpose of the one being baptized.)
In the communion, since the cup is specified, does that make the non-specified glass improper for use?
Women are excluded by the law of silence from participation in the Lord’s Supper!
An evangelist was directed to appoint elders (Titus 1:5). In the only example of appointment, elders were appointed by evangelists (Acts 14:19-23). No church is instructed to appoint elders. Does that make appointment by persons other than evangelists unauthorized and illegal?
Paul specifies that the evangelist, Timothy, was to try offending elders and to rebuke those who would persist in sin (1 Tim. 5:17-20). Such a specification would exclude anyone besides an evangelist for that task.

These illustrations clearly reveal that we do not believe or follow our own formulated rule that, when a thing is authorized, it excludes every thing not specified. We use the law of exclusion only when it serves our prejudicial purpose.

Our old slogan insists that “we speak where the Bible speaks and are silent where the Bible is silent.” From this approach we have developed another law — “the law of silence.” By this law we forbid anything that the scriptures do not authorize by command or example. This law overlaps the law of exclusion. Both laws are devices to enforce legal concepts. They are efforts to enforce ritualistic details more than to fulfill God’s purposes.

Our first standard example relates to the Lord’s Supper. Since bread and fruit of the vine are specified, milk and cookies are eliminated by the laws of silence and exclusion. If we disregard these two laws, we are warned, we could add/substitute milk and cookies to the Lord’s Supper.

Most churches do not follow our laws of exclusion and silence, yet I have never heard of one adding milk and cookies to the Lord’s Supper. Have you? That dulls the edge of our argument a bit. Why do none add other elements in the communion since they operate free of our two “laws”? It is because they seek to accomplish the purpose of the Lord’s Supper, and they can see that milk, cookies, etc. have no representational value to remind one of the basis of our atonement and the oneness of the body.

There are those, however, in countries where rice is the staple food and bread is unknown, who have used rice instead of bread. Rice, in such a culture, would mean the same thing to them that bread means to us; hence, its representational value would fulfill the purpose of the Lord’s Supper. The purpose of the Supper to remind us is to be accomplished rather than the performing of a ritual “well-pleasing in Thy sight.” To demand the importing of matzos for the Supper would be to place sacramental value on the bread.

Nothing that would be venerated, or promote idolatrous or sacramental concepts, should be associated with the Lord’s Supper or any other activity, either in or out of our assemblies.

Silence of the Scriptures

We have tried to reinforce “the law of silence” by use of the illustration of Noah building the ark. We have said that God’s instruction to use gopher wood would have made it sinful to use any other kind of wood. Here our legalistic inclination becomes evident again. Some scholars are suggesting that the mysterious gopher wood was a generic designation. That would really spoil our argument!

When God instructed Noah to make the ark of gopher wood, did he specify gopher wood (1) in order to test Noah’s faith, (2) to test his willingness and ability to follow instructions, (3) because God hates all other kinds of wood, or (4) because it was the most practical material for the purpose?

Because of our legalistic orientation, we have usually gone with the first three options, thus making gopher wood an arbitrary choice of God intended to test Noah against any deviation. The “law of silence” would forbid so much as a peg for his raincoat made from the cedar in the yard of his old home place. It would reflect that God was more interested in testing Noah than in his building a seaworthy ship to save his family. But Noah had already met God’s approval. If God instructed the use of gopher wood (maybe cypress) because it does not decay or weaken in water, then the use of more plentiful fir to make an interior stall for the goats would not have been out of order.

Did God specify dimensions for the ark for practical reasons or to test Noah’s willingness to follow instructions? If Noah’s foreman and work crew had miscalculated the expansion by swelling and found the finished ark to be 301 cubits long, would it have sunk because of that? A legalist would have feared to get on it! But for practical reasons, the extra cubit would have been of no consequence.

Let us imagine them approaching the ark building project with the same legalistic concept that we have had. Their arguments would have sounded like ours. Can’t you imagine the whole project being delayed dangerously by their arguments? The two beams serving as brackets for the loading ramp extended over the side by half a cubit. Was that to be reckoned as a part of the 50 cubit width or not? There was open disagreement as to whether an anchor, which God was silent about, could be allowed. And Noah’s wife disrupted things by making a banner to fly over the ark which read: “Glory to God, Our Salvation!” Such a fly or inscription of praise was not specified.

Some members of the family wanted to use a few pieces of oak furniture from their homes in their cabins. This caused heated debate. Were they eliminated by silence? Were they parts of the ark or of the cargo?

Mrs. Shem created a storm of controversy. She wanted to hang a wind chime on the deck so that the same breezes that brought the rain would create beautiful musical tones as an expression of her praise to God. Ultimately, she was ruled out on this because such unauthorized praise would be too dangerous and might sink the ship. She was so hurt that she refused to get on board until the last moment.

By the time the ark was completed, because of so many disputes, some of Noah’s family members were not speaking to the others.

You can see the point of my imaginative illustration without further preachment. If Noah and his family had been as legalistic as we have been, there would have been so many divisive disputes over incidentals, like we have had in the church, that the ark probably would never have been completed.

The question is: Did God give a list of arbitrary, legal specifications, or was he giving practical guidance to a man who had never built a boat before? I go with the practical. I do not serve a God who imposes arbitrary whims to test us.

Noah did not build an ark to attain or prove his righteousness by his ability to pass on a meritorious test. He was righteous when God called him. He built the ark because he was already righteous. The ark project was an effort to save Noah and his family, not to prove them unworthy because of their lack of merit in overcoming arbitrary tests.

By the way, Noah was not 120 years in constructing the ark. He was 500 years old before he had his three sons (Gen. 5:32), and he was 600 years old when the flood came (7:6). When Noah received his instructions about the ark, his sons already had wives (6:18), and Shem was 100 years old two years after the flood (11 :10). So Shem was only 97 years old when the flood came and he was already married when the original instructions were given.

Now, back to our subject. Were activities of the assemblies of saints devised (1) to test our faith, (2) to test our willingness and ability to follow instructions, (3) because God hates other kinds of activities in our gatherings, or (4) because those activities are practical for strengthening us?

I go with the latter choice. God loves us and wants us to be strong in faith and endurance. Whatever builds man up accomplishes God’s purpose. He is not trying to weed us out by arbitrary tests like an elite university making it hard on freshmen so as to weed them out. That would enable us to be saved only by our merit. We do not have merit — only praise for his grace. We do not serve to achieve righteousness but as a response to his grace by which we are accounted as righteous.

In no thought or action may we ever defy God without his disfavor. When instructions are given, they are not to be defied. However, generalized instructions give us freedom to exercise our best judgment to fulfill the purpose of the instructions. In areas where God has neither specified nor prohibited, he has given all men in all ages the privilege of spontaneous praise and

sincere worship. Both in and out of our assemblies, he has given us freedom to involve ourselves in any activity that will build up one another in faith and endurance. This is whole-life worship / service / offering. All activities of life become holy, dedicated to God, in our commitment to live according to his will and to accomplish his purposes.

This essay is not an attempt to convince you that you must sing with instrumental accompaniment. If you are convinced that that would be sinful, then you should not do it. You must not violate your conscience. Another brother, however, cannot violate your conscience, and you sin when you seek to bind your scruples on him and become divisive because of it. You are not compelled to sing with him as he uses an instrument, but you are compelled to respect him as your brother. It is not necessary for you to meet in the same assemblies with him, but it is necessary that you not be sectarian or divisive in attitude toward him. He is serving the same Father with the same sincerity that you feel, and neither can rightly afford to reject the other or conveniently blame the other for causing you to reject him.

Each person has his likes and dislikes, but we cannot bind these on others. I dislike hearing the “pounding on the piano” or “grinding away at the organ,” thus, “drowning out the singing” (prejudicial, disparaging expressions) which give little time for meditative silence. Other than for giving everyone the pitch, I do not see that instrumental music generally improves congregational singing. I agree that it would be helpful for solos, quartets, etc. But these are my opinions which you are not obligated to share. We must share a common Father and a respect for all his children.

I’m blessed to be your brother!

The Early Church on Instrumental Music

2011-05-30T07:25:00.000-07:00

by Danny Corbitt
September - December, 2010
(Reprinted from The New Wineskins)

It’s fun to look at an Old World map of the Earth. Like gazing at a modern map of the Earth through a fun-house mirror, we see the resemblance … and smile at what might only be Earth’s cousin. True, the land masses are mostly there, but the detail is considerably skewed. Explorers once sailed with those maps because they were the best available, but no one charts a course by them today.

Like the 16th Century map makers, 16th Century theologians had their own limitations. Cartographers’ missing and remolded land masses are matched by abbreviated, re-sequenced and misinterpreted claims about church history. The chief difference between the two is that where cartographers were limited by knowledge, the Reformers “were compelled by their allegiances to construct revised versions of the past,” history that was “selective and interpretive.”¹ Reformers such as Calvin and Zwingli called for sweeping changes based on their perspective of early church history, but we have the advantage of access to the whole story. There’s great danger to us if we chart our course today based on 16th Century representations of early church history.

For example, Puritans praised God without musical instruments in part because they thought musical instruments had been opposed by a Christian named Justin Martyr in the middle of the Second Century.² Modern historians have long known that the quote the Puritans credited to Martyr actually came hundreds of years later.³ Even today, though, if you look at our Church of Christ Web sites, you will typically see us lead with this statement, mistakenly attributed to Justin Martyr and misplaced centuries out of time. Conversely, our Web sites will make no mention of a Christian telling how he praised God with his lyre, possibly written a generation before even Martyr.⁴ One wonders why our maps of history still echo 16th Century models. Why aren’t we catching up? Did we stop doing serious research a century ago?

Readers may not be aware of the numerous books that have been written even in our own generation on the subject of early Christian music. An amazing, widespread agreement regarding early church music has been built among scholars of early church history. We have a much clearer picture of the early church, and so we’re no longer slaves to a 16th Century caricature. Comparing the Old World map of church history to a modern map reveals that our Old World map has been wrong about (1) the influence of the synagogue, (2) the influence of Greek and Jewish philosophy, (3) the influence of the Christian asceticism, and (4) the origin of scriptural arguments.

The Synagogue. Maps of early church history once argued that Christian worship adopted its practice of singing from the a cappella, First Century synagogues. In contrast, J. A. Smith summarizes the consensus among modern scholars: not only is there absolutely no evidence of singing (or chanting) in the First Century synagogue, but also the church did not adopt its worship from the synagogue anyway.⁵ Moreover, in the earliest centuries, it was common meals (the love feast or agapē) rather than the Lord’s Supper assemblies where Christian songs of praise were fostered.⁶

Greek and Jewish Philosophy. We have claimed that the early church preference for voice over instruments was unique and could therefore only have come from God. We have said that Christian opposition to the degeneration of music in the Roman culture also singled them out. Instead, modern “maps” show that Jewish philosophers and the Greeks philosophers before them were the ones who first favored the voice over instruments⁷ and who spoke out against the degeneration of music in the Roman culture.⁸

Perhaps the strongest philosophical influence upon the early church, however, was a new method of interpreting scripture. It came by way of a contemporary of Jesus, the Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria. Building on Greek philosophy, Philo taught that correctly understanding scripture requires one to go beyond the literal meaning to derive an allegorical one.⁹ Although Philo was not a Christian, his works were adopted and exclusively preserved by Christians. Beginning with Clement of Alexandria (died 215) (note that both are from Alexandria), Philo’s allegorical method became a standard for early Christian interpretation of scripture.¹⁰

Their thought seems to be that if the story of Hagar and Sarah could teach an allegorical lesson about covenants (Gal 4:21-31), then imagine what hidden meanings we could find by interpreting nearly everything allegorically! One of my favorite musical allegories comes from Niceta of Remesiana (died after 414), speaking of David:

¹¹

Setting aside the misquote of Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria moves to the top of our list of Church Fathers who opposed instruments in praise, although his opposition is outside of an assembly, where we accept instruments. He writes of Jesus “scorning the lyre and cithara as lifeless instruments.” Because Clement can cite no supporting scripture, one might wonder how he got there. Clement explains that Jesus “sings to God on his many-voiced instrument and he sings to man, himself an instrument.”¹²

Perhaps you’ve heard the allegory that man is God’s musical instrument for so long that you no longer recognize it as scripturally homeless, born instead of the Third Century allegorical search for God’s “hidden meanings.”

Nevertheless, allegory had not yet completely overcome literal understanding. In the specific context of Col 3:16, Clement elsewhere approves of praising God on this same lyre and cithara.¹³ Still, you’ll only see his allegorical quotes on our Web sites.

Our “maps” do not note how Third Century Christians of the School of Alexandria began reinterpreting the instruments of the Bible in an allegorical sense,14 following the influence of Greek and Jewish philosophy. Western Church Fathers, on the other hand, were not so quickly influenced by the musical allegory of the School of Alexandria, although they agreed in opposing the immoral influences of music in their culture.15 For example, Novatian (died 258) said that when musical instruments were used for immoral purposes, then “sacred things have been transferred into illicit ones.”¹⁶ The persecution that cost him his life, however, was about to change everything.

Asceticism. Hermits. Recluses. The Decian persecution of 247-248 AD was the worst that Christianity had ever known. Many were martyred. Others fled the cities to escape, assuming the humblest of circumstances, leading to the monastic system.¹⁷ In time, we read of how these ascetics prayed at set hours throughout the day and often through the night.¹⁸ To maintain prayers for extended periods of time, they recited the Psalms. Of course, the Psalms were not written in 3/4 time; they don’t rhyme; they defy singing in the Western way. But they could be chanted.

The sons of the Decian persecution came to oppose instruments in all praise. (A public worship versus private worship distinction was unimaginable). In a wave of writing from roughly 350 to 425 AD, they promoted the ascetic lifestyle as the ideal for all Christians. To read our Web site lists of Christians who opposed instruments is to read a virtual roll call of Christian ascetics.^19>

The 4-year ascetic experience of John Chrysostom (died 407) permanently damaged his health,²⁰ and he was “twice deposed and sent into exile because of his asceticism which he wanted to impose on others.”²¹ Jerome (died 420) taught that a virgin shouldn’t even know what a musical instrument is²² and that no man should ever hear a woman sing.²³ Augustine (died 430) thought that singing itself was a concession to weak brothers.²⁴ Following their ascetic map, it is no wonder that the Swiss reformer Zwingli banished even vocal singing from the churches.²⁵ We speak of how these ascetics chanted, but we don’t chant.

Scriptural arguments. These ascetics offered their scriptural arguments for opposing musical instruments in praise. Most followed the pattern set by of the School of Alexandria, using allegory to reinterpret the instrumental language of the Bible.²⁶ We don’t accept those arguments today. Indeed, it wasn’t many years ago that Church periodicals were filled with denunciation of the allegorical interpretation of scripture.²⁷

The rival School of Antioch took exception to this model, preferring arguments from a more literal understanding of scripture. They contend that the Israelites had grown accustomed to playing instruments and making animal sacrifices to idols while in Egypt, and so God allowed these practices to continue as a “concession” to their weakness.²⁸ This was God’s effort to “entice the Jews away from the worship of idols.”²⁹ We don’t share that conclusion, either. We say that instruments were a shadow, but that is nothing like a concession, except that neither assertion is given in scripture.

Instead, Christian arguments painting the Jews as weak or sinful (and Gentiles as inclined toward faithfulness) were common evidence of the animosity between the two religions. Missionary rivalry had even seen Jews play an active role in the prosecution of Gentile Christians, such as Polycarp.³⁰ Saying that commands of God were concessions to the distinctive weakness of the Jews played upon this unbiblical bias against Jews.

Modern arguments (e.g., that instruments are disallowed because God never named specific instruments in the commands to praise, that the meanings of the words for “sing” implied vocal singing only, or that all of these rules apply to public but not private worship, etc.) never occurred to the early church. Our modern arguments, as far removed from scripture as theirs, came along centuries later in an attempt to find scriptural reasons for opposing instruments better than the ones we inherited from the ascetics of either school of thought.

Conclusion. I grieve that in centuries gone by my brothers suffered the Decian persecution (even as others still suffer horribly today). Still, I want to praise God with all my strength and a heart full of joy, unshackled by the asceticism that their heirs wished for me. The modern map of early church history is free of misunderstanding about the role of the First Century synagogue and free of the Third and Fourth Century detours of allegory, asceticism, and claims about concessions to the weak. It’s time our maps told the whole story.

James McKinnon, The Temple, the Church Fathers and Early Western Chant (Ashgate, 1998), p. VII, 241.
John Price, Old Light on New Worship (Avinger, TX: Simpson Publishing Company, 2007), p.108
http://MissingMoreThanMusic.com\research\Martyr.htm.
James McKinnon, Music in Early Christian Literature (Cambridge University Press, 1987), p 24.
J.A. Smith, The Ancient Synagogue, the Early Church and Singing¸ published in Music & Letters, January 1984.
McKinnon, Music…, p. 9.
“Philo [First Century Jewish philosopher] reflects the Greek contempt for instrumental music.”
Louis H. Feldman, Studies in Hellenistic Judaism (Brill, 1996), p. 525.
“The overall picture of music in the Roman Empire is a picture of decadence; in fact, as early as Cicero (first century BCE) there were complaints about decline.”
Calvin Stapert, A New Song for an Old World, (Eerdmans, 2007) p. 137.
Herbert M. Schueller, The Idea of Music (Medieval Institure, 1988), p. 130-131.
McKinnon, Music…, pp. 6-7.
McKinnon, Music…, p. 135.
McKinnon, Music…, p. 30.
McKinnon, The Temple…, p. IV: 71.
Ibid.
McKinnon, Music…, p. 42.
“The Spectacles,” chapter 3, cited in McKinnon, Music…, p. 48.
McKinnon, Music…, p. 51.
Christopher Page, The Christian West and its Singers: The First Thousand Years, p. 134.
“…including Athanasius (died 373), Basil (died 379), Gregory of Nyssa (died 395), Ambrose (died 397), John Chrysostom (died 407), Jerome (died 420) and Augustine (died 430).”
Page, p. 136
McKinnon, Music…, p. 78.
Schueller, p. 227.
McKinnon, Music…, p. 142.
McKinnon, Music…, p. 145.
Ibid., p. 155.
Price, p.91.
McKinnon, The Temple…, p. IV: 76
For a contemporary example, see “Why Do People Misinterpret the Bible?” http://www.laramiechurchofchrist.org/documents/BT_208.pdf
McKinnon, Music…, pp. 83 & 107 cite examples from John Chrysostom and Theodoret.
McKinnon, Music…, p. 7.
Oskar Skarsaune, In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Christianity (InterVarsity Press 2002), pp. 259 ff.

David’s Psalms in the New Testament Church

2011-05-29T00:06:00.000-07:00

by Clyde Symonette¹
September - December, 2010
[Reprinted from The New Wineskins]

What was God’s intent for the worship of the New Testament Church? The history of the post-apostolic church helps us understand our Christian heritage, but history does not necessarily reflect God’s intent. History is often a record of humanity’s disobedience to God.

God’s stated intent for New Covenant praise is found in the pages of Old Testament Scripture. Prior to our analysis of those scriptures, however, it is important for us to understand the historical context of the words spoken in those passages. Accordingly, I will begin with a brief history of events leading up to Israel’s non-instrumental tradition.

From Praise to Lamentations

Israel’s worship was not always non-instrumental. In fact, Scriptures reveal Israel’s use of instrument in worship prior to the time of David; under David’s rule, however, praise with instruments was incessant.

When David became king of Israel, he conquered Jerusalem and brought the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem with much fanfare. Scripture records,

(2 Samuel 6:5 NIV) David and the whole house of Israel were celebrating with all their might before the LORD, with songs and with harps, lyres, tambourines, sistrums and cymbals.Among other labels pinned to David, scripture adds, “The man anointed by the God of Jacob, Israel's singer of songs” (2 Samuel 23:1 NIV).

The Bible tells us that when David became an old man —

(1 Chronicles 23:1-5 NIV) ... He made his son Solomon king over Israel. He also gathered together all the leaders of Israel, as well as the priests and Levites. The Levites thirty years old or more were counted and the total number of men was thirty-eight thousand. David said, "Of these, twenty-four thousand are to supervise the work of the temple of the LORD and six thousand are to be officials and judges. Four thousand are to be gatekeepers and four thousand are to praise the Lord with the musical instruments I have provided for that purpose.”Following David's death, his son Solomon built Israel's Temple. Upon its completion, he set everything in place as David had commanded. So, beginning with the Temple’s dedication, its service included musical instruments (1 Chronicles 25:6; 2 Chronicles 5:11-14).

Unlike that of David, under Solomon’s reign, Israel reverted to idolatry, and with few exceptions, the kings and Jews of successive rulers were marked by idolatry; King Hezekiah of Judah was an exception. Under Hezekiah’s reign, Judah returned to worship of Jehovah God - with instruments. The Bible tells us that he —

2 Chronicles 29:25 NIV) ... Stationed the Levites in the house of the LORD with cymbals, with harps and with lyres, according to the command of David and of Gad the king’s seer, and of Nathan the prophet; for the command was from the LORD through his prophets.Soon thereafter, however, the Jews returned to idolatry.

In an effort to bring the Jews to repentance, the prophets Amos and Hosea announced Israel’s impending judgment. Amos proclaimed,

(Amos 8:10 ESV) I [God] will turn your feasts into mourning and all your songs into lamentation; I will bring sackcloth on every waist and baldness on every head; I will make it like the mourning for an only son and the end of it like a bitter day. Their growing sinfulness became the subject of the stern warnings of Micah, Isaiah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel – nonetheless, the prophets were ignored and God was about to judge Israel.

Moses had warned Israel,

(Deuteronomy 8:10 NIV) When you have eaten and are satisfied, praise the LORD your God for the good land he has given you.Instead, they worshipped idols. In her judgment Israel was deported to Babylon, and in her captivity, Zion’s songs (i.e., praises) were silenced. The psalmist wrote,

(Psalm 137:1-4 NIV) By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept when we remembered Zion. There on the poplars we hung our harps, for there our captors asked us for songs, our tormentors demanded songs of joy; they said, “Sing us one of the songs of Zion!” How can we sing the songs of the LORD while in a foreign land?The words of the psalmist depict an end to what was once exceedingly joyful praise (e.g., Psalm 66:2) and the resumption of Israel’s dirge. Generations of captive Jews lamented,

(Lamentations 5:7-8, 14-15 NIV) Our fathers sinned and are no more, and we bear their punishment. Slaves rule over us, and there is none to free us from their hands. … The elders are gone from the city gate; the young men have stopped their music. Joy is gone from our hearts; our dancing has turned to mourning.Far removed from a destroyed Solomon’s Temple, the Jews abstained from instruments and celebration. Even after many returned to Jerusalem under Ezra and Nehemiah to build the Second Temple, Jews considered themselves to still be in Exile. In fact, up to the time of Christ, the Jews thought of themselves as being in captivity. N. T. Wright explains,

Most first-century Jews believed that the Exile was not yet really over. Yes, they had come back from Babylon, geographically. But the pagans were still on top: first Persia, then Greece, then Syria, and now Rome. No sensitive or intelligent Jew would have dreamed of asserting that the promises of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the rest had been fulfilled in the various paltry “returns” that had taken place. Israel still needed “redeeming” — which, in their language, was an obvious code for the Exodus. The Exodus was the great covenant moment; what they now needed was covenant renewal.In their “Exile,” Rabbis came to permit canticles, that is, the chanting of scripture, but in the synagogues, they opposed any form of praise comparable to that found in the Temple. Why? Instruments were viewed as a symbol of Israel’s celebration of God’s favor. The Pharisees, particularly, were mindful of the words of the prophet Amos:

(Amos 6:1,4-7 NIV) Woe to you who are complacent in Zion, and to you who feel secure on Mount Samaria. … You lie on beds inlaid with ivory and lounge on your couches. You dine on choice lambs and fattened calves. You strum away on your harps like David and improvise on musical instruments. You drink wine by the bowlful and use the finest lotions, but you do not grieve over the ruin of Joseph. Therefore you will be among the first to go into exile; your feasting and lounging will end.Amos is not condemning David or the harp; he is making the point that, as instruments were associated with David’s celebration, Israel’s instruments, wine, and luxurious living, at a time when they should have been grieving over their sins, were acts demonstrating their defiance against God’s judgment. Therefore, the rabbis reasoned, instruments should not be used while the Jews were still in exile.

The Jewish Encyclopedia states,

The desire of many authorities [is] that song should be abstained from in lasting mourning for fallen Zion. (Cyrus Adler, “Music, Synagogal,” The Jewish Encyclopedia Vol. IX (New York: Funk and Wagnalls Co. 1905), p. 120).Hence, the synagogue, until well after New Testament times, was a house of prayer, of scripture study and teaching, and the public reading of the scriptures, which were often chanted to those present. But so far as history records, there was no congregational singing, no instruments, and no liturgy (Jason J. McFarland, “Early Christian Singing,” Pastoral Music fn. 12 (Sept. 1, 2010)).

Was a continuation of Israel’s lament God’s intent for N.T. Israel; or for the church?

Covenant Renewal

With an understanding that every Old Testament reference to chanting is a reference to lament (for example, Ezekiel 32:16), let’s examine the passages that specifically address God’s intent for New Covenant praise.

According to Jeremiah (c. 31) and Isaiah (c.61), the LORD promised to replace Israel’s laments with David’s joyful praise, praise that includes instruments, under a “New Covenant.” Let’s examine the words of the prophets.

Jeremiah 33:14–18 reads:

“The days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will fulfill the gracious promise I made to the house of Israel and to the house of Judah. In those days and at that time I will make a righteous Branch sprout from David’s line … This is the name by which it will be called: The LORD Our Righteousness.”

For this is what the LORD says: “David will never fail to have a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel.”Previously Jeremiah wrote:

(Jeremiah 30:8–9 NIV)“In that day,” declares the LORD Almighty, “I will break the yoke off their necks and will tear off their bonds; no longer will foreigners enslave them. Instead, they will serve the LORD their God and David their king, whom I will raise up for them.”Peter declared in Acts 2:22-26 that this “David” is Israel’s redeemer, Jesus the Christ. Jesus is the “righteous Branch sprout” and the one who sits “on the throne of the house of Israel.” Through Jesus, God fulfilled his promises to the Jews.

Now, pay careful attention to what Jeremiah says about the praise of redeemed Israel under “King David”, in contrast to the worship of enslaved Israel:

(Jeremiah 30:19 NIV) From them will come songs of thanksgiving and the sound of rejoicing. (Compare Luke 15:24,25.)

(Jeremiah 31:4,13 NIV) “I [God] will build you up again and you will be rebuilt, O Virgin Israel. Again you will take up your tambourines and go out to dance with the joyful.”

“Then maidens will dance and be glad, young men and old as well. I will turn their mourning into gladness; I will give them comfort and joy instead of sorrow.”Jeremiah speaks to God’s intent the way early church fathers cannot. He promised that there was a day coming when —

The mourning would cease.
Zion’s songs would be restored.
The tambourines would again be taken up.
And maidens and men, both old and young, would dance with the joyful amidst shouts of joy, and glad rejoicing in the bounty of the Lord.

Further, Jeremiah tells the Jews when his prophesy would be fulfilled. He writes,

(Jeremiah 31:31-32 NIV) “The time is coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them,” declares the LORD.Readers should recognize these as the same words the Hebrew writer used to announce the New Covenant to Israel (Hebrews 8:7-12).

Like Jeremiah, Isaiah foretold the restoration of Israel’s praise. He wrote,

(Isaiah 61:1-3 NIV) The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me, because the LORD has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners, to proclaim the year of the LORD’s favor and the day of vengeance of our God, to comfort all who mourn, and provide for those who grieve in Zion—to bestow on them a crown of beauty instead of ashes, the oil of gladness instead of mourning, and a garment of praise instead of a spirit of despair.Who were the “brokenhearted,” the “captives,” and those who “grieved” in Zion? Were they not the ones chanting laments?

When was Isaiah’s prophecy fulfilled? Luke tells of the day that Jesus went into the synagogue, read Isaiah 61, and said, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing” (Luke 4:21 NIV).

The New Covenant is “the year of the LORD’s favor,” a comfort for “all who mourn,” and a provision “for those who grieve in Zion.” It bestows on its former mourners “a crown of beauty instead of ashes, the oil of gladness instead of mourning, and a garment of praise instead of a spirit of despair.” What this means is the kingdom is not a continuation of Israel’s lament, in fact, lament was never God’s intent for Israel.

Synagogue Worship After 70 AD

Prevented from worshiping at the Second Temple (Herod’s) after it was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD, eventually the Jews replaced the joyous, celebrative, instrumental worship of the Temple with mournful worship in the synagogue. It was at this time that congregational “singing” became a part of the synagogue, but without instruments.

Eliyahu Schleifer tells us,

The simplicity of the music in the early synagogue was influenced by the halakhic [rabbinic] prohibitions against playing musical instruments, or, under certain circumstances, even singing. These prohibitions stem from three different sources: rules of Sabbath observance; the mourning over the destruction of the Temple; and the struggle against what the Rabbis took to be promiscuity.

Musical instruments and the shofar were considered inseparable parts of the Sabbath service in the Temple; rabbinic law could do nothing regarding their presence there. But the Rabbis could and did prohibit them outside the Temple for fear that playing an instrument on the Sabbath, a permissible act in and of itself, might lead inadvertently to the musician's tuning it, mending it, or carrying it from one public place to another — all of these being forbidden acts of work. Since the main synagogue service took place on Sabbath mornings, no musical instrument could become an integral component thereof. Even the shofar could not be blown, if Rosh Hashanah occurred on the Sabbath.

(Eliyahu Schleifer, Sacred Sound and Social Change: Liturgical Music in Jewish and Christian Experience (University of Notre Dame Press), republished at Jewish Liturgics, Chant Development, “Jewish Liturgical Music, Part II”).
Thus, after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD, the Jewish synagogues took up congregational singing, but they banned the instrument as a sign of mourning for the destroyed Temple, to avoid the risk of doing prohibited work on a Sabbath, and to avoid any association with the promiscuous use of instruments by the surrounding pagan culture.

New Testament Fulfillment of Old Testament Prophecy

There’s a remarkable contrast between the lament of the Jews and Christian worship. The Christian church saw worship very differently from the First Century Jewish synagogue. The church at Jerusalem worshipped at the instrumental Temple (Luke 24:53). The church at Antioch worshiped together, in Antioch, apart from the Temple (Acts 13:1).

The Christian assembly became a place for “a hymn [Gk. psalmos (ψαλμός)], a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation” (1 Corinthians 14:26 ESV), which was radically different from both the Temple and synagogue.

Paul instructed,

(Ephesians 5:18-21 ESV) 18 And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit, 19 addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart, 20 giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, 21 submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.
The language parallels Psalm 108 —

(Psalm 108:1-4 ESV) My heart is steadfast, O God! I will sing and make melody with all my being! 2 Awake, O harp and lyre! I will awake the dawn! 3 I will give thanks to you, O LORD, among the peoples; I will sing praises to you among the nations. 4 For your steadfast love is great above the heavens; your faithfulness reaches to the clouds.
The parallelism shows that the time of the Exile is over and now it’s time to “sing and make melody” as God’s people did before! The Kingdom has been restored! The Temple Psalms could be sung once again! The Songs of Zion are restored! After all, many of the Psalms written for the Temple worship were written about Jesus!

Finally, in Romans 15:11, Paul quotes Psalm 117:1 —

(Romans 15:11 ESV) And again, "Praise the Lord, all you Gentiles, and let all the peoples extol him."“Praise” (aineo or αἰνέω) is used very frequently in the Septuagint, in such verses as —

(Psalm 149:3 ESV) 3 Let them praise his name with dancing, making melody to him with tambourine and lyre!

(Psalm 150:3-6 ESV) 3 Praise him with trumpet sound; praise him with lute and harp! 4 Praise him with tambourine and dance; praise him with strings and pipe! 5 Praise him with sounding cymbals; praise him with loud clashing cymbals! 6 Let everything that has breath praise the LORD! Praise the LORD!Paul is announcing the end of the Exile and the coming of the Kingdom — a Kingdom that’s characterized by the restoration of true, celebrative worship of God, a worship of praise, in a culture and language where “praise” is inclusive of instrumental worship — precisely as prophesied by Jeremiah.

Conclusion

We sometimes think of the New Testament as book of laws issued to replace the Mosaic book of laws and forget that Jesus came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets (Matthew 5:17). The Old Testament gives the essential background of the Kingdom that Jesus preached. The Kingdom marks the end of the Exile — a restoration of David to the throne through Jesus and a restoration of the true Temple worship, lost when Solomon’s Temple was destroyed and the Jews were taken captive.

This true worship will not be the lamentation of the Exile but the celebration of Jesus on his throne — which allows us to once again to sing the Temple's Songs of Zion, in celebration of the enthronement of the true King David.

The true Temple is, of course, the church (Ephesians 2:19-22), and wherever the church is, the worship of God is restored and the time of Exile is over.

But it’s not just that we get to sing the Temple psalms, understanding their fulfillment in Jesus; we get to enjoy what the Jews were denied — the ability to praise in celebration of the victory that was won in Jesus through singing and instrumental worship.

The Jews were mistaken to ban instrumental worship from their synagogues, and it is a mistake to do so in the church, because the temple has been replaced by the church — the temple of God’s Holy Spirit — and that worship had been superseded by worship in Spirit and in truth by assembled believers in Jesus.

Mourning was entirely the wrong response. The dawn of the Kingdom and the construction of a new, eternal Temple were cause for celebration — and God, through the Prophets, has taught us how to celebrate such things.

Clyde Symonette, an evangelist and teacher, has been a student of scriptures for almost 30 years. He lives in Nassau, Bahamas with his wife Jacqueline and three children Angelica, Xavier and Madison. Clyde is preaching for the Westridge Church of Christ, Nassau, Bahamas, and a graduate of Barry University, Miami Shores Florida.

Clyde is in the process of completing work on his book Awakening Zion’s Song - Psalms in the New Testament Church. Clyde may be contacted at [clyde_symonette@yahoo.com].

Musical Instruments

2011-03-19T17:25:00.000-07:00

by Richard Amick

Does Yeshua (Jesus) allow the men and women of faith who look to Him for their salvation to use instruments as an accompaniment to singing hymns of praise and to edifying one another in song?

Among people who confess Jesus to be Lord and Savior is a segment that insists a musical instrument played in the context of praising God and edifying one another is sin. For the believers who hold this position, the idea that they would sing hymns or spiritual songs with instrumental accompaniment is unthinkable. They regard praising God in songs accompanied by an instrument as being among “the precepts of men”. As such, it qualifies as worshiping God “in vain”. (An argument based on Jesus’ words in Matthew 15:8-9.)

Some preliminary thoughts on the subject of singing hymns and songs accompanied with musical instruments . . .

If someone’s conviction were that God does not approve the use of musical instruments, then it would certainly be wrong for that person to sing in a setting where instruments accompany the singing. No one with a mindset that instruments are wrong should sing when instruments are used. The person’s singing would certainly not be in good faith. It would undoubtedly violate the person’s conscience. (See the principle of Romans 14:23.)

Suppose someone of faith does not believe singing with musical instruments is wrong. What if a person having full assurance in the Lord Jesus that God approves of singing with instruments was to sing “psalms and hymns and spiritual songs” accompanied with instruments. Would it be correct to say a person having the mindset that God allows an instrument is singing by the spirit, from the heart, and in good faith? A person who looks upon singing accompanied with instruments as a freedom of choice given us in Christ definitely would not be violating his conscience, not if he sings with full assurance in the Lord Jesus that God approves of instruments.

A question we might ask is do we have freedom in Christ to sing “psalms and hymns and spiritual songs” with musical instruments. Is the use of an instrument a liberty? Is it something God allows? We cannot cite a Scripture that speaks to the activities of the people of God who are in Christ (or “the church”) that forbids, requires, or says anything of His people using an instrument. Without a clear authoritative statement on the subject of musical instruments, what set of facts or arguments support the premise that God either allows or does not allow their use?

What follows is not an exhaustive discussion of musical accompaniment. It does not set forth all the arguments. The writing may persuade some people to reconsider their thoughts on the subject. Possibly study the topic more in depth. Maybe revise their arguments or change their attitude of people who have a different viewpoint.

What principles or evidence do people give in justifying the supposition that God does not approve the use of musical instruments?

Possibly the most seemingly compelling reason for not using the instrument is the portion of the canon known as the New Testament does not specifically authorize their use.¹ We know God approves singing (Matthew 26:30, Acts 16:25, Colossians 3:16, Ephesians 5:19; compare First Corinthians 14:15, James 5:13). Not one passage in the New Testament that mentions singing says anything about instruments.² Based on what we do not find in the New Testament, some people contend the assumption that the redeemed on earth can use instruments is a wrong supposition to reason from the Scriptures. The logic used by people who oppose the instrument is since we do not find a statement in Scripture specifically authorizing Christ followers to use instruments in/as worship, then justification for using them is not in accordance with divine instruction.³

Another argument against using the instrument is the lack of evidence that would point to Christ followers using them in the first few centuries. In Worship in the Early Church, Ralph P. Martin writes, “there is no certainty that any of these [the harp or lyre] were actually used. The balance of probability is against such use [of musical instruments].”⁴ One reference work states early Christians rejected “all use of musical instruments, and to content themselves (speaking generally) with simple singing . . . as the best expression of spiritual praise and thanksgiving”.⁵ A statement found in one early writing reads, “Instruments were allowed in the Temple, only singing without instruments is permitted in Christian Churches”.⁶ People who challenge the proposition using a musical instrument is something God allows point out many “early church fathers” and reformers opposed the use of instruments.

People who oppose using instruments as an accompaniment to singing also call attention to the gradual acceptance of instruments. Some argue the earliest record of an instrument used in a congregation of God’s people is not until the sixth century. Bartolomeo Sacchi “Platina”, who was both an historian and an author, credits Pope Vitalian (657-672) with introducing the organ into a “church service”.⁷ Although introduced in the sixth century, the acceptance of musical instruments as is common today was gradual. It was not until the thirteenth century that we find widespread acceptance of their use.

Does citing the belief held by early church fathers and reformers provide enough evidence form which to conclude that God does not allow His people freedom to use instruments as an accompaniment to singing hymns of praise and to edifying one another in song? Do we agree with everything the early church fathers and reformers believed? Citing extra-biblical sources to show the use of an instrument as an accompaniment to singing did not occur in the first few centuries is not evidence that God does not allow His called people, his ekklesia, to use them. At most, what people who oppose the instrument can conclude from citing the belief held by early church fathers and reformers is we cannot be certain God approves their use. If we cannot be certain that God approves their use, then people who use instruments when singing hymns and praises are only assuming God looks favorably upon their actions as an acceptable sacrifice.

What explanations do people offer for drawing the conclusion that God allows the use of musical instruments?

One argument is the definition of the Greek word transliterated “psalm” allows the playing of instruments. The word is psalmos (psal-mos'). The Greek scholar William Edwin Vine wrote psalmos “primarily denoted ‘a striking or twitching with the fingers (on musical strings)’; then, ‘a sacred song, sung to musical accompaniment, a psalm.’”⁸ Joseph Thayer’s dictionary⁹ and other reference works offer similar definitions for psalmos¹⁰.

Another reason people conclude God permits musical accompaniment are the Psalms that speak of praising Him with instruments. The existence of just one passage in the Psalms that mentions an instrument used in the context of praising Jehovah would be sufficient but there are actually several references found in different Psalms (e.g. Psalm 33:1-2, 57:7-8, 71:22-24, 92:1-3, 144:9, 150). In the New Testament, psalmos “stands for the Psalms of the OT” (Ephesians 5:19, Colossians 3:16).¹¹ People who oppose the use of an instrument contend that by the first century psalmos simply meant “a psalm” or “a hymn”. They also argue the meaning of psallo is simply "to sing a hymn", "to sing praises", or “to sing without regard to an instrument”. It is certainly true the use of psalmos changed through time to include unaccompanied singing but that was in addition to its original meaning. The definition never excluded songs sung to instrumental accompaniment. In the first century, people used psalmos whether they were speaking of singing accompanied with instruments or singing without instruments.

Something else to think about as evidence for God allowing His own (ekklesia) to use instruments is the Jews who after coming to accept Yeshua as the Messiah and believe in Him as their Lord and Savior, continued to worship in the temple where instruments were in use. The Jews who believed did not stop following the Law of Moses (Acts 21:20-24). They continued going to the temple (Acts 2:46, compare Acts 3:1). Hearing or seeing instruments played in and around the temple was common.¹² One person describes the setting as follows.

“Psalms 150 urges praise with the horns, harp, lyre, tambourine, dancing, strings, pipe and two sorts of cymbals. Some of these instruments belong more in temple worship., some belong more outside it; every means is summoned to magnify Yhwh. Some of the instruments would be played by priests (the horn, whose blast proclaimed the beginning of worship). Some would be played by Levites (harp and lyre, the regular stringed instruments mentioned in the Psalms, and cymbals). Some might be played by laypeople (strings, pipe and tambourine or hand drum, which goes with dancing because women played it as they danced; none of these are elsewhere associated with temple worship).”¹³

An added observation to note is some of the reasons cited by “early church fathers” and reformers for opposing musical instrument. People who object to using instruments are correct when they point out how some considered singing without instruments to be more spiritual, such as Titus Flavius Clemens (c.150 - c. 215), also known as “Clement of Alexandria”, and John Chrysostom (347 or 349 - 407). What is also true is the basis for many of them not to use instruments was their wanting to discourage people from associating their assemblies with other groups and/or activities. Saint Augustine of Hippo (354-430) said, “Musical instruments were not used” because they “associate so intimately with the sensual heathen cults, as well as with the wild revelries and shameless performances of the degenerate theater and circus “. Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) objected to using musical instruments “for fear of seeming to imitate the Jews”. Desiderius Erasmus of Roterodamus (1466 or 1469 –1536) understood music to be a spiritual sacrifice. His objection was that with the instruments, it had become “operatic and theatrical music”. He said, “Men run to church as to a theatre, to have their ears tickled.” Charles Spurgeon (1834 – 1892) believed instruments “hinder rather than help our praise”. It would be wrong to cite any one of these individuals as an authority from which to conclude God does not allow under any circumstances the use of instruments as an accompaniment to signing. Not wanting the world to associate the people of God who come together as His people to edify one another with non-believers who engage in sensual activities or who get together to be entertained does not mean that God does not allow instruments of music.

What is it that matters most?

When considering arguments for and against the use of instruments, there is one thing that we must not overlook. We do not want to forget, pay no attention to or in any way diminish what it is that the Lord looks at. The first thing He sees when he looks at us is not external details. “God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart” (First Samuel 16:7).

When God dwelt among us in the Person of Yeshua/Jesus, He told a certain woman of Samaria that an hour is coming when true worshippers will worship God in spirit and truth (John 4:23). His words were a response to a question the woman had asked concerning something external, the physical place where Jews came to worship (John 4:20). At the time, the people of Israel and YHWH were in a covenant agreement that included detailed regulations for worship (e.g. Leviticus). Our covenant with Jesus is without such detailed regulations. The question of whether we use instruments as an accompaniment to singing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs really should not be a concern. What is a concern is in Jesus’ response to the woman. From what Jesus told the woman we know what matters most is we worship from the heart, that our worship is spirit-led (Spirit-led), and we worship with faith in Him.

Closing comments on the discussion of musical instruments . . .

People bring up a number of reasons for and against the use of instruments. Were we to examine them all, we would notice some explanations sound more compelling than other explanations. We would also come to the realization that some of the evidence and principles cited is more reactionary and not the result of nonobjective reasoning. Instead of an honest reassessment of what the Spirit reveals through God’s Word, people have a predisposition of what they believe the truth is. With a firm conviction already present, they set about the task of proving themselves to be correct and why people having an opposing view are wrong. Sometimes, several individuals will come together to talk about what they have come to believe. They refer to their gathering as a "Bible study" when in truth, they are reviewing a predetermined belief. As a result, many of their arguments sound irrational and are anything but persuasive.

The emphasis in God’s Word is not to get His called people, His ekklesia, to come together in His name at set times to follow some alleged pattern of external worship details with non instrumental accompaniment to singing being on of the details. The message of Jesus Christ that we need to be proclaiming is He died for us so we might have a personal relationship with Him. Our having a relationship with Jesus means having a relationship with the Father and a promise of life eternal with Him.

To read more about musical instruments, go to "David's Psalms in the New Testament Church".

Endnotes

The term “canon” is from the Greek kanon. One reference work defines it “any straight rod or bar; rule; standard of excellence.” The entire collection of writings that early believers in Christ accepted as being inspired received as a description the “Canon of the Scriptures”. The canon has two parts known as the Old and New Testament. Through them, God speaks to us in providing the “standard of excellence” by which we may live lives that glorify Him.
There are Scriptures written during the first century that mention musical instruments. They are Revelation 14:2 and 15:2. Both passages are in a letter that begins with “the Revelation [apokalupsis] of Jesus Christ”. It is an apocalyptic writing containing much imagery and symbolism. Some people argue the instruments mentioned are not literal but represent something. Regardless of whether we understand the instruments literal or figurative, the imagery described takes place in heaven and not on earth. Because it occurs in heaven, the people who oppose musical instruments point out the contexts that mention instruments is not speaking to singing that occurs when a community of God’s people on earth come together to worship.
One group of people well known for opposing the instrument is the church of Christ. Many within their fellowship have adopted a system of hermeneutics that includes what they call “the law of silence”. Nowhere in Scripture do we find the expression “law of silence”. However, they believe the principle exists. In appealing to the “law of silence”, members of the church of Christ contend that if a Scripture does not specifically authorize the use of instruments, then using an instrument is sin. With this approach, it makes no difference if a person sings in good faith, by the spirit, from the heart, or with a clear conscience, it is still sin. Ironically, the people who advocate anything is wrong unless the Scriptures specifically authorize it are themselves inconsistent in following “the law of silence”. For instance, a detail specifically mentioned in the context of Christ followers coming together to eat the Lord’s Supper is their meeting in an upper room (Mark 14:15, Acts 20:8). Sound and appropriate reasoning tells us where believers come together is irrelevant. To make such a comprehensive statement that “anything is wrong unless the Scriptures specifically authorize it” is simply not true. Another case in point where brethren known as a church of Christ are not consistent in their applying the hermeneutical principle of “the law of silence” is their collecting money “as a church” for “the church” to use in providing/owning a building.

Is basing the conclusion that God does not approve accompanied singing on “the law of silence” a valid argument? By the time Mary gave birth to Yeshua/Jesus, the Jews had spaces or buildings purposefully constructed for formal, communal prayer known as synagogues. Jews would assemble in the synagogue to hear the Torah read. No Hebrew Scripture exists that authorized the construction of synagogues yet the Jews built them. Yeshua frequently went to the synagogues. He participated in the assembly. (Luke 4:16.) Even though the Scriptures are silent about the origin of synagogues, apparently their introduction was not presumptuous nor was their use a challenge to divine authority.
Ralph P. Martin, Worship in the early church, p. 134.
Charles Henry Hamilton Wright and Charles Neil, A Protestant dictionary: containing articles on the history, doctrines, and practices of the Christian church (Hodder and Stoughton: 1904) p. 443
Joseph Bingham, Origines Ecclesiasticae, or Antiquities of the Christian Church, book viii. ch. Vii, p.14
Platina, "De vitis Pontificum", Cologne, 1593, from New Advent, A Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11297a.htm).
William E. Vine, Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, p. 497
Joseph H. Thayer, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 675
New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible/Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries, p. 1693; The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, p. 670f
Ibid. 671.
"De vitis Pontificum"
John Goldingay, Israel’s Life (InterVarsity Press: 2009) p. 175

Understanding the Meaning and Biblical use of Christian

2010-10-11T19:29:00.000-07:00

by Richard Amick

A common word widely used today is “Christian”. We hear it applied as an adjective to describe many things: for example Christian nation, Christian music, Christian church, Christian publication, Christian school, Christian faith, Christian religion, Christian café, Christian bookstore, and so on. We also hear it used of individuals, such as someone known to profess belief in the teachings of Jesus. What may surprise some people is the term “Christian” only occurs three times in the Bible and never as an adjective.

In this discussion, we will define the term “Christian”, look at each of the three places where we find the term, and conclude the discussion with some observations. During the discussion, we will lay out a timeline (dates cited are approximate).

What does the term “Christian” mean?

“Christian” represents the Greek “Christianos” (khris-tee-an-os'). One Greek scholar defines Christian as “a word formed after the Roman style, signifying an adherent of Jesus”.¹ The term “Christian” is an eponym, from the Greek epi-, meaning from, and onyma, which means name. An eponym is a common noun derived from a proper noun. “Christian” (Christianos) is a common noun derived from the Greek word “Christ” by adding the suffix -ian (-ianos), meaning “related to, belong to”. The use of "ianos" as a suffix was common throughout the Roman Empire. In early imperial times, people used “ianos” to designate the slaves of the one named in the compounded word. In time, “ianos” evolved into the more regular use of denoting the adherents of an individual or a party.²

Where do we find the term “Christian” used?

#1 Acts 11:26

The term “Christian” first appears in the context of events that occurred at Antioch in Syria (Acts 11:26).

30 AD. Jesus gives evidence by the Spirit that He completed His work of making full atonement for our sins and that God had exalted Him to His right hand. Jesus, the Son of the living God, had risen from the dead, ascended into heaven, and was reigning as King (Acts 2:29-36). On that day, some three thousand Jews accept Jesus as Lord and Christ (Acts 2:41).

31 AD. The disciples experience “a great persecution” causing many to flee Jerusalem (Acts 8:1-4).

40 AD. Disciples come to Antioch where they proclaim the Lord Jesus Christ “to the Greeks” (“Grecians”, KJV). The word translated “Greeks” is Hellēnistēs (hel-lay-nis-tace').³ The term applied to Jews who lived among the Gentiles, spoke the Greek language, and imitated the habits and customs of the Greeks.⁴ A large number of Hellenistic Jews “turned to the Lord” Jesus (Acts 11:21, 24).

For at least one full year, Barnabas and Paul met with the disciples at Antioch and taught a considerable number of them. The citizens of Antioch saw several Jews set themselves apart from other Jews by their belief in Jesus to be Lord and Christ. By adding the suffix “-ianos” to “Christ”, the citizens of Antioch attached a derisive nickname to the individuals who made up this new group. They “were . . . called Christians” (Acts 11:26).

#2 Acts 26:28

The next time we find the term “Christian” is when King Agrippa used it (Acts 26:28).

44 AD. Paul and Barnabas leave Antioch and travel to Jerusalem taking with them a contribution that would help provide for the needs of brethren living in Judea.⁵ When they fulfilled their mission, they return to Antioch (Acts 11:28-30, 12:25).

45-48 AD. The Holy Spirit sends Paul and Barnabas to do the work for which God had called them (Acts 13:2, 4). This would be Paul’s first evangelist journey (Acts 13:4-14:28).

49 AD. Paul travels from Antioch to Jerusalem where he meets with the apostles and then returns to Antioch. Most Bible students refer to the special meeting that occurred in Jerusalem as “the Jerusalem conference” (Acts 15:1-29, cf. Galatians 2:10-10).

49-52 AD. Paul expresses a desire to return to the cities where he and Barnabas had proclaimed the word of the Lord and visit the brethren in those areas. Paul makes a second missionary journey (Acts 15:36-18:22).

53-57 AD. Paul’s third missionary journey (Acts 18:23-21:16).

57 AD. Paul arrives at Jerusalem. He goes to the temple. Jews who had come from Asia recognize him. They stir the people against him (Acts 21:17-30).

57-60 AD. Paul’s incarceration at Caesarea (Acts 23:31-26:32).

60 AD. Paul’s defense before Agrippa (Acts 26:1-32).

While Paul is at Jerusalem, the Jews take hold of him and begin beating him. A Roman commander gives order for soldiers to intervene and take Paul prisoner. Paul will have opportunity to witness for Jesus as he gives defense of himself before different audiences (Acts 23:11). The people who hear his defense include the following.

The Jews in Jerusalem (Acts 21:39-40)
The Sanhedrin Council or Jewish high court (Acts 22:30)
Felix, governor of the Roman province of Judea (Acts 23:23-24, 31-35, 24:1, 10, 24-26)
Porcius Festus, Felix’s successor (Acts 25:6-12)
Herod Agrippa II, titular king of Judea (Acts 25:22-23, 26:1)

Paul’s appearance before Agrippa is not a casual meeting involving a few individuals. “Agrippa came together with Bernice [his sister] amid great pomp, and entered the auditorium accompanied by the commanders and the prominent men of the city” (Acts 25:23). Historians tell us there were five commanders stationed in Caesarea. We have no idea how many prominent men or who else were present. What we know is the atmosphere is one of “great pomp”. It is impressive, with much splendor and pageantry.

Once everyone is present, Festus gives the order for his soldiers to bring Paul into the auditorium. As Paul is giving his defense, Festus interrupts and with a raised voice accuses him of being deranged (Acts 26:24). Paul responds by pressing Agrippa to admit belief in the things he had testified (Acts 26:25-27). Agrippa had just heard the opinion of the highest-ranking officer of the Roman Empire. How does Agrippa respond? Agrippa conveys his disgust to the claims Paul had made with the words, “Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?” (Acts 26:28, NIV.) Agrippa’s use of the term Christian is one of scorn. ⁶[For further comment, see Addendum #1.]

First Peter 4:16

The only other occurrence of the term “Christian” is in a letter Peter wrote approximately 66-67 AD (First Peter 4:16). He wrote his letter at a time when God’s elect were experiencing persecution. Peter wrote, “Make sure that none of you suffer as a murderer, or thief, or evildoer, or a troublesome meddler; but if anyone suffers as a Christian, he is not to be ashamed, but it is to glorify God in this name” (First Peter 4:15-17). The Greek scholar William Vine wrote, "In 1 Peter 4:16, the apostle is speaking from the point of view of the persecutor; cf. ‘as a thief,’ ‘as a murderer.’”⁷

Cornelius Tacitus was a senator and a historian of the Roman Empire who lived from 56 AD to 117 AD. Approximately 64 AD, a fire destroyed much of Rome. According to Tacitus, “Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace.”⁸ Some translations of Tacitus' work read Nero “punished, with exquisite torture, a race of men detested for their evil practices, by vulgar appellation commonly called Christians”.⁹

Disciples of Christ did not use the name “Christian” until the second century. Even then, its use was mainly by apologists writing for pagan readers.¹⁰

What observations can we make?

Based on what we discussed about the meaning and Biblical use of the term “Christian”, what are some things we know?

The disciples did not adopt “Christian” as a name for themselves (Acts 11:26).
Paul did not identify himself as a “Christian”. There is no evidence that any believer referred to him/her self as “Christian” or to any other believer as “Christian”.
In his defense before Agrippa, Paul did not say he wanted Agrippa to be a Christian. He said he wanted Agrippa and all who hear him to become “as I am” (Acts 26:29).
We have no clear scriptural grounds, whether by precept, example, or inference, for using “Christian” as an adjective to describe anything pertaining to Christ.

Closing comments . . .

Are we to conclude that Christ followers are wrong to use a term that people understand universally as referring to something or someone related to the Christ or to His teachings? From a Biblical viewpoint, “Christian” is a name not an adjective used by nonbelievers and intended to be derogatory. It became a central part of our faith. The unmistakable truth is “Christian” is not a divinely appointed name as most presume it to be [see Addendum #2]. We have liberty in Christ to call ourselves “Christian”. Perhaps one question to ask ourselves is does the world know we are adherents to Christ? Do our actions, our words, and the company we keep clearly identify us with Jesus as they did the disciples of the first Century?

Addendum #1

What I consider a common misconception people have of Agrippa’s statement in Acts 26:28 is the belief that Paul almost persuaded him to believe. Given the way most translations and many commentators treat the passage this interpretation is understandable. The New American Standard updated version has “in a short time you [Paul] will persuade me to become a Christian”. The New King James reads, “You almost persuade me to become a Christian.” The reasoning people use is Agrippa was a Jew, Paul’s defense is persuasive, and there is no evidence that Agrippa shared the Jews’ passion and hatred for Paul. I also suspect the acceptance and familiar use of the term “Christian” among disciples today in contrast its non-use among the disciples of the first century affects our approach to Agrippa’s statement. Believers do not hesitate in referring to each other as Christians but it is a term the early disciples did not use. Is the interpretation of Agrippa’s statement that Paul almost persuaded him to believe the only plausible interpretation we can make? Is it possible that Agrippa's attitude was something very different from what many believe?

The question/statement Paul made to Agrippa was, “Do you believe the Prophets? I know that you do.” Agrippa, being a Jew, could have simply said yes, he believed the prophets. However, Agrippa knew all to well where Paul was going. He knew Paul would have argued from the Prophets that Jesus of Nazareth, whom the Jews killed, is the Messiah/Christ. Because he knew the argument Paul would make, he responds by saying, “Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?” This is how the New International Version reads, which in my judgment the more accurate translation of what Agrippa said is the NIV. He could not imagine Paul persuading him to believe Jesus as the Messiah, certainly not any time soon (and not after witnessing Festus' reaction). Richard Lenski whom some describe as “a meticulous student of Greek” offers the following exegesis.

“Agrippa imagines that he sees through Paul’s scheme and with an air of lofty superiority that is intended to impress the company lets Paul know that he sees through his plan of operation. Here we see the man’s evasion. He turns from the prophets and their plain, compelling utterances about the Christ by looking only at Paul and Paul’s purpose. He gets rid of the great fact that it ought to be only a short cut from the prophets and the prophecies to faith in Christ for any true and sincere Jew who believes these holy prophets of God. No; whatever Agrippa thinks of these prophets, letting them point him so directly to Jesus as the Christ is out of the question for him, a Herod, a king, although a Jew in profession.”¹¹

Another respected Biblical scholar whose explanation is worth considering is Frederick F. Bruce. The Roman Procurator Festus had stated in a loud voice, “Paul, you are out of your mind! Your great learning is driving you mad” (Acts 26:24). F. F. Bruce argues,

“Therefore he [Agrippa] could not admit that he did believe the prophets; on the other hand, he could not say that he did not believe them, for his reputation for orthodoxy and his influence with the Jews would be gone if he did. So he turned Paul’s appeal aside with a smile: ‘In short,’ he said, ‘You are trying to make me play the Christian’ – for so his words ought to be understood. He was not going to be maneuvered into anything like that!”¹²

Addendum #2

For several years, I was in fellowship with individuals who describe themselves collectively as a “church of Christ”. Most of them claim they do not teach manmade doctrines, they do not participate in manmade worship, and they do not wear manmade names. They believe, “Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent.” They also believe the Bible alone is their authority in all matters of “faith and practice”.

With the thoughts of the preceding article in mind, a question I have is by what authority members of the church of Christ call themselves “Christians”. Where do “the Scriptures speak” about their “authority” to use the name “Christian”? Am I seeing inconsistency between what they claim and what they practice? Their formula for establishing authority involves commands, examples, and necessary inferences. The argument is when there is no command, example, or necessary inference, then authority from God does not exist. I write this not to say that we, as Christ-followers, cannot refer to ourselves as Christians. My argument is this. I believe men and women of faith who pride themselves in being “just Christians” should think seriously before criticizing people who are not of them but whose words and deeds are evidence of their following Christ. Are we willing for God to judge us by the same standard we use when judging others?

Endnotes

William E. Vine, Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 101
Christian, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol I, pp. 621f
New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Greek Dictionary of the New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance, p. 1647
Joseph H. Thayer, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 205. Acts 6:1 speaks of “Hellenistic Jews” and "native Hebrews". So apparently, at the time there were two classes of Jews. There were the Jews who dwelt in Palestine and spoke Hebrew and there were the Jews who had been scattered among the Gentiles and spoke Greek.
Speaking by the Spirit, Agabus said “there would certainly be a great famine all over the world”. Luke said the famine “took place in the reign of Claudius”. The Judean famine occurred from AD 44 to AD 48. The contribution made by the Hellenistic Jews who had become disciples of Jesus was to help brethren survive the famine.
Vine’s Dictionary, p. 101
Ibid
Cornelius Tacitus, The Anals and the Histories, Book 15
Arthur Murphy, Esq., The Works of Cornelius Tacitus; With an Essay on His Life and Genius, Notes, Supplements, p. 287
Alan Richardson, A Theological Word Book of the Bible, p. 46, See also Vine's Dictionary
R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles, p. 1057
F. F. Bruce, Commentary on the Book of Acts, pp. 495f

The Most Important Decision

2010-09-01T08:33:00.000-07:00

by Richard Amick

We make countless choices every day. Many of the choices we make are routine; when to get up, what we will wear, what are we going to eat, and others. Some choices are more serious in nature. These may require a huge financial or long-term personal commitment. Often, the choices we make affect ourselves, our surroundings, and other people as well. These choices involve not only our actions but also our words. The one choice that promises the greatest reward is giving one’s life to Jesus as Lord and Savior. Consider the following . . .

God allows bad things to happen

When God created Adam, He gave humankind the ability to choose right from wrong (Genesis 2:15-17, 3:6). God never took that freedom away (e.g. Joshua 24:15). When we choose to do wrong, we sin. It does not matter if the wrong choice is deliberate or in ignorance, it is still sin. There are consequences associated with making wrong decisions. Bad things happen. Wrong choices are the reason people can experience hurt, grief, suffering, even death. They are why relationships deteriorate, become unhealthy, and often result in temporary separation or a complete severing of the relationship. God allows all these things to happen.

Adam and Eve sinned when they placed their will before God’s in doing what they wanted instead of yielding their will to His. They made the wrong choice. God had told Adam “in the day” he disobeys Him, “You [Adam] will surely die” (Genesis 2:17). At first, the relationship between the Creator and His special creation “in His own image” had been personal and intimate but that suddenly changed “in the day” Adam disobeyed God. “Through one man,” i.e. Adam’s transgression, “sin entered the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned” (Romans 5:12). “The wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). God wants better for His special creation. When sin entered the world, God at that time could have destroyed humankind but His intent was to save people from the consequences of sin including death and judgment.

God has the power to intervene

He intervened by His Spirit in revealing His will through godly men, many of whom wrote God’s Word as they were moved by the Spirit. The prophetic writings did not originate with the men who wrote them. “Men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God” (Second Peter 1:20-21). The divinely inspired writings reveal God’s character. Every law, commandment, instruction, and ordinance revealed in Scripture relate in some way to His nature.

God also intervened when He came in the Person of Jesus of Nazareth. The word translated “Jesus” is of Hebrew origin. It comes from a word pronounced yeh-ho-shoo'-ah. The English form is “Joshua”, meaning Jehovah-saved. The reason given for naming the child Joshua (Jehoshua), whose miraculous conception was “of the Spirit”, is “He will save His people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21). Yeshua Himself will save, Yeshua being the proper Hebrew name. What’s more, we know Him as “Immanuel”, which is also of Hebrew origin. It means “God with us” (Matthew 1:23). God revealed Himself in the flesh (First Timothy 3:16). Deity intervened by coming in human flesh for our salvation. (See also Colossians 2:9, John 14:9.) Jesus did everything that was necessary to set us fully right with our Creator. Instead of destroying humankind when sin entered the world, God intervened by providentially working according to His eternal purpose in preparing the world for the coming Savior (Isaiah 14:24, 25:1, 46:9-10, Galatians 4:4). “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners” (Luke 19:10, First Timothy 1:15).

God does not force submission

The same passage that tells us “the wages of sin is death” also tells us “the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 6:23). Before “sin entered the world”, even “before the foundation of the world” existed, God knew the names of the people who will receive eternal life (Ephesians 1:4; Revelation 13:8; 17:8). He “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (First Timothy 2:3-4). The salvation of all men is His intent, His “will” (YLT). It is what He “wants” (NIV). The Lord is “not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance” (Second Peter 3:9). The people who come to faith in Christ for salvation do so because of God’s working and it does not involve coercion. He does not force anyone to come to Jesus against his or her will.

People can choose to reject God’s message of grace and forgiveness in Christ Jesus. Even someone who comes in faith to Jesus for salvation and whose name is “in the book of life”, if he is does not continue in faith, the Lord “will erase his name from the book of life” (Revelation 3:5). Rejecting God’s grace is the worst possible decision anyone can make. “If we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth; there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries” (Hebrews 10:26-27). “Those who . . . do not obey the truth . . . will . . . perish” (Romans 2:6-12). Another word used to describe the fate of the wicked is “destruction” (Second Thessalonians 1:9, Hebrews 10:39, Second Peter 2:1, 3:7). The reason for experiencing such eternal punishment is not that God refused to accept them into His presence for eternity but that they refused whatever evidence was available to them.

Closing comments

No one will receive eternal life because he deserves it and no one will experience the punishment of eternal destruction that does not deserve it. We have the freedom to make choices. We make choices every day. The most important choice we could ever make is to accept what God accomplished in Jesus Christ on our behalf.

Be reconciled to God

Have You Come to Yeshua?

2010-08-22T19:12:00.000-07:00

by Richard Amick

Yeshua (Jesus) stated unequivocally, “No one can come to Me unless the Father . . . draws him” (John 6:44). The only possible reason for anyone to come to Yeshua and have a relationship with Him is that “the Father . . . draws” us. A logical question that may come to mind is how the Father might draw us. Does He draw us in some mystical manner? Does Yeshua leave the subject of how God may draw us entirely to our imagination? Before attempting an answer to these questions, we need to continue reading the account. . .

Yeshua immediately follows by saying, “It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught of God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me.” (John 6:45.) We can say with great certainty that our coming to faith in Yeshua and having a relationship with Him is due to our having “heard and learned from the Father”.

For those of us who are Christ Followers, what have we “heard and learned” that drew us to Yeshua? What must sinners hear and learn from the Father that would draw them to Yeshua? What Christ followers have “heard and learned from the Father” and what sinners must hear and learn is the “good news” of what God has accomplished in the Person and work of Yeshua the Christ.

We will highlight three things . . .

God demonstrated His love for us

“God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life” (John 3:16). “By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His son to be the propitiation for our sins.” (First John 4:9-10).

God reconciled us to Him through the death of His Son.

“While we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son” (Romans 5:6-10.) God, “reconciled us to Himself through Christ . . . God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself” (Second Corinthians 5:18-19).

God accomplished our redemption.

“The message of truth” that God wants all people every to hear and learn and the message by which He draws us to Yeshua is “the gospel of our salvation” (Ephesians 1:13). Yeshua “offered one sacrifice for sins for all time” (Hebrews 10:12). “By one offering, He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified” (Hebrews 10:11). By His perfect obedience life and sacrificial death, Yeshua fully completed the work of setting us right with God.

Closing thoughts . . .

Are we hearing and learning what God, by His Spirit, is telling us through His Word? “It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught of God’” (John 6:44). God has taught us what He has accomplished in the Person and work of the Messiah Yeshua (Christ Jesus); His love for us while we were sinners, His reconciling us to Him, and His redeeming us. Hearing and learning what God has accomplished should draw us to Yeshua. A Christ follower is someone who trusts Yeshua, who freely expresses that trust by immersion in water, and whose desire is to do what pleases Him.

Immersion / Baptism

The Influence Of Greek Philosophy On The Development Of Christian Theology

2010-06-07T07:03:00.000-07:00

by J. W. Jepson, D.Min.
copyright © 1999 and 2005 by J. W. Jepson.

The following examines the doctrine of “original sin”.- Richard Amick

Early Christians were slow to develop a distinctly Christian philosophy. When they did, their philosophical environment was Neo-Platonic. This mind-set directly influenced the historic development of Christian philosophy and theology.

Flavius Justinus (Martyr), ca. 100-164, admired Plato's philosophy and used some Platonic terms, but not necessarily with Platonic meaning. Tatian, a pupil of Justin Martyr, did not share his teacher's admiration for Greek philosophy; he believed that if the Greeks possessed any truth, they must have received it from The Scriptures.

Theophilus of Antoch, who wrote Ad Autolycum, esteemed Plato. Minucius Felix, a Latin apologist, held that the philosophers had at least recognized some truths.

It was in the catechetical school at Alexandria, however, that philosophy gained its greatest influence in Christian theology. Titus Flavius Clemens (Clement of Alexandria), born ca. 150 A.D., was the first of what might be called the Christian philosophers. Though he rejected the crude speculations of the Sophists, he held firmly to the belief that philosophy held an element of truth. He taught that the passages of Scripture that declare the insufficiency of human wisdom and that warn against being spoiled by philosophy applied only to empty Sophism and Epicureanism, but not to what he considered the best of philosophy. He maintained that philosophy brought the Greek mind to Christ, just as the Law brought the Hebrew to Him. To Clement, philosophy provided a natural framework for the expression of truth (Stromata I:3, 5, 11).

Having devoted most of Book One and some of the remaining sections of his Stromata to a defense of his philosophical approach, Clement proceeded to build on a Neo-Platonic metaphysical foundation what was intended to be a Christian philosophy. To him, the God of the Christians is the God of Plato, now worshiped by Christians more perfectly than by the Greeks. According to Clement, Plato plagiarized revelation from the Hebrews; this gave the Athenian's highest ideas a flavor of divine authority in the estimation of Clement.

What began in Clement was expanded in one of his pupils, Origen (ca.185 - 254). To Origen, sin is negative, a privation (which makes man the victim of sin rather than its responsible cause).

The prevalence of dualistic ideas provoked controversies in the Church. Tertullian (ca. 155 - 222) vigorously opposed the intrusion of Neo-Platonic philosophy into Christian doctrine. His cry was "free Jerusalem from Athens and the church of Christ from the Academy of Plato." Historically, it was the attitude of Clement, not of Tertullian, that won out in ecclesiastical Christianity.

In the Third Century A. D., Paul of Samosata, Bishop of Antioch, taught that God, being One, could not appear substantially on earth; therefore He could not have become man in Jesus Christ, but rather filled the man, Jesus, with His Logos and power. Lucian of Antioch, his follower, believed that the Logos became man in Christ; however, Lucian's Logos was a lower, created essence and not fully God.

Arius, one of Lucian's pupils, fully absorbed Lucian's Logos concept. In 311 A. D. Arius was ordained a presbyter in the church at Alexandria. After several years of controversy, Arius was excommunicated. Because many of the clergy sympathized with his views, a struggle was precipitated that threatened to split Christianity. The emperor Constantine became alarmed. The result was the Council Of Nicaea (A.D. 325). Christ was declared to be of the same substance as the Father. This settled the matter officially, but not historically.

Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 265 - 340) agreed with Clement of Alexandria regarding the value of philosophy. He believed that Plato had been enlightened by God and was in agreement with Moses.

Augustine (A.D. 354 - 430) spent several years of his earlier life in Manichaeism. He was converted in A.D. 386 and later became Bishop of Hippo. His earlier writings, such as Contra Academicos, De Beata Vita, and De Ordine, have a strong Neo-Platonic flavor, which carried through into his later writings. He wrote, "let every good and true Christian understand that truth, wherever he finds it, belongs to his Lord" (Epistle 166).

Augustine taught that the mind of God contains the eternal, changeless Ideas, Forms, or Archetypes of all things. These creative Ideas are independent of matter. They are the rationes seminales which the divine Creative Will developed within time into seen forms (De Ideis, 2). The view that these Ideas are in the Word goes back to Philo and the Stoic Logoi Spermatikoi, and, from Augustine, passed into medieval theology.

To Augustine, created things tend toward non-being; but so long as they exist, they must assume some form. That form is the reflection of the eternal and immutable Form (De Libero Arbitrio 2, 17, 46). Evil is that which tends to non-being and also tends to make what is cease to be (De Moribus Ecclesiae, 2, 2, 2).

Others also contributed to the influence of Neo-Platonism. Boethius (A.D. 480 - 524) wrote a Platonic theodicy, On The Consolation Of Philosophy, which had considerable influence in Christian theology.

Neo-Platonic ideas also influenced Christianity, especially in the west, through the pseudonymous Dionysius The Areopagite, a work dated not earlier than A.D. 500. The author took the Neo-Platonic ideas of Proclus and developed them into an esoteric Christianity. Erigena, Peter Lombard, Albertus Magnus, Thomas Aquinas, and others carried on the pseudo-Dionysian theme.

Not all leaders of the Latin Church held a high regard for Greek philosophy. Jerome cried, "What has Horace to do with the Psalter, Virgil with the gospels, and Cicero with Paul?" (The Virgin's Profession).

The influence of the ancient philosophies is evident in various contemporary religious views and practices.

The Platonic concept of God as an impersonal One, pantheistically immanent in nature and of which all visible beings are emanations, the concept of mystical reunion of the human soul with the Divine Mind and the acquisition of esoteric gnosis through meditation, inner mental and psychic development and ecstasy, and the concept of the more or less unreality of material being are all present in the various modern "mind science" sects. In most of these systems, Christ is considered to be some kind of demigod, a second-rate Platonic Logos who has attained to a high degree of liberation from the mundane and achieved an advanced spiritual (metaphysical) state. The Arian view of Christ is vigorously taught by the Watchtower Society ("Jehovah's Witnesses").

Some (but not all) of these concepts are deeply ingrained in the theology of eastern Orthodoxy. This is to be expected because the roots of the eastern Orthodox churches are deeply planted in ancient Greek thought and culture. Some of these roots are found in the ontology of Athanasius (ca. 298 -373). Eastern Orthodox concepts such as the divinization of nature through the Incarnation of Christ, and theosis (the process of man becoming divine) are based on Greek philosophy. This philosophical premise leads to an ontological interpretation of 2 Peter 1:4 ". . . partakers of the divine nature . . . ." "Divine nature" (physis) is automatically assumed to mean the very essence of God rather than His moral character (as the context clearly demonstrates).

It is in morality and ethics that philosophy has had its most far-reaching practical influence in Christian theology. This has developed on the one hand from the Neo-Platonic view of sin, and on the other from the Stoic concept of ethical self-sufficiency.

In Platonism and its subsequent variations the question of the cause and nature of evil was basic. The general assumption that sin and evil are ontological (that they have actual essence) contributed to and forms the basic premise of the doctrine of original sin. To be inherited, sin must have essence, real being; it must consist in some thing that causes evil choice and action, instead of being the moral character of the choice itself. With this mind set it is common to regard sin in the heart as an essence instead of a voluntary choice; hence the term "sinful nature." This evil essence is regarded as a part of human nature. Although Augustine did not originate the concept, he passed it on to subsequent generations. Calvin built heavily upon it. It is with us today.

It appears that the early framers and proponents of the doctrine of original sin did not use the Bible as their starting point. That is, the doctrine did not emerge on its own out of Biblical exegesis. Even though Tertullian objected to the influence of Greek philosophy on the Church, his stoic psychology was a tributary of the emerging new doctrine. The main stream, however, goes back to its headwaters in Plato and his notion of the fall of the soul. From this and from the ideas behind infant baptism, Origen contributed to the doctrine. But even these in themselves would not have institutionalized the doctrine of original sin in the Church without the concepts of the prevailing philosophical milieu at the time of Augustine.

Largely out of his own personal experience--his struggle with temptation and his life of defeat in sin--rather than out of The Scriptures themselves, Augustine advanced the new doctrine. Being the bishop of Hippo, in North Africa, and being within the sphere of influence and authority of the Bishop of Rome and the developing papacy, Augustine had a strong position from which to inculcate the theology that emerged in his brilliant mind.

Pelagius (ca. 360 - 420) came to Rome from Britain. Coming from the purer form of Christianity that existed at the time in Scotland and Ireland, Pelagius was scandalized by the lack of holiness and the excuse of moral inability, and set out to correct the situation. Pelagius published his objections in the capital city. Coelestius, a pupil of Pelagius, adopted his teacher's ideas and promoted them aggressively. When Rome was sacked by the Goths in 410, Pelagius and Coelestius moved to Africa. Not long afterward Pelagius went to Palestine.

Coelestius remained in Carthage. A council met at Carthage in 412 and condemned Coelestius on several doctrinal points. In 417 the Bishop of Rome, "Pope" Innocent I, confirmed the condemnation of Coelestius and also censured Pelagius.

The regions ecclesiastically under Rome were strongholds of the new doctrine of original sin. Innocent I was succeeded by Zosimus, who reversed the judgment on Coelestius. An influential council in Africa protested the action of Zosimus. The Roman Emperor Honorius compelled Zosimus to reinstate the condemnation of Coelestius and the censure of Pelagius. The bishops of Italy were required to sign the condemnation. At least 18 refused to sign and were banished from Italy by imperial decree. And so the doctrine of original sin was officially established in the Church, first in the West and eventually in the East (Ephesus, AD 431).

Certainly Pelagius and Coelestius held doctrines that are indefensible; however, so did Augustine and his supporters, notably the doctrine of original sin. Although Augustine did not originate the concept, he formulated it and passed it on to subsequent generations. Calvin built heavily upon it. It is with us today, with all of its pleas of moral inability as an excuse for sub-Christian living.

The supporters of the doctrine of inherited original sin appeal to several Bible passages that have come to be viewed from the presuppositions of an essentially Platonic/Neo-Platonic frame of reference. That frame of reference is a prism that determines the definitions and connotations of certain Biblical words and phrases, notably "sin." Because these Biblical passages did not in themselves teach the later doctrine of original sin, they had to be "retrofitted" by eisogesis to conform to a Greek philosophical template.

It is important that we consider and understand these Biblical passages from a Hebrew/moral frame of reference instead of a Greek/ontological frame of reference. That is, we will regard The Scriptures in their natural definition of sin and holiness as voluntary moral choices, not ontological (metaphysical) essences. "Spiritual" does not mean "mystical." It has to do with moral choices and character, and a right relationship with God through Jesus Christ.

Let us start with Job 14:4, "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one" (KJV). This verse is pressed into service to support the doctrine of original sin only because the doctrine it claims to support is first presupposed. Taken in its context and in view of the Bible's definition of sin as voluntary, this verse can mean no more than this: infants born in a morally and spiritually degenerate cultural environment will themselves become such. They will slide into the prevailing moral depravity by following the course of least resistance. This is made all the more certain by the brevity and difficulties of this life.

Job 15:14, "What is man that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?" (KJV). At most these words of Eliphaz teach the same as the previous passage. Every person who is "born of a woman"--that is, the entire human race--falls into voluntary moral depravity because of the combination of influences in that direction (the world, the flesh, and the devil).

Psalm 51:5, "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me" (KJV). If taken precisely, the psalmist is speaking of the sinful character of his mother at the time of his conception and gestation. To make this verse teach the supposed "sinfulness" of David's natural being is to go against God's own definition of sin as a voluntary and therefore responsible choice. This is the strong poetical language of David's penitential psalm, expressing the fact that he had been a sinner from the inception of his moral ability and accountability, and that his mother had also been a sinner. He is confessing his generational pattern of sinning, not some supposed sinfulness in his human substance.

We find the same strong poetical language in Psalm 58:3, "The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies" (KJV). No one has ever seen a newborn baby get up and walk around the nursery telling lies to its parents, the other newborns, and the nurses! This verse affirms what the other verses we are considering affirm: people yield to temptation from the beginning of their ability to make moral choices. Trace the lifelong pattern of the wicked back as far as possible, and it will be discovered that they began their pattern of sinful choices as early as they were capable of making moral choices at all. To make this verse teach otherwise is to make it teach nonsense.

James 1:14 tells us that temptation comes from our own human desires. These are not evil in themselves, because Jesus Himself had them; otherwise, He could not have been tempted. Temptation does not come from some "indwelling" sinful nature; it comes from our humanity, just as it came from Jesus' humanity. In infants and small children, desire is developed before reason; couple that with the influences of the world and the devil, and it is no marvel or mystery why people universally sin before being enlightened by The Scriptures, influenced by the Church, and drawn by the Holy Spirit.

Jeremiah 13:23, "Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Neither can you do good who are accustomed to do evil" (NIV). This verse itself refutes the assumptions of original sin. The moral bondage is the result of being accustomed to doing evil, not one's birth.

John 3:6, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit" (KJV). This means that as flesh is produced from parental flesh, so a redeemed, purified, renewed human spirit is the product of the influence of the Holy Spirit.

John 9. The disciples asked if the man had been born blind because of his sins or his parents' sins. Jesus replied that neither was the case. Later, the Pharisees treated the man with contempt, saying that he had been altogether born in sins. In the first place, Jesus dismissed the rabbinical assumptions of the disciples. In the second place, we cannot base doctrine on an insult by the Pharisees.

Romans 5:12-19, "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come. But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died because of the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous" (NIV).

Of course sin was introduced into human experience by one man. Adam started it. Because God saw that sin would become the universal practice, He placed a limitation on the human life-span to set boundaries on mankind's opportunity to sin in this life. So physical death came to all men. The fact that all have sinned demonstrates the wisdom of God's pre-emptive action.

No Bible passage is interpreted correctly if that interpretation leads to a conclusion that is contrary to the teaching of the Bible as a whole. Any such interpretation is in error. If this passage is taken to mean that Adam's sin automatically made everyone guilty, consistency necessarily drives us to the inescapable conclusion that Christ's sacrifice automatically saved everyone. It does no good to plead otherwise. The Greek is very strong: "just as". . ."so also." To conclude otherwise one has to make an arbitrary assertion contrary to the fact. This mis-interpretation forces its adherents and defenders to the error of Universalism--that everyone will be saved. The Augustinian view of this passage is a stronghold of Universalism.

In this passage Paul teaches that Adam's sin brought about a tragic universal result, but Christ's obedience (His death on the cross) brought about a glorious universal result. It states that each affects everyone without going into the specifics of how, beyond opening the door to universal sinfulness and condemnation by Adam and opening the way of salvation to all by Jesus Christ. Involved in this are universal physical death and universal physical resurrection (the latter taught also in 1 Corinthians 15:21).

Romans 7:7-25. This passage is quite lengthy. Please refer to it in your Bible. By no reasonable standard of Biblical interpretation can this passage refer to Paul's experience as a born-again believer. It is impossible for anyone to live in Romans chapter 7 and chapter 8 at the same time. To force this passage to teach the notion of "two natures" in the believer, it is necessary to fall back on the mysticism of Greek and middle-eastern dualism.

Paul is not describing the believer's on-going struggle with temptation. To illustrate and personalize the point, he is putting himself in the place of the unconverted person who is experiencing the war between that person's reason and his or her desires. These are the two laws that are in conflict within every sinner and produces the wretchedness mentioned in verse 24. The result of this conflict between reason and desire in every person who is a voluntary slave to desire is constant defeat, bondage, and spiritual death (death in sin is alienation from God because of one's sin). This is the "law of sin and death."

Sin "dwells" in sinners because choices are made within us. Please keep in mind the Biblical definition of sin as a voluntary commitment to and pursuit of self-gratification (Romans 8:5-7). That commitment "dwells" in us because it is the stubborn set of the soul (the "will"). For example, if greed "dwells" in us, it is because we put it there; we choose the evil passion and hold on to it in our souls.

Sinners are "sold under sin" because they voluntarily sell themselves to sin (1 Kings 21:20; 2 Kings 17:17; Isaiah 50:1; Isaiah 52:3).

The latter part of Romans 7:25 is not a conclusion; it is a summary of what had been said before. The conclusion is in chapter 8:1 and 2--There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus. The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made them free from that law of sin and death described in Chapter 7. So good news, believer! You do not live in perpetual sinning. You live in victory through our Lord Jesus Christ! So, get out of Romans 7 and live in Romans 8. There is where every true believer stands.

1 Corinthians 7:14, "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the believing husband; else were your children unclean, but now are they holy" (KJV). This and other passages have been misused to teach the monstrous doctrine that babies of unregenerate parents are morally defiled and therefore go to hell (or at least to the imaginary place called "limbo") if they die in infancy. All that this verse teaches us is that by the grace of God the influence of the believing spouse is able to overcome the influence of the unbelieving spouse, create a prevailing godly influence in the marriage and home, resulting in holy children. At the very least, it teaches that the marriage of a believer to an unbeliever is still a valid marriage in God's sight, so that children born as a result of that marriage are fully legitimate.

Ephesians 2:3, "we all . . . were by nature the children of wrath, even as others" (KJV). (Notice, "were.") God is never angry with people because of their ontological nature--how and with what they were born. Guilt cannot be predicated of essence (substance). No one is guilty of something that is beyond his or her control. The Bible always teaches that God's wrath rests upon people because of their sinful choices and the resulting deeds and practices, not for their natural being. To teach that God's wrath rests upon people because they were born a certain way is an outrageous blasphemy, a charge against God, Who is the Creator of our natural being (unless one holds to the notion of dualism). It is an offense to His justice and a stumblingblock to unbelievers. "Nature" (physis) has the same meaning here as in 2 Peter 1:4. It is the moral nature of sinners, acquired by their own choices, that offends a holy God. "Nature" here can also refer to our corrupt cultural heritage. This concept is found also in 1 Peter 1:18 and 19. Sin is "natural" to sinners only in the sense of the combination of human culture, other influences, and habitually yielding to the desires of the flesh and of the mind. If sin were truly "natural," it would be beneficial, because it would conform to our nature. The fact that sin is so destructive shows that it is totally unnatural.

2 Peter 2:14, "Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin. . ." (KJV). This verse teaches that people who pursue the indulgences of the flesh are never able to get enough and so cease. This is a voluntary, never-ceasing bondage to sin. It is a voluntary slavery (see verse 19; also Romans 6:16). The pursuit of the gratification of the flesh is like chasing the carrot on the stick. They who do so can never get enough to provide permanent satisfaction and so end the pursuit.

1 John 1:8, "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us" (KJV). Although this passage is written to believers, it is not written exclusively about believers. It refutes the teaching that "we" (human beings) have no sin (considering one's total personal moral history). All who hold this gnostic error are self-deceived. John is affirming universal sinfulness and therefore the universal need of the Savior. It certainly cannot teach that believers have some kind of "stuff" called sin down inside of them. Here again, such a notion is contrary to the consistent Biblical definition of sin as a voluntary act of the will. Moral depravity is just that--moral, voluntary. It is not depravity of the "will" itself but of its acts, its choices. That is, that part of our human being that makes choices (the soul) is not depraved ontologically (in its essence), but voluntarily (in its commitment to selfish desires and the choices and acts that flow from that commitment). Sinners are not depraved in their being (except as their sinful lifestyle has a deteriorating effect on them--body, soul, and spirit); they are depraved in their moral choices and resulting lifestyle.

"The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers; every man shall be put to death for his own sin (Deuteronomy 24:16 KJV).

If sin is an ontological substance or essence instead of a moral choice, if it is a metaphysical principle that causes choice instead of being the evil choice itself, the logical and necessary result is to remove the blame for evil from the human moral agent and place it instead on the metaphysical essence itself. Man becomes the victim of this thing called "sin," rather than the responsible perpetrator. Human depravity is regarded as metaphysical rather than moral and voluntary. God's grace is needed to overcome, not voluntary depravity (depravity of choice), but an involuntary helplessness and an inability to choose in any way other than evil. This holds out to communicants no real hope of being rid of sin in this life (because it is said to be inherent in them), and leaves them in a continuous cycle of confession of sinfulness and appeal for forgiveness, even when no actual sins have been committed. They are kept under condemnation for what they are, rather than for what they have chosen to do. ("Pray for us poor sinners. But don't hold us responsible, because we are so helpless").

Spiritual regeneration becomes, then, a metaphysical rather than a moral change. It is the essence of the will ("heart") rather than its voluntary direction that is viewed as being changed in salvation. The Holy Spirit's agency becomes metaphysically generative (following Augustine's idea of ideogenetic illumination) rather than morally persuasive and efficient. The new birth is viewed as metaphysical ("spiritual") rather than moral and therefore truly spiritual. The moral change is regarded as the result of regeneration rather than being essential to regeneration itself.

Not only is sin viewed metaphysically, but so are virtues and qualities. We hear God's attitudes, dispositions, and choices spoken of as having essence. For example, God's "grace" is swallowed in the Eucharist or is poured into the heart by faith much as light is poured through a window glass.

From Stoicism and Neostoicism evolved a system of ethics and morality in which moral character is ascribed directly to outward actions instead of to the motive from which the actions spring. Moral obligation becomes, not an obligation to love God and others and to act at all times in accordance with that love, but a certain minimum of outward works beyond which a surplus of merit is accumulated. The idea that moral agents are able to accumulate works of supererogation ("surplus righteousness") has been a prime factor in the practice of praying to saints. It also vitally affects one's view of the redemptive work of Christ. It is behind the notion that Jesus Himself provided a surplus of righteousness that is dispensed to believers either by faith or by the Eucharist to make up for their moral failures. It tends to the idea that real holiness belongs only to the esoteric few, whose moral surplus will somehow compensate for the moral and ethical deficiencies of the many. Anyone who testifies to a life of victory over sin through Christ is regarded as spiritually proud and self-righteous.

This Christian duality, exoteric and esoteric, has resulted in a paradox, a double standard. High Stoic ethics are essential to Christ and to the initiated elite to provide a reservoir of good works to be distributed by grace to the mass of believers, who are generally deficient and to whom a life of holiness is at best a desirable option. Christ is viewed as assisting the helpless and making up for their unfortunate deficiencies rather than conquering our deliberate rebellion, breaking the power of voluntary sin in our hearts, and giving us victory over sin.

Perhaps a few more thinkers of the caliber and persuasion of Tertullian will yet arise to "free Jerusalem from Athens and the church of Christ from the Academy of Plato."

Reprinted with permission from www.gospeltruth.net/gkphilo.htm.

The article is also available at www.dividingword.net/Original%20Sin/Greek%20Philosophy.html. Dividing Word is a website "dedicated to expose the false doctrine of Unconditional Eternal Security and Original Sin (Total Depravity)".

For the Newcomer

2010-04-17T10:30:00.000-07:00

A glimpse into the history of "Our Lord’s ekklesia" website

The website “Our Lord’s ekklesia; the Community of God's People” came to exist out of discussions I had with a friend. He and I discussed some things that I had learned through word studies and attempting to look at the Scripture without religious bias. My friend thought other people might find the subjects we had discussed of interest. He created an early version of this website and he encouraged me publish (post) articles.

At first, the focus of my attention for most of the writings was on the Greek word ekklesia. What does the Greek word ekklesia mean? Why is it significant? How does the Scripture describe it? After a time, I began including articles on other subjects. I examined such terms as apostle, Christian, evangelist, overseer, pastor, and other terms as well. I wrote about serving and obedience. Most every writing I post relate, in one way or another, to our being God’s people, His "ekklesia".

In reading some of my writings and talking about the Scriptures, some people would occasionally ask about my background. I decided to compose four articles that speak to my experience. The articles will provide a perspective of how I came to be where I am in my walk with the Lord. They are as follows.

The last article, My Choosing Christ over Career, speaks to how some people reacted when they found their longstanding beliefs challenged. I do not claim to have a perfect, flawless understanding of everything knowable about God and His will for us. I accept people who do not believe as I do in areas that are not essential to our salvation. What concerns me is when people who profess to follow Christ actively demonstrate intolerance of brethren who differ with them to the extent that their attitude affects both their ability to receive each other as fellow heirs of salvation and their influence with the world. Confronting this intolerant and divisive behavior led to my withdrawing myself from certain individuals.

Next: My Journey with Jesus

My Choosing Christ Over Career

2010-04-06T17:12:00.000-07:00

by Richard Amick

Anyone that others look to as a shepherd and teacher must have integrity. Integrity is what a person of moral character has when he consistently behaves according to the beliefs and principles that he claims to hold. The point at which a person stops behaving according to his beliefs and principles is the value that he places on his own integrity. No one who makes a living by shepherding and teaching God’s people should ever give the desire for financial security rule over the need to be a faithful servant of Christ. (Cf. Galatians 1:10.)

Behaving according to one’s beliefs and principles is not always easy. For about ten years, my main source of income came from individuals who supported my effort in the Lord’s kingdom. When a few individuals disagreed with some things I taught and insisted I teach as doctrine viewpoints that I consider to be traditions of men, they hoped that by offering me money they could persuade me to serve their will. In essence, the choice given me was either I remain honest in speaking what I understand God’s Word to say and accept the consequences or I insure my job as a preacher by making concessions for brethren who were showing themselves to have a factious spirit.

The brethren who provided for my needs were part of fellowship known for making certain claims

One belief they claim is their fellowship is “the one true church”. In their mind, a community of faith that is “of Christ” is a gathering of individuals known collectively as “the church” and whose corporate identity is “according to the pattern” that they see in the New Testament.¹ The following are some statements often made by individuals within this fellowship.

“Where the Bible speaks, we speak; where the Bible is silent, we are silent”. Also stated, “Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent.”
We believe “book, chapter and verse” or “thus saith the Lord” for anything taught.
“The Bible is our only source of authority for faith and practice.”
We have “Bible names for Bible things”.
We are “doing Bible things in Bible ways”

Some brethren who identify with this fellowship believe their interpretations of corporate worship, interaction, and authorized expressions of faith are precisely what the Spirit reveals in the Scriptures. When comparing themselves to people of faith in other fellowships and even compared to some brethren within their fellowship but who differ with them, they regard themselves as “conservative”. They consider people who profess to follow Christ but disagree with them as “liberal”, “progressive”, or “without respect for the authority of Scripture”. The "conservatives" describe their own fellowship as “nondenominational” and “non-institutional”. In decisions affecting their fellowship, they see themselves as “autonomous” or self-governing.

Another familiar statement is “truth has nothing to fear from honest investigation”. Many brethren who identify with this fellowship claim they would consider anyone who objects to anything he hears or sees in their assemblies their “friend” if he will “study with them” and “expound unto us the Way of God more accurately”. I agree truth has nothing to fear from investigation but is everyone who makes this claim willing to have his/her perception of truth investigated? Do they really consider people who question their established doctrines and provide further details about the word of God their friends?

Paul was a faithful servant of Christ who “did not shrink from declaring . . . the whole purpose of God” (Acts 20:27). His declaring God’s purpose included announcing what “He carried out in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Ephesians 3:8-11). If I am to look to Paul as an example of a faithful servant of Christ, then I too must speak out of what God carried out in Christ Jesus. It includes talking openly about what the Spirit of the Lord has revealed concerning the community of faith.

Some of the claims made by brethren who provided for my needs are not true

My objective, especially when I was shepherding and teaching the people of God, has been to set preconceived ideas aside and listen for what the Spirit has revealed through His Word. In doing this, I learned some beliefs and principles that some people claim to hold are not true. For example, the brethren who provided for my needs were not speaking "only" where the Scriptures speak and being "silent" where the Scriptures are silent. They believe themselves to have a “thus saith the Lord” for everything concerning “faith and practice”. The truth is some of what we had come believe about what a community of Christ followers looks like, how they describe themselves, how they function, what they as a faith community have liberty to do and not do, is because “you have heard that it was said”.² I am talking about teaching that honest, sincere people have traditionally believed and practiced. What we had heard it said that God’s Word says of the church, such as its name, its organization, even the word “church” itself and some things about worship are not what the Lord said or what His representatives (i.e. the apostles) revealed.

We draw from the Scriptures different applications. We see things differently because we do not bring to the Scriptures the same understanding, the same knowledge, the same level of maturity, and the same life’s experiences. Sometimes, we believe a certain way about what the Spirit has revealed because of the Bible translations. I venture to say most every translation of the Bible has some area(s) that reveal the religious background experiences of the members of the translating committee. One passage comes to mind where translators added a word. The context has to do with the character of people who desire to look into people’s needs with the intent of supplying what they need. Translators approached the passage with the predisposition that faith communities are divine institutions with positions of authority. In interpreting the thought of the text, they inserted the word office (First Timothy 3:1, 10, and 13).

We see evidence of the same predisposed mindset in other passages. Instead of a word for word translation from Greek to English, translators sometimes used a form of the Greek word. Diakoneō (dee-ak-on-eh'-o), which by definition means to be an attendant, wait upon, serve, and translated correctly in some contexts as servant or minister becomes in other contexts deacon (First Timothy 3:10). Episkopos (ep-is'-kop-os) becomes bishop (First Timothy 3:1).³ Sometimes translators ignored the Greek word entirely and in its place used a completely different word. Thus, the thought conveyed in the translation has far more to do with the predisposition of its translators than what was in the mind of the one who originally wrote the text. The most obvious example is ekklēsia (ek-klay-see'-ah), a word that communicates the thought of calling out. A word that perhaps best conveys what ekklēsia means is assembly.⁴ Another word might be congregation, the act of assembling. Yet in most instances instead of interpreting ekklēsia as assembly, translators used the word church. Church is undeniably a religious word that comes from the Greek or Latin kuriakon. We often use church in the context of meaning an assembly but overall, the thoughts conveyed by church (kuriakon) and assembly (ekklēsia) are not the same.

In making these observations, I feel obligated to remind ourselves of an important truth. Regardless of whatever prejudice members of the translating committee had in their approach to the work of translating the various manuscripts, for anyone who has “ears to hear” what the Spirit says the message of salvation by grace through active, obedient, demonstrative faith in Jesus the Christ remains undeniably clear.

What was the result of showing brethren who provided for my needs that some of what they claim is not true?

In the process of studying and expounding what the divinely inspired writings actually say concerning the community of faith and shedding light on some of the influences that have affected our thought processes, I became the enemy. Hearing me expound on what the Lord has revealed by His Spirit concerning the community of faith did not trouble most brethren who were providing for my needs. The brethren who felt threatened are people who describe themselves as “conservative” and who believe their perception of fellowship is “according to the pattern”.

A noble act for the individuals who rejected my teaching would have been to examine the Scriptures (Acts 17:11, First Thessalonians 5:21). They should have at least done as Priscilla and Aquila did with Apollos. “They took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately” (Acts 18:26). The “conservative” brethren did not attempt to reason with me from Scriptures. They agreed among themselves to withhold material contributions that would have gone toward my needs. They attempted to persuade me to serve their will by promising to resume financial contributions if I would teach what they believe or I resign, withdraw myself from their local fellowship, and leave the area. One person who at one time had been looked upon as “an elder” by the congregation assured me that if I gave notice to resign as their preacher and agreed to move from the area, he and the other individuals who opposed me would provide for every physical need that I may have until I left. Let us assume purely for argument’s sake that what I taught is not of God, that none of anything I said has any basis in Scripture, my integrity is not worth the financial security these few individuals were promising in exchange for my saying what they want to hear (cf. Second Timothy 4:3-5).

It became evident that the individuals who describe themselves as "conservative" and see themselves as more enlightened than others did not want to continue having any fellowship with me or with the Christ followers who supported me. Their actions bring to mind what John wrote of Diotrophes. John said Diotrophes did not accept what others were saying. He determined who the community of Christ followers would receive and who they would not fellowship. (See Second John 1:9-10.) We took note of the individuals who attempted to impose their will on others as having a divisive spirit and withdrew ourselves from them (Cf. Romans 16:17, Titus 3:10-11).⁵

Immediately after I withdrew myself from them, they sent letters to other congregations advising brethren against helping me with any financial needs. Some were not content with advising believers not to provide for my needs. When a representative of an agency who was reviewing my application for employment contacted the church, one or more within the group from whom I withdrew attempted to discourage the agency from hiring me. The representative received a letter that made it necessary for him to question me about the nature of my employment with this church. Since I was seeking employment with this agency, I had no recourse but to inform him of my perception of the problems that I confronted with certain individuals. He readily acknowledged the fact that nothing he heard was of any concern to him or have any affect on hiring me. While speaking with him, what came to mind is an underlying principle behind Paul’s words in First Corinthians 6:1. The passage reads, “Does any one of you, when he has a case against his neighbor, dare to go to law before the unrighteous and not before the saints?” It is one thing to provide “the unrighteous” with confirmation of my employment but to inform them that I disagree with their interpretation and application of Scripture is something entirely different.

Closing comments . . .

Paul “did not shrink from declaring . . . anything that was profitable” (Acts 20:20). He told Timothy to “preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction” (Second Timothy 4:2).

When Christ followers in the first century spoke God’s word, they did not concern themselves with what affect their message might have on their salary. They were not paid employees or hired servants. Such is not the same today. It is common for a community of faith to have someone on staff whom people look to as the main person whose responsibility is to study and teach. Can his position as someone who receives a salary affect his willingness to speak openly about beliefs that go against what the people who hired him believe?

After one preacher and elder who is among a community of Christ followers that are “conservative” and a “church” that is “of Christ” stated to me that he agrees with what I taught about the word “church” being an anglicized form of kyriakon, a word we do not find in Scripture and meaning something different than the Scriptural term ekklesia, he said he would “never teach it”. Another preacher who was also an elder with a “conservative” congregation “of Christ” advised Christ followers not to have any fellowship with me. When I questioned him, the explanation he gave was to say that instead of confronting individuals who are self-righteous and demonstrating a divisive spirit, I should have left the area. He went on to say that had I not addressed the problem but resigned my position as their preacher and moved away chances are I would still be preaching. Apparently in his mind it was of no consequence that a vast majority within the congregation wanted me to continue shepherding them. Nor did it matter that the individuals whose sins I confronted already had established a history of imposing their will on others. Others had witnessed the same sinful attitudes but moved away without addressing them. I knew if I chose not to confront sin and to move away, the individuals who had been supporting me would have withdrawn themselves anyway. I also know God through His word clearly tells us to deal with attitudes that cause division and occasions of stumbling.

Had I chosen to merely rehearse what I had heard over the years, then most likely I would still be preaching but would I be a servant of Christ? The answer should be obvious.

Postscript

The preceding article, My Choosing Christ over Career, explains that while working with a "church of Christ" and receiving financial support as “their preacher”, I attempted to teach “members” of what the Spirit has revealed. Among the members who describe themselves as “conservative” and “sound” were some who objected to some things I taught. For example, although not addressed in this writing, a few complained quite vehemently to my exegeses of some passages where I believe the author intended his audience to understand as referring to the destruction of Jerusalem that came in 70 A.D. The criticism of three particular individuals was to the extent that on one occasion, they attempted in vain to stop me from teaching a lesson I had planned to give. They also voiced strong objection to how I treated the subject of “church” and to my acceptance of brethren whom they regard as “liberal”. It is important to note that we are speaking of individuals who had a history of imposing their will on others (self-willed), suppressing any dissenting view, and limiting who they would accept as “faithful” Christ followers. The choice other people had was either to remain silent or withdraw and seek fellowship in another community of faith. As for me, I chose to teach what I understand the Scriptures to say and to identify “traditions of men” as being just that. Instead of refuting the things I said with Scripture, the divisive attitude of certain individuals caused the community of believers (known collectively as a/the church of Christ) to split. I along with most everyone else withdrew from the individuals who possessed a divisive spirit. Immediately they, meaning "the conservative church of Christ", sent word saying I split the church. The experience proved to have a profound effect. I no longer consider myself part of the same fellowship. Partly because I do not share their perception of what the inspired texts reveal concerning the community of God’s summoned people. In addition, I do not feel accepted by the people who once thought of me as a faithful preacher of the Word. From experience, I can honestly say there has been little or no concern expressed to me personally for my not continuing to be a part of the same fellowship (i.e. the church of Christ).

My experiences and the divisive attitude I witnessed among people who profess to follow Christ are not unique to me. Dusty Owens was also part of the same fellowship. Like me, he came to see things differently. He published an article that answers the question, “Why I Left the Church of Christ".

In witnessing firsthand the hypocrisy, are there any reasons I might have for possibly wanting to associate with a congregation of Christ followers who think of their fellowship as "a sound conservative church of Christ"? To their credit, many who identify with this fellowship recognize the importance of studying the Scriptures. They know a great deal about historical events as revealed in the Hebrew Scriptures. I would like to think that for the most part, they have a good grasp of the nature of God’s kingdom and of Christ’s rule/dominion/power. They know it important to understand Scripture in light its historical context rather than today’s headlines.

Endnotes

We find the words “according to the pattern” in Hebrews 8:5. The author of Hebrews was quoting Exodus 25:40. The context in Exodus is the care Moses was to take in building the tabernacle. The Hebrew writer tells us “the true tabernacle” is something “the Lord pitched, not man” (Hebrews 8:2). The Lord is building His faith community when people believe and obey the message of reconciliation. His saving us has nothing to do with patterns or blueprints. When we speak of our need for a pattern, we are talking about our looking to Jesus as our example.
The expression “you have heard that it was said” is from the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus used it or something similar at least six times. When He spoke of what His audience had heard, He was not citing Scripture. He was talking about the tradition of the elders, what the people “heard” said and not what the Law actually said. In the same way, there are people today who have heard the Lord said or His servant Paul wrote but the real foundation for much of their belief system is actually the arguments, conclusions, and beliefs of other Christ followers (e.g. Foy E. Wallace, Jr.).
The word “bishop” evolved from the Greek words episkopos (ep-is'-kop-os) and episcope (ep-is-kop-ay'). We get “bishop” by dropping the “e” sound at the beginning the word and the os or ay' sounds and the end of the words, which leaves is with piskop. By changing the "p" sound to "b" and "sk" to "sh", we get “bishop”.
The Greek scholar Robert Young translated ekklēsia assembly in his Literal Translation of the Bible.
When I began working with this particular congregation, the average number of people who were attending the assemblies may have been around fifty. Within a little more than two years, the number was averaging in the nineties. A few “conservative” individuals believed the congregation was becoming “liberal”. One “conservative” member made it known that the corporation’s by-laws prohibit “liberals” from controlling the church building and any other asset belonging to the corporation. The fact that no one person ever gave any indication that he/she would intentionally do anything to offend “conservative” Christ followers meant nothing. Because of the persistent divisive attitude among a few “conservative” individuals, greater than eighty percent of the people that made up the congregation withdrew themselves.