Steve Senensig wrote:
“As I was talking in that discussion about biblical accounts of New Testament church activities being descriptive or prescriptive, a question came to my mind that I have not allowed myself to fully deal with in the past couple of years. It’s one of those “am I really being honest with the text here” questions, and I thought I would throw it out here for discussion.
“Many times in discussing principles related to simple church, I reference 1 Corinthians 14:26. Now, please understand that my beliefs about simple church do not all hinge on this one verse, so it’s not a “make or break” issue for me. Quite honestly, open participatory meetings are described throughout the rest of 1 Corinthians 14. However, I want to be honest in my dealing with this particular verse.
“Let me quote the verse here in various translations so that we can get a feel for it, and then I’ll ask my question:
What then shall we say, brothers? 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. (NIV)
What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation Let all things be done for edification. (NASB)
So here’s what I want you to do. When you gather for worship, each one of you be prepared with something that will be useful for all: Sing a hymn, teach a lesson, tell a story, lead a prayer, provide an insight. (The Message)
What then, brethren, is [the right course]? When you meet together, each one has a hymn, a teaching, a disclosure of special knowledge or information, an utterance in a [strange] tongue, or an interpretation of it. [But] let everything be constructive and edifying and for the good of all. (Amp)
How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying. (KJV)
Well, my brothers and sisters, let’s summarize what I am saying. When you meet, one will sing, another will teach, another will tell some special revelation God has given, one will speak in an unknown language, while another will interpret what is said. But everything that is done must be useful to all and build them up in the Lord. (NLT)
“Now, my question relates to the part where Paul says something to the effect of “When you come together….” Is this statement a description by Paul of what was currently happening in Corinth? Or is it what he is telling them should happen when they gather? In other words, were the Corinthians overemphasizing the idea that everyone could participate? Or was Paul saying that everyone should participate? Is it descriptive or is it prescriptive?
“In favor of it being descriptive, there is a similar use of the “when you come together” phrase in this same letter. That is in 1 Corinthians 11, specifically verses 18 and 20. (It also appears in verse 33, but that actually falls under the next idea of being prescriptive, so hold that thought.) In 11:18,20 it is obvious that Paul is describing their current condition. In fact, he even says explicitly in verse 18 that he has received word to this effect (“when you come together…I hear…”).
So, this would lend possibility to the idea that Paul is describing a current situation. In this case, he might be issuing a correction to them when he says, “Let all things be done for edification.”
“On the flip side, however, we have a prescriptive use of this phrase in 11:33 where Paul is correcting the problem identified in 11:18,20. In this interpretation, then, 14:26 would be seen as prescriptive. Additionally, we have the word “whenever” in 14:26, which does not exist in any of the uses in chapter 11. The uses in chapter 11 (from my very limited remembrance of Greek) carry the idea of “coming together…”, whereas 14:26 is more of a “whenever you do come together…” idea.
“An additional aspect of 14:26 which might possibly lend itself to understanding is the way the verse starts. Paul says, “What is the outcome then, brethren?” In other words, this verse ties in very much with what Paul had just discussed. In the context immediately preceding, Paul has discussed tongues and prophecy very specifically. And in the verses following 26, he is again going to speak about tongues and prophecy very specifically. Prior to verse 26, he uses the phrases “if all speak in tongues” (14:23) and “if all prophesy” (14:24). Verse 26 then provides a contrast very much in keeping with his discourse on the gifts in chapter 12. It is a description of the varied gifts that should all be exercised for the edification of the body.”
~ Steve Sensensig, 1 Corinthians 14:26 – Descriptive or Presecriptive?, Theologicalmusings blog
Showing posts with label Bible. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bible. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Why Not Ecclesiology? - excerpts
It is an extraordinary thing that those who profess to care so much about Christ should seem to care so little about what His Word says about the church.
Ought we not to concern ourselves more about this great doctrine than we do? Most certainly!
Christ died for the church. It is His bride, His building, His body. When He left the world He commissioned it to disciple all the nations. How, then, can we conclude that the way we view the church is inconsequential in His eyes? We do not honor the Lord Jesus by ignoring His instructions.
Today, vast stress is laid on the thought that the gathered church is to reach out to the lost in such a way as to minimize the difference between believers and non-believers. But if you will read the New Testament you will see that the purpose of the gathered church was not evangelism. Indeed, it was not even worship.
To be sure, worship can and must take place when God’s people are assembled. But worship, as it is taught in the New Testament, is a daily activity, not something that is relegated to Sunday. The modern habit throughout the twenty-first century church is to downplay this subject. After all, we have our “worship” services, our “worship” guides, and our “worship” leaders. Clearly, however, the New Testament knows nothing about these man-made terms. When, then, should we worship? Anyone who has read Rom. 12:1-2 will know the answer.
In 1 Corinthians the apostle Paul is very careful to lay out principles governing Christian gatherings. He makes it plain that believers did not gather for public witness to the outside world. These were not evangelistic services at all. Rather, the church gathered for fellowship and mutual edification. It was a type of gathering in which believers came together with differing gifts. Just read 1 Cor. 14 and you will see that this was a bona fide fellowship meeting. Everything that was done was done in order to build up the church. Whether you came to this meeting with a psalm, a teaching, or some other contribution to make, you exercised your gift in the interest of those around you. “Let all things be done for edification” was Paul’s watchword. This same view of the church is to be found in Ephesians 4, where Paul emphasizes that the church is built up only as each member of the Body does its part. He is emphatic that the fullness of Christ can never be attained by any one Christian. Each believer has a gift, and each one must give that gift away to the whole church.
Paul’s teaching sheds a flood of light on what the gathering of the people of God looked like in the early church.
1 Co 14:26 clearly states [writes Steve Atkerson] 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.
~ David Black, Why Not Ecclesiology? web article
Ought we not to concern ourselves more about this great doctrine than we do? Most certainly!
Christ died for the church. It is His bride, His building, His body. When He left the world He commissioned it to disciple all the nations. How, then, can we conclude that the way we view the church is inconsequential in His eyes? We do not honor the Lord Jesus by ignoring His instructions.
Today, vast stress is laid on the thought that the gathered church is to reach out to the lost in such a way as to minimize the difference between believers and non-believers. But if you will read the New Testament you will see that the purpose of the gathered church was not evangelism. Indeed, it was not even worship.
To be sure, worship can and must take place when God’s people are assembled. But worship, as it is taught in the New Testament, is a daily activity, not something that is relegated to Sunday. The modern habit throughout the twenty-first century church is to downplay this subject. After all, we have our “worship” services, our “worship” guides, and our “worship” leaders. Clearly, however, the New Testament knows nothing about these man-made terms. When, then, should we worship? Anyone who has read Rom. 12:1-2 will know the answer.
In 1 Corinthians the apostle Paul is very careful to lay out principles governing Christian gatherings. He makes it plain that believers did not gather for public witness to the outside world. These were not evangelistic services at all. Rather, the church gathered for fellowship and mutual edification. It was a type of gathering in which believers came together with differing gifts. Just read 1 Cor. 14 and you will see that this was a bona fide fellowship meeting. Everything that was done was done in order to build up the church. Whether you came to this meeting with a psalm, a teaching, or some other contribution to make, you exercised your gift in the interest of those around you. “Let all things be done for edification” was Paul’s watchword. This same view of the church is to be found in Ephesians 4, where Paul emphasizes that the church is built up only as each member of the Body does its part. He is emphatic that the fullness of Christ can never be attained by any one Christian. Each believer has a gift, and each one must give that gift away to the whole church.
Paul’s teaching sheds a flood of light on what the gathering of the people of God looked like in the early church.
1 Co 14:26 clearly states [writes Steve Atkerson] 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.
~ David Black, Why Not Ecclesiology? web article
Church meeting implications
From blogger:
After reading many of the quotes on this site and considering the New Testament, I would offer these thoughts for consideration as implications for church meetings in our time:
1. It seems clear that God's idea for the church when it met was to strengthen, encourage, and enable each other to grow stronger, face the world about them and reach out to the lost.
2. It seems clear that the concept of community building was paramount in God's mind -- not just preaching and singing.
3. Obviously, preaching / teaching is necessary and a part of the meeting, but it seems it was not the primary purpose. Today it seems everything focuses around the preacher and his sermon. In fact, it looks like the communion remembrance was more important than the sermon back then.
4. It looks clearly like everyone was to have an opportunity to participate as lead by the Spirit, not just when the song leader and the preacher said stand, sit, or give.
5. A serious implication for today's leaders seems to be, at a bare minimum, to work in times and opportunities for the church family to interact, share, offer words of wisdom and encouragement, share what God is doing in and through them. A small group offers that on a "small" scale, but, at least in my church, the church body is largely kept in the dark about anyone outside its small group.
6. Singing is not necessarily worship -- it seems more natural and likely a natural outcome of the worship of the early church gathering and sharing. Isn't there a song about worshipping without music? Our church has never tried that, but some other church has.
That should be enough to get some of the readers thinking. Maybe more later.
After reading many of the quotes on this site and considering the New Testament, I would offer these thoughts for consideration as implications for church meetings in our time:
1. It seems clear that God's idea for the church when it met was to strengthen, encourage, and enable each other to grow stronger, face the world about them and reach out to the lost.
2. It seems clear that the concept of community building was paramount in God's mind -- not just preaching and singing.
3. Obviously, preaching / teaching is necessary and a part of the meeting, but it seems it was not the primary purpose. Today it seems everything focuses around the preacher and his sermon. In fact, it looks like the communion remembrance was more important than the sermon back then.
4. It looks clearly like everyone was to have an opportunity to participate as lead by the Spirit, not just when the song leader and the preacher said stand, sit, or give.
5. A serious implication for today's leaders seems to be, at a bare minimum, to work in times and opportunities for the church family to interact, share, offer words of wisdom and encouragement, share what God is doing in and through them. A small group offers that on a "small" scale, but, at least in my church, the church body is largely kept in the dark about anyone outside its small group.
6. Singing is not necessarily worship -- it seems more natural and likely a natural outcome of the worship of the early church gathering and sharing. Isn't there a song about worshipping without music? Our church has never tried that, but some other church has.
That should be enough to get some of the readers thinking. Maybe more later.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
One reason most do not want a NT church meeting
…most Christians want to be spectators. Most Christians are content to attend church give their money and allow professional staff to “lead in worship” and provide the religious entertainment Sunday by Sunday.” Web blog article. Cp. America’s this does choose churches on the basis, what affirms us, entertains us, satisfies this or makes us feel good about God and ourselves.
~ Sally Morganthaller, Worship Evangelism, Page 19
Care needed in interpretation of NT
It is important in our honest search for NT truth to be open to the fact that we all read into documents from our cuclture and perspective. We have printed this before, but it needs to be a constant reminder.
~ Don Carson, Worship by the Book, 13
The sheer diversity of the current options not only contributes to the sense of unrest and divisiveness in many local churches but leads to confident assertions that all the biblical evidence supports those views and those alone. . . . we unwittingly read our ideas and experiences of worship back into Scripture.
~ Don Carson, Worship by the Book, 13
Thursday, November 13, 2008
The purpose of the gathering - to build one another up
Jon Zens, Building Up the Body - One Man or One Another?
The King James translation has in v.12, “for...for...for.” But there is in the Greek a change in prepositions not reflected in this rendering. The Greek original has pros ...eis...eis [“for...unto...unto”]. Thus, this verse can be rendered, “He gave... pastors-teachers for equipping the saints unto the work of ministry, unto the upbuilding of the body of Christ.” In other words, the function of the pastors-teachers is to equip the saints so that they can minister.
This construction is further borne out in the context. Verse 16 reveals Christ as joining the whole body together. The emphasis here, as in 1 Cor 12, falls on the total body ministry, not the exclusive ministry of pastors.
The elders’ function is a crucial part of the edification process. But the broader body ministry unto edification is specifically mentioned two times in v.16: (1) “every joint supplies”; (2) “in the measure of every part.” Thus, edification is not conceived of as being achieved by the ministry of one part (the “pastor”), but by a mutual ministry of every part. . . .
I am not suggesting in all of this that the elders do not teach in the church gatherings, or, conversely, that all must speak. Obviously, the teaching of the elders is to give backbone and guidance to the flock (Acts 20:28; 1 Tim.3:2). But it is clear that speaking words of edification in the local church is not limited to one “minister.” Where is any opportunity given to others to speak unto edification in our services? What grounds are there in the N.T. to limit public speaking to the elders, especially the “pastor”? 1 Cor.14 teaches the exact opposite of such an idea. Are the basic principles of this passage now obsolete because the canon of Scripture is closed?
. . . Heb.10:25, of course, is cited as a basis for people to “come to church.” It is probably the strongest passage on such a responsibility in the N.T. But what, according to 10:24-25, is to occur in our assembling? Where in 10:25 can you find the idea that we are to come to hear the ministry of one man? We probably assemble together, but do our services allow for the exhorting of one an other? If we are going to employ 10:25 to press the duty of assembling together, must we not also use it as a guide for what transpires in our services? In light of our practice, it appears that we use about half of the verse rightly (“assemble”), but think little about the other half (“exhort” one another).
For example, Thomas Goodwin, in discussing the “communion of saints, which the members of a church ought to have with one another,” states that, indeed, mutual care “is a constant duty, and that we ought to seek all occasions of acting it” (Works, Vol.11, p.355). However, conceiving of the church gatherings as focusing on the minister and the sermon, and believing that “in private occasional converse, one member may not have opportunity to discourse with another once in seven years,” Goodwin suggested that a separate “fixed meeting” was necessary, where the brethren could “know one another’s cases and experiences” (Works, Vol.11, p.353).
“The duty enjoined” in Heb.10:24, he says, “is a duty distinct from assembling together, which follows in the next verse [10:25]” (Works, Vol.11, p.354).
Thus, while the N.T. connects mutual ministry and our gatherings as a church, we have in our practice separated them without exegetical basis. Why? Because we have structured our “corporate public worship” around the “pastor,” and thereby relegated any mutual ministry to occasional meetings, perhaps “once a month” (Colin Richards, “Fellowship,” pp.91, 96, 97).”
The King James translation has in v.12, “for...for...for.” But there is in the Greek a change in prepositions not reflected in this rendering. The Greek original has pros ...eis...eis [“for...unto...unto”]. Thus, this verse can be rendered, “He gave... pastors-teachers for equipping the saints unto the work of ministry, unto the upbuilding of the body of Christ.” In other words, the function of the pastors-teachers is to equip the saints so that they can minister.
This construction is further borne out in the context. Verse 16 reveals Christ as joining the whole body together. The emphasis here, as in 1 Cor 12, falls on the total body ministry, not the exclusive ministry of pastors.
The elders’ function is a crucial part of the edification process. But the broader body ministry unto edification is specifically mentioned two times in v.16: (1) “every joint supplies”; (2) “in the measure of every part.” Thus, edification is not conceived of as being achieved by the ministry of one part (the “pastor”), but by a mutual ministry of every part. . . .
I am not suggesting in all of this that the elders do not teach in the church gatherings, or, conversely, that all must speak. Obviously, the teaching of the elders is to give backbone and guidance to the flock (Acts 20:28; 1 Tim.3:2). But it is clear that speaking words of edification in the local church is not limited to one “minister.” Where is any opportunity given to others to speak unto edification in our services? What grounds are there in the N.T. to limit public speaking to the elders, especially the “pastor”? 1 Cor.14 teaches the exact opposite of such an idea. Are the basic principles of this passage now obsolete because the canon of Scripture is closed?
. . . Heb.10:25, of course, is cited as a basis for people to “come to church.” It is probably the strongest passage on such a responsibility in the N.T. But what, according to 10:24-25, is to occur in our assembling? Where in 10:25 can you find the idea that we are to come to hear the ministry of one man? We probably assemble together, but do our services allow for the exhorting of one an other? If we are going to employ 10:25 to press the duty of assembling together, must we not also use it as a guide for what transpires in our services? In light of our practice, it appears that we use about half of the verse rightly (“assemble”), but think little about the other half (“exhort” one another).
For example, Thomas Goodwin, in discussing the “communion of saints, which the members of a church ought to have with one another,” states that, indeed, mutual care “is a constant duty, and that we ought to seek all occasions of acting it” (Works, Vol.11, p.355). However, conceiving of the church gatherings as focusing on the minister and the sermon, and believing that “in private occasional converse, one member may not have opportunity to discourse with another once in seven years,” Goodwin suggested that a separate “fixed meeting” was necessary, where the brethren could “know one another’s cases and experiences” (Works, Vol.11, p.353).
“The duty enjoined” in Heb.10:24, he says, “is a duty distinct from assembling together, which follows in the next verse [10:25]” (Works, Vol.11, p.354).
Thus, while the N.T. connects mutual ministry and our gatherings as a church, we have in our practice separated them without exegetical basis. Why? Because we have structured our “corporate public worship” around the “pastor,” and thereby relegated any mutual ministry to occasional meetings, perhaps “once a month” (Colin Richards, “Fellowship,” pp.91, 96, 97).”
What was the purpose for gathering?
“What was the specifically Christian aim of the gathering for worship? The occasion served for the ‘building up’ of the community as the Body of Christ, the spiritual body of the risen Lord . . . Everything that furthers a ‘building-up,’ so understood, and only this, belongs to the Christian service of those elements which serve only to satisfy profane, egocentric human needs, but at the same time excludes all excessive enthusiasm which would empty the service in its attempt to purify.”
“It is an extraordinary thing that those who profess to care so much about Christ should seem to care so little about what His Word says about the church. Ought we not to concern ourselves more about this great doctrine than we do? Most certainly! Christ died for the church. It is His bride, His building, His body. When He left the world He commissioned it to disciple all the nations. How, then, can we conclude that the way we view the church is inconsequential in His eyes? We do not honor the Lord Jesus by ignoring His instructions.
Today, vast stress is laid on the thought that the gathered church is to reach out to the lost in such a way as to minimize the difference between believers and non-believers. But if you will read the New Testament you will see that the purpose of the gathered church was not evangelism. Indeed, it was not even worship. To be sure, worship can and must take place when God’s people are assembled. But worship, as it is taught in the New Testament, is a daily activity, not something that is relegated to Sunday. The modern habit throughout the twenty-first century church is to downplay this subject. After all, we have our “worship” services, our “worship” guides, and our “worship” leaders. Clearly, however, the New Testament knows nothing about these man-made terms. When, then, should we worship? Anyone who has read Rom. 12:1-2 will know the answer.
In 1 Corinthians the apostle Paul is very careful to lay out principles governing Christian gatherings. He makes it plain that believers did not gather for public witness to the outside world. These were not evangelistic services at all. Rather, the church gathered for fellowship and mutual edification. It was a type of gathering in which believers came together with differing gifts. Just read 1 Cor. 14 and you will see that this was a bona fide fellowship meeting. Everything that was done was done in order to build up the church. Whether you came to this meeting with a psalm, a teaching, or some other contribution to make, you exercised your gift in the interest of those around you. “Let all things be done for edification” was Paul’s watchword. This same view of the church is to be found in Ephesians 4, where Paul emphasizes that the church is built up only as each member of the Body does its part. He is emphatic that the fullness of Christ can never be attained by any one Christian. Each believer has a gift, and each one must give that gift away to the whole church.
Paul’s teaching sheds a flood of light on what the gathering of the people of God looked like in the early church.
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.”
~ David Black, Why Not Ecclesiology? web article
“It is an extraordinary thing that those who profess to care so much about Christ should seem to care so little about what His Word says about the church. Ought we not to concern ourselves more about this great doctrine than we do? Most certainly! Christ died for the church. It is His bride, His building, His body. When He left the world He commissioned it to disciple all the nations. How, then, can we conclude that the way we view the church is inconsequential in His eyes? We do not honor the Lord Jesus by ignoring His instructions.
Today, vast stress is laid on the thought that the gathered church is to reach out to the lost in such a way as to minimize the difference between believers and non-believers. But if you will read the New Testament you will see that the purpose of the gathered church was not evangelism. Indeed, it was not even worship. To be sure, worship can and must take place when God’s people are assembled. But worship, as it is taught in the New Testament, is a daily activity, not something that is relegated to Sunday. The modern habit throughout the twenty-first century church is to downplay this subject. After all, we have our “worship” services, our “worship” guides, and our “worship” leaders. Clearly, however, the New Testament knows nothing about these man-made terms. When, then, should we worship? Anyone who has read Rom. 12:1-2 will know the answer.
In 1 Corinthians the apostle Paul is very careful to lay out principles governing Christian gatherings. He makes it plain that believers did not gather for public witness to the outside world. These were not evangelistic services at all. Rather, the church gathered for fellowship and mutual edification. It was a type of gathering in which believers came together with differing gifts. Just read 1 Cor. 14 and you will see that this was a bona fide fellowship meeting. Everything that was done was done in order to build up the church. Whether you came to this meeting with a psalm, a teaching, or some other contribution to make, you exercised your gift in the interest of those around you. “Let all things be done for edification” was Paul’s watchword. This same view of the church is to be found in Ephesians 4, where Paul emphasizes that the church is built up only as each member of the Body does its part. He is emphatic that the fullness of Christ can never be attained by any one Christian. Each believer has a gift, and each one must give that gift away to the whole church.
Paul’s teaching sheds a flood of light on what the gathering of the people of God looked like in the early church.
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.”
~ David Black, Why Not Ecclesiology? web article
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
The purpose of the NT church meeting
Most Christians assume that the purpose of church meetings is to worship God. That assumption is understandable when we consider that most churches refer to their meetings as "worship services." It is important to note, however, that the New Testament never speaks of a worship service, although it does mention a "service of worship": "I urge you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship" (Rom.12:1). When Paul urged the Roman believers to present to God their service of worship he was not instructing them to meet together to sing hymns and songs of praise to God. On the contrary, he was urging them to continually offer to God their bodies as living sacrifices. That was to be their service of worship — the daily and continual dedication and surrender of their lives to God.
. . . Please do not misunderstand me to be affirming, however, that the church should not worship God through song when it assembles. The Scriptures declare that one important aspect of our gatherings should be "speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with our hearts to the Lord" (Eph.5:19; Col.3:16). However, the New Testament never identifies the main goal of the gatherings of believers as worship. Consequently, neither should we.
~ Brian Anderson, Discovering the Purpose of church Meetings (web article)
. . . Please do not misunderstand me to be affirming, however, that the church should not worship God through song when it assembles. The Scriptures declare that one important aspect of our gatherings should be "speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with our hearts to the Lord" (Eph.5:19; Col.3:16). However, the New Testament never identifies the main goal of the gatherings of believers as worship. Consequently, neither should we.
~ Brian Anderson, Discovering the Purpose of church Meetings (web article)
More talk about worship today than in NT
We are talking more about worship today than possibly ever before in Church history, certainly more than the Scriptures do. We need to remember that when we make worship too much the subject, we risk destroying the very thing for which it is intended. The subject can never be worship until the subject is first of all the Lord. To the extent that attention is overly drawn to worship, to the extent that it becomes the primary object of our work, the overriding protocol, within which the Lord and His work are subjects, we can only assume that we have begun to worship worship, or at least, to worship about worship, therefore to worship about God.
… While, interestingly enough, there are no definitions of worship in the Bible, there are innumerable ones in just as many books and tracts, many of them sheer poetry. Useful and rich as they are, and with due respect, virtually all of are limited, to put it bluntly, to what goes on in church. This misses, or at most pays lip service, to a fundamental law of worship, which is the beginning of the secret to the difference between authentic and inauthentic worship. It is this: Worship is not a special event or any sequence of them. Worship is fundamental to humankind itself, so much so, that we must assume that it goes on all the time, all around us, inside of us, and, in a paradoxical way, in spite of us.
~ Harold Best, Former dean of Wheaton conservatory, on the topic, Authentic Worship & Faithful Music Making
… While, interestingly enough, there are no definitions of worship in the Bible, there are innumerable ones in just as many books and tracts, many of them sheer poetry. Useful and rich as they are, and with due respect, virtually all of are limited, to put it bluntly, to what goes on in church. This misses, or at most pays lip service, to a fundamental law of worship, which is the beginning of the secret to the difference between authentic and inauthentic worship. It is this: Worship is not a special event or any sequence of them. Worship is fundamental to humankind itself, so much so, that we must assume that it goes on all the time, all around us, inside of us, and, in a paradoxical way, in spite of us.
~ Harold Best, Former dean of Wheaton conservatory, on the topic, Authentic Worship & Faithful Music Making
Brian Anderson wrote:
~Brian Anderson, "Preaching in the Church?" Searching Together, Autumn 1982, pp 35-38).
The traditional Protestant worship service today strongly resembles a show business performance. In both we find ushers, programs, music, costumes, lighting, a chorus, a stage, a script, an audience, and a master of ceremonies. (Christian Smith, Going To The Root, p.88.) The congregation sits passively as the audience while the pastor performs. When the congregation is permitted to participate in the meeting, they are restricted to singing in unison, antiphonal readings, dropping money into the offering plate, and taking notes during the sermon. The ordained clergy are expected to perform all significant ministry. Meanwhile, ninety-nine percent of God's people attend worship services Sunday after Sunday for years on end, without ever contributing any true spiritual ministry to the body of gathered believers.
. . .The modern day “sermon” lies at the very heart of most contemporary “worship services.” It comes replete with many distinguishing characteristics. It often takes the form of a lengthy gospel message, being a “preaching” rather than a “teaching.” Additionally, it is usually delivered in a monologue lecture format, with no opportunity for feedback or dialogue from the congregation. Furthermore, there is no opportunity for anyone to question the teacher, evaluate the teaching, or spontaneously contribute an insight on the subject being taught. Moreover, many believers today tacitly assume that the pastor is the only one who is uniquely qualified and gifted to teach the Word of God to the congregation. Finally, we assume that the way pastors deliver their teaching to the church is virtually the same as the way Christ, His apostles, and the early church taught their congregations.”
“First, let’s examine the commonly accepted supposition that states when the church gathers preaching should take center stage. After examining all the New Testament passages which list the words ‘preach’ and ‘teach’ and their derivatives, I made some interesting discoveries. The first discovery was that the New Testament speaks far more of ‘teaching’ than “preaching.” There are only fifteen references to Jesus preaching, while we have 58 references to Him teaching. In the pastoral epistles, where we would expect to find that which should characterize the ministry of God’s Word in the church, there are three references to preaching and fourteen references to teaching believers. Of the three verses which speak of preaching in the church, only one actually refers to preaching. The normal Greek word for preach (kerusso) occurs only in 2Tim.4:2. The other two references in the pastoral epistles which speak of “preaching” are translations of different Greek words. For example, in 1 Timothy 5:17 Paul refers to elders who labor in preaching and teaching. The Greek word for ‘preaching’ is logos, which means ‘word.’ Actually, Paul was merely describing elders who labor in the word of God. In Timothy 6:2 Paul urges Timothy to “‘teach and preach these principles.’ The word for “preach” is the Greek word parakaleo, which means “to exhort, comfort, or encourage.” Paul was actually urging Timothy to teach and exhort by means of the principles he had just enumerated. Thus, it appears that our emphasis on preaching in church meetings has been misplaced. The New Testament gives a far greater emphasis to teaching than to preaching.”
"Preaching" is a Biblical term more akin to "evangelism," or the announcement of the Good News in Christ. Entrance into the Kingdom by people is the goal of evangelism or "preaching," while the building up of those in the kingdom is better called "teaching" (although in a few N.T. passages this distinction is not hard and fast; cf. Hans-Joachim Wiehler.
~Brian Anderson, "Preaching in the Church?" Searching Together, Autumn 1982, pp 35-38).
Two different kinds of meetings in Scripture
There are two different kinds of meetings in Scripture—the church meeting and the apostolic meeting (my emphasis).
…In the latter only one man spoke, and all the others constituted his audience. One stood before the others, and by his preaching directed the thoughts and hearts of those who sat quietly listening.
~ Watchman Nee, Normal Christian, p.118
…In the latter only one man spoke, and all the others constituted his audience. One stood before the others, and by his preaching directed the thoughts and hearts of those who sat quietly listening.
~ Watchman Nee, Normal Christian, p.118
The problem trying to understand the NT church
After reading many books on the church, worship, and downloading many, many internet studies and sermons, I find it interesting how so many cherry-pick scriptures and arrange them to elaborate their own church cultures and traditions.
This reading into Scriptures our culture and tradition seems to be pervasive even among acknowledged biblical scholars and really good and effective preachers. Note the acknowledgment by a very good and famous present day church scholar:
~ Don Carson, Worship by the Book, 13
This reading into Scriptures our culture and tradition seems to be pervasive even among acknowledged biblical scholars and really good and effective preachers. Note the acknowledgment by a very good and famous present day church scholar:
The sheer diversity of the current options not only contributes to the sense of unrest and divisiveness in many local churches but leads to confident assertions that all the biblical evidence supports those views and those alone. . . . we unwittingly read our ideas and experiences of worship back into Scripture.
~ Don Carson, Worship by the Book, 13
What Paul taught the churches to do
In 1 Corinthians 4:14-17, we read that Paul planned to send Timothy to Corinth . Paul wanted Timothy to remind the Corinthians of his way of life so that they could imitate him. The immediate context concerns Paul’s faithfulness in service and his humility as an apostle. Paul wrote, “I urge you to imitate me. For this reason I am sending to you Timothy, my son whom I love, who is faithful in the Lord. He will remind you of my way of life in Christ Jesus, which agrees with what I teach everywhere in every church.
Notice the obvious uniformity of practice that is reflected by Paul’s words. His way of life in Christ was consistent with what he taught everywhere, in every church. There was integrity. There was a uniformity of practice that grew out of Paul’s teachings. His belief determined his behavior. His doctrine naturally determined his duty. In similar fashion, the apostles’ beliefs about the function of the church would surely have affected the way they organized churches (form follows function). Though the direct import of 1 Corinthians 4 is far afield from church practice, to also imitate the apostles’ ways regarding church life would be a wise choice for any fellowship.
~ Steve Atkerson, Apostolic Tradition: Obsolete? (web article)
Notice the obvious uniformity of practice that is reflected by Paul’s words. His way of life in Christ was consistent with what he taught everywhere, in every church. There was integrity. There was a uniformity of practice that grew out of Paul’s teachings. His belief determined his behavior. His doctrine naturally determined his duty. In similar fashion, the apostles’ beliefs about the function of the church would surely have affected the way they organized churches (form follows function). Though the direct import of 1 Corinthians 4 is far afield from church practice, to also imitate the apostles’ ways regarding church life would be a wise choice for any fellowship.
~ Steve Atkerson, Apostolic Tradition: Obsolete? (web article)
Monday, November 10, 2008
How to Have a New Testament Church Meeting
by Rusty Entrekin
The Corinthians practiced what are called participatory, open, or interactive meetings. Should we imitate them in this regard?
Did you know that the Bible gives us guidelines on how to have a church meeting? These instructions are found in 1 Co 14:26-40.
1 Co 14:26 begins with “What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation.”
In this verse, the apostle Paul was describing what normal church life was like for the Corinthians. It may come as a shock to us to realize he did not say, “When you come together, the minister of music has a song, and the pastor has a word of instruction.”
Instead, “everyone” of the brethren at Corinth came ready to contribute something. Some might think that the Apostle was criticizing the Corinthians for this. Perhaps there was some mild criticism intended, for as we read on, the apostle provides guidelines regarding who can speak, how often, and when. He restricted the number of those who could publicly speak in tongues and prophesy in a given meeting, and corrected the behavior of some of the women. But if there was any criticism intended in verse 26, it was quite limited. Paul did not go on to restrict the right to speak to only a few men. He did not say, "Brethren, this ought not to be. Only the pastor and the minister of music should speak." Instead, he assumed the right of any of the brethren to speak in the meeting, and simply provided guidelines for doing so. Thus, his intent was merely to provide some course corrections, not to cancel the entire flight!
This verse makes it startlingly clear that at Corinth, the right to publicly bring a teaching to the entire church was not the exclusive right of one paid professional. Pastors were not the only people who were allowed to bring a word of instruction during church, and ministers of music (had they existed back then) were not the only ones who introduced songs to sing!
In Col 3:16, we learn that things were apparently like that at Colosse, too:
“Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God.”
“Speak to one another,” Paul also wrote in Eph 5:19-20, “with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord, always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
In the above verses, notice the emphasis on teaching “one another”, and singing to “one another.”
Reading this, it becomes painfully apparent that the way most of us have church today was not "normal" in New Testament times. Back then, church meetings were a time when the everyday, non-professional Christian contributed to the meetings. The right to teach in church was not the exclusive domain of the paid professional.
The Corinthians practiced what are called participatory, open, or interactive meetings. Should we imitate them in this regard?
Did you know that the Bible gives us guidelines on how to have a church meeting? These instructions are found in 1 Co 14:26-40.
1 Co 14:26 begins with “What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation.”
In this verse, the apostle Paul was describing what normal church life was like for the Corinthians. It may come as a shock to us to realize he did not say, “When you come together, the minister of music has a song, and the pastor has a word of instruction.”
Instead, “everyone” of the brethren at Corinth came ready to contribute something. Some might think that the Apostle was criticizing the Corinthians for this. Perhaps there was some mild criticism intended, for as we read on, the apostle provides guidelines regarding who can speak, how often, and when. He restricted the number of those who could publicly speak in tongues and prophesy in a given meeting, and corrected the behavior of some of the women. But if there was any criticism intended in verse 26, it was quite limited. Paul did not go on to restrict the right to speak to only a few men. He did not say, "Brethren, this ought not to be. Only the pastor and the minister of music should speak." Instead, he assumed the right of any of the brethren to speak in the meeting, and simply provided guidelines for doing so. Thus, his intent was merely to provide some course corrections, not to cancel the entire flight!
This verse makes it startlingly clear that at Corinth, the right to publicly bring a teaching to the entire church was not the exclusive right of one paid professional. Pastors were not the only people who were allowed to bring a word of instruction during church, and ministers of music (had they existed back then) were not the only ones who introduced songs to sing!
In Col 3:16, we learn that things were apparently like that at Colosse, too:
“Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God.”
“Speak to one another,” Paul also wrote in Eph 5:19-20, “with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord, always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
In the above verses, notice the emphasis on teaching “one another”, and singing to “one another.”
Reading this, it becomes painfully apparent that the way most of us have church today was not "normal" in New Testament times. Back then, church meetings were a time when the everyday, non-professional Christian contributed to the meetings. The right to teach in church was not the exclusive domain of the paid professional.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Spiritual gifts in church Meetings
By Brian Anderson
We saw that the biblical purpose for which the church gathers is to edify one another. So, exactly how should we accomplish this? In most churches, the pastor bears almost the entire responsibility for edifying the saints, because he is the one who speaks most (or even exclusively) when the church assembles. Indeed, John Owen, probably the greatest of the Puritan theologians of the 17th century wrote, "on this office [the pastor] and the discharge of it he [Christ] hath laid the whole weight of the order, rule, and edification of his church . . ." (author's emphasis). The Reformers of the 16th century, the Puritans of the 17th century, as well as most Christians of the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries also embraced this view. But we must ask the question: Does the word of God establish this approach? On the contrary, 1 Corinthians 12-14 (the most lengthy section in the New Testament detailing principles underlying early church meetings) says a great deal about the ministry of the many, but says nothing about the ministry of only one man when the church meets!
In 1 Corinthians 12 we find an abundance of teaching about the ministry of all believers. For example, in verses 4-6 Paul states that there are varieties of gifts, ministries and effects. Furthermore, he states in verse 6 that "God works all things in all persons." In verse 7 He informs us, "But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good." Again in verse 11 we read, "But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills." In verse 14 Paul emphatically states that "the body is not one member, but many." (The way most churches meet, one would have thought the passage reads, "the body is not many members, but one!") Furthermore, in verses 15-25 the apostle goes on to explain that every person has a vital function within the church. All members are needed; none is unimportant. In light of this biblical teaching, how can we justify the idea that when we assemble, only the pastor may use his gifts while the rest of the body remains passive and silent?
In 1 Corinthians 14 the same truth emerges. In verse 1 Paul urges the entire church earnestly to desire spiritual gifts, but especially the gift of prophecy, because one who prophesies edifies the whole church (vs.5). In verse 26 he describes the church meeting as one in which each one has a psalm, teaching, revelation, tongue or interpretation. At the very least, this passage indicates that when the early church assembled, every believer had the opportunity to contribute to the edification of the whole body. Some bible scholars believe that in this verse Paul is rebuking the participatory manner in which the Corinthians held their church meetings. On the contrary, Paul does not command the Corinthians to stop meeting in a participatory manner. Rather, in verses 27-31 he gives guidelines for meetings which, though they establish order, still require participation by many! Paul's only corrective in verse 26, is his statement, "Let all things be done for edification." In other words, whenever anyone in the church contributes, he must do so with the intent that what he contributes will edify the rest. In verse 27 Paul allows two or three persons to bring a message in tongues, as long as these messages are interpreted. In verse 29 he informs the church that they should "let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment." In verse 31 Paul teaches, "for you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted." In view of this, and the fact that Paul has been emphasizing the superiority of prophecy over tongues in church meetings all the way through the chapter, and that he does not repeat "at the most" after "let two or three prophets speak," as he does in the case of tongues (vs. 27), Paul's reference to two or three prophets speaking should probably be understood as two or three at a minimum. His teaching in 1 Corinthians 14 describes a church meeting in which all have the opportunity of participating, either through a song, a teaching, or some other spiritual gift. This practice may seem impossible in light of the fact that many churches today have anywhere from 200 to 10,000 members. Truly, in a church of that size, it would be impossible to provide an opportunity in which all could participate. We must remember, however, that the early church met almost exclusively in homes (Rom.16:5; Col.4:15). In that setting, where the number of believers could not easily exceed forty or fifty people, the apostle Paul's remarks are much more intelligible. Jon Zens has insightfully written, "It seems to me that we have made normative that for which there is no Scriptural warrant (emphasis on one man's ministry), and we have omitted that for which there is ample Scriptural support (emphasis on one another)." (Jon Zens, Baptist Reformation Review, "Building Up The Body: One Man or One Another?" Vol.10, No.2, p.117.) William Barclay, though unreliable as a theologian, has written insightfully on the spirit of a church meeting as pictured in 1 Corinthians 14:
Many Christians today ignore the teaching in 1 Corinthians 12-14 because they believe that the gifts of prophecy and tongues have ceased with the closing of the New Testament canon. While a wide diversity of opinion exists in the church today about these gifts, all Christians believe that the singing of psalms and teaching should still occur in the meetings of the church (1Cor.14:26). Thus, even if a large segment of the church believes that tongues and prophecy have ceased, they must still grapple with the participatory spirit in the early church in which any could contribute a song or teaching, among other spiritual gifts.
Other Christians believe that though 1 Corinthians 14 does suggest that the church at Corinth met in a participatory manner, it does not serve as a model for us today, because it was spiritually immature and in need of correction from the apostle in many respects. When Paul writes to them, however, he first describes their church meetings as "each one having a psalm, a teaching, etc.," and then goes on to give them the overarching guideline for everything that takes place in their meetings - "let all things be done for edification" (1Cor.14:26). If the Corinthians were in error in conducting their meetings in a participatory manner, surely Paul would have taken the opportunity in this letter to set them straight. But this is the very thing that he does not do. Although Paul does establish judicious guidelines so that their meetings are conducted in a proper and orderly manner (vs. 40), he does not prohibit mutual participation, but instead encourages it ("let two or three prophets speak," "let the others pass judgment;" and "you can all prophesy one by one"). Others point out that in Paul's later pastoral epistles in which he gives instructions concerning church order, teaching concerning open participation is notably absent. We must remember, however, that Paul writes the pastoral epistles to apostolic representatives (Timothy and Titus) regarding their particular responsibilities to the churches they served. We would expect Paul's emphasis in the pastoral epistles to be different from his letters to entire churches. In his letters to churches, Paul directs the whole body as to their mutual responsibilities to one another; in his letters to particular individuals (Timothy and Titus) he directs them as to their particular responsibilities to the church. Thus, nothing in the pastoral epistles contradicts the full ministry of elders and the full ministry of the entire body.
Still others argue that Paul directs the Corinthian church to minister to one another because it didn't have elders yet. They say that when the church had appointed elders, Paul's instructions on mutual body ministry in the church gatherings would become obsolete as the elders took upon themselves the duty of edifying the church. This, however, is an argument from silence, the least convincing kind of all. Scripture never states that there were no elders in Corinth. On the contrary, in 1 Corinthians 16:15-16, Paul mentions the household of Stephanas as those who have devoted themselves for ministry to the saints, and the ones to whom the church should subject themselves. Though these individuals are not specifically identified as elders, Paul's instructions indicate that they functioned as such. Furthermore, we have every reason to believe that the church at Corinth had elders, as this was the uniform practice of the churches that Paul planted (Acts 14:23; Tit. 1:5).
If 1 Corinthians was the only New Testament book in which all believers were taught to utilize their spiritual gifts for the benefit of the whole, the above-mentioned objections might carry greater weight. The apostle Paul, however, teaches this same practice in other letters as well. For example, in Ephesians 4:15-16 he exhorts, "but speaking the truth in love we are to grow up in all aspects into Him, who is the head, even Christ, from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by that which every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love." In this passage Paul directs the entire church to speak the truth in love. Additionally, every individual Christian (each individual part) must work properly in order for the whole body to grow and build up itself in love. In other words, the edification of the whole body is not the responsibility of one man or a few men. Rather, it is the responsibility of all.
Again, in Romans 12:3-8, the apostle makes this point crystal clear. "For through the grace given to me I say to every man among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think; but to think so as to have sound judgment, as God has allotted to each a measure of faith. For just as we have many members in one body and all the members do not have the same function, so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. And since we have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let each exercise them accordingly: if prophecy, according to the proportion of his faith; if service, in his serving; or he who teaches, in his teaching; or he who exhorts, in his exhortation; he who gives, with liberality; he who leads, with diligence; he who shows mercy, with cheerfulness." Notice several things about this passage. First, God allots each Christian a measure of faith by which he exercises one or more spiritual gifts. Second, God gives different Christians various functions to perform within the body. Third, each Christian is responsible to exercise his gift. Fourth, the gifts Paul lists are those we would expect to see when the church meets: prophecy, service, teaching, exhortation, giving, leading, mercy. Thus, the biblical pattern is uniform - all God's people have the privilege and responsibility of employing their respective spiritual gifts in order to build up the whole church in Christ.
The apostle Peter echoes the sentiments of Paul as well. "As each one has received a special gift, employ it in serving one another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. Whoever speaks, let him speak, as it were, the utterances of God; whoever serves, let him do so as by the strength which God supplies; so that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belongs the glory and dominion forever and ever" (1 Pet.4:10-11). Notice that Peter emphasizes that each believer has gifts, and that he is to employ them, or put them to work. Furthermore, these gifts are comprised of two basic kinds - speaking and serving gifts. Although believers can and should serve one another throughout the week in all kinds of situations, a natural place for believers to put speaking and serving gifts to work is in the meetings of the church. Would not a recipient of Peter's letter have immediately thought of the church meetings as the logical starting place in fulfilling this command? Is it not natural to assume that believers should employ their gifts when they assemble? Is that not what Paul is urging in 1 Corinthians 14 (especially verses 26-31)? Is there any reason to assume that Peter is not describing the church as gathered in 1 Peter 4:11-12? It is unlikely that someone would conclude that Peter wanted his readers to use their spiritual gifts exclusively at times other than church meetings unless he held a previous bias against mutual participation in church meetings.
Mutual Exhortation in Church Meetings
Not only is the body responsible to edify one another through the exercise of spiritual gifts when they gather, they are also to edify one another through mutual exhortation and encouragement.
In Hebrews 10:23-25, the Scriptures declare, "Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful; and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more, as you see the day drawing near." Notice that this text describes the saints as assembling together. But exactly what are the saints supposed to do when they assemble together? The text does not leave us in doubt; the whole body is to stimulate one another to love and good deeds and encourage one another. Furthermore, no mention is made of the pastor performing this stimulating and encouraging ministry. Rather, Scripture says, let us stimulate and encourage. The author of Hebrews is urging the whole body to take up these duties. Often these verses are used to rebuke church members who miss an occasional meeting. However the intent of the passage is to warn professing Christians of "forsaking" (a strong word which means to desert once and for all) the gatherings of the saints and returning to the Old Covenant law, priesthood, and sacrifices. It is a shame that this passage is used so often to browbeat church members into faithful attendance at the stated meetings of the church (which is not the original intent of the passage) but is not used to give direction to the functioning of the church when it has assembled (which is the intent of the passage). The text clearly links mutual exhortation and encouragement with the assembling of the saints.
Our church traditions have misconstrued this text to mean, "let the pastor consider how he may stimulate the church to love and good deeds and encourage the rest of the body as he sees the day drawing near." The author of Hebrews goes on to explain why it is so important for the church to exhort and encourage one another when they assemble. "For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain terrifying expectation of judgment, and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries" (Heb.10:26-27). The meaning of the passage is clear. The fire of hell awaits those who apostatize from the truth. Mutual encouragement and exhortation are the means the people of God must use to avoid apostasy. We neglect these means at our own peril. A dozen systematic theologies line the shelves of my personal library; I have consulted each and every one, and have yet to find one which mentions mutual exhortation as a primary means of the perseverance of the saints. Though mutual exhortation is a biblical means of perseverance, it is one which the church has neglected far too long. Mutual encouragement and exhortation then, according to God's Word, should occupy a central place in the activities of the gathered church. Surely, when one man (the pastor) performs all the exhorting and encouraging, the clear pattern of New Testament church meetings has been violated.
One Anothering in Church Meetings
Not only do we see participatory church meetings emphasized by the stress laid upon each believer to utilize his spiritual gift, and exhort one another when the church gathers, but we also find it in the more than fifty "one another" commands of the New Testament. Scripture enjoins believers to:
1. Love one another (John 13:34-35; 15:12,17; Rom.13:8; 1Thess.3:12; 1Thess.4:9; 2Thess.1:3; 1Pet.1:22; 1Pet.4:8; 1John 3:11; 1John 3:23; 1John 4:7,11,12; 2John 1:5)
2. Be devoted to one another (Rom.12:10)
3. Give preference to one another (Rom.12:10)
4. Be of the same mind toward one another (Rom.12:16; 15:5)
5. Not judge one another (Rom.14:13)
6. Pursue the things which make for the building up of one another (Rom.14:19)
7. Pursue the things which make for peace with one another (Rom.14:19)
8. Accept one another (Rom.15:7)
9. Admonish one another (Rom.15:14; Col.3:16)
10. Greet one another (Rom.16:16; 1Cor.16:20; 2Cor.13:12; 1Pet.5:14)
11. Wait for one another (1Cor.11:33)
12. Have the same care for one another (1Cor.12:25)
13. Serve one another (Gal.5:13)
14. Not challenge one another (Gal.5:26)
15. Not envy one another (Gal.5:26)
16. Show forbearance to one another (Eph.4:2)
17. Be kind to one another (Eph.4:32)
18. Forgive one other (Eph.4:32; Col.3:13)
19. Speak to one another (Eph.5:19)
20. Be subject to one another (Eph.5:21)
21. Regard one another as more important than yourself (Phil.2:3)
22. Not lie to one another (Col.3:9)
23. Bear with one another (Col.3:13
24. Teach one another (Col.3:16)
25. Comfort one another (1Thess.4:18)
26. Encourage one another (1Thess.5:11; Heb.3:13; Heb.10:25)
27. Build up one another (1Thess.5:11)
28. Live in peace with one another (1Thess.5:13)
29. Seek after that which is good for one another (1Thess.5:15)
30. Stimulate one another to love and good deeds (Heb.10:24)
31. Not speak against one another (James 4:11)
32. Not complain against one another (James 5:9)
33. Confess your sins to one another (James 5:16)
34. Be hospitable to one another (1Pet.4:9)
35. Employ your spiritual gift in serving one another (1Pet.4:10)
36. Clothe yourself with humility toward one another (1Pet.5:5)
37. Have fellowship with one another (1John 1:7)
I have personally counted fifty-nine New Testament references to "one another" responsibilities. The critical question then becomes: when should the church obey these commands? Some may argue that we should obey these commands outside of the regular meetings of the church. However, how would a first century Christian have understood these commands? What better opportunity would he have to love, serve, admonish, exhort, fellowship, accept, greet, forbear, build up, encourage, comfort and teach other believers, than in the gatherings of the church? I readily admit that these one-another commands should be obeyed throughout the week, whenever believers are with each other. But obedience to them should certainly characterize the meetings of the church, which comprise our primary opportunities to meet with one another. I submit to you, that if we are to obey these New Testament "one-another" commands, it is important that interaction and open participation characterize our meetings. If the people of God assemble week after week, month after month, year in and year out, as silent spectators in clergy-dominated meetings, it is unlikely that they will consistently obey these commands.
Joint Sharing in Church Meetings
The New Testament Scriptures affirm that joint sharing should form another important activity in our church meetings. In 1 Peter 3:8, all are exhorted to be sympathetic toward one another. The Greek word translated "sympathetic" literally means "suffering or feeling the like with one another." (The New Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon, Hendrickson, p.596.) It should come as no surprise, then, that Paul commands believers to "rejoice with those who rejoice and weep with those who weep" (Rom.12:15). Furthermore, he notes, "if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it" (1Cor.12:26).
In order for us to obey Paul's clear teaching, we must open up our meetings so that people can share their burdens, or rejoice together in God's blessings. In many churches, if a brother comes to a meeting with a wonderful blessing from God he wants to share, he must scurry around after the meeting, in order to communicate it to five or six others before they drive home. Similarly, in most churches, if someone's heart is breaking with sorrow, there is no place in the meeting for them to unburden their hearts and receive the prayer and ministry of the body. Why not open our meetings so that the whole church can rejoice with us in our blessings, and minister to us in our sufferings? In this way, all may be encouraged by the joyful, and minister to the sufferer.
We saw that the biblical purpose for which the church gathers is to edify one another. So, exactly how should we accomplish this? In most churches, the pastor bears almost the entire responsibility for edifying the saints, because he is the one who speaks most (or even exclusively) when the church assembles. Indeed, John Owen, probably the greatest of the Puritan theologians of the 17th century wrote, "on this office [the pastor] and the discharge of it he [Christ] hath laid the whole weight of the order, rule, and edification of his church . . ." (author's emphasis). The Reformers of the 16th century, the Puritans of the 17th century, as well as most Christians of the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries also embraced this view. But we must ask the question: Does the word of God establish this approach? On the contrary, 1 Corinthians 12-14 (the most lengthy section in the New Testament detailing principles underlying early church meetings) says a great deal about the ministry of the many, but says nothing about the ministry of only one man when the church meets!
In 1 Corinthians 12 we find an abundance of teaching about the ministry of all believers. For example, in verses 4-6 Paul states that there are varieties of gifts, ministries and effects. Furthermore, he states in verse 6 that "God works all things in all persons." In verse 7 He informs us, "But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good." Again in verse 11 we read, "But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills." In verse 14 Paul emphatically states that "the body is not one member, but many." (The way most churches meet, one would have thought the passage reads, "the body is not many members, but one!") Furthermore, in verses 15-25 the apostle goes on to explain that every person has a vital function within the church. All members are needed; none is unimportant. In light of this biblical teaching, how can we justify the idea that when we assemble, only the pastor may use his gifts while the rest of the body remains passive and silent?
In 1 Corinthians 14 the same truth emerges. In verse 1 Paul urges the entire church earnestly to desire spiritual gifts, but especially the gift of prophecy, because one who prophesies edifies the whole church (vs.5). In verse 26 he describes the church meeting as one in which each one has a psalm, teaching, revelation, tongue or interpretation. At the very least, this passage indicates that when the early church assembled, every believer had the opportunity to contribute to the edification of the whole body. Some bible scholars believe that in this verse Paul is rebuking the participatory manner in which the Corinthians held their church meetings. On the contrary, Paul does not command the Corinthians to stop meeting in a participatory manner. Rather, in verses 27-31 he gives guidelines for meetings which, though they establish order, still require participation by many! Paul's only corrective in verse 26, is his statement, "Let all things be done for edification." In other words, whenever anyone in the church contributes, he must do so with the intent that what he contributes will edify the rest. In verse 27 Paul allows two or three persons to bring a message in tongues, as long as these messages are interpreted. In verse 29 he informs the church that they should "let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment." In verse 31 Paul teaches, "for you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted." In view of this, and the fact that Paul has been emphasizing the superiority of prophecy over tongues in church meetings all the way through the chapter, and that he does not repeat "at the most" after "let two or three prophets speak," as he does in the case of tongues (vs. 27), Paul's reference to two or three prophets speaking should probably be understood as two or three at a minimum. His teaching in 1 Corinthians 14 describes a church meeting in which all have the opportunity of participating, either through a song, a teaching, or some other spiritual gift. This practice may seem impossible in light of the fact that many churches today have anywhere from 200 to 10,000 members. Truly, in a church of that size, it would be impossible to provide an opportunity in which all could participate. We must remember, however, that the early church met almost exclusively in homes (Rom.16:5; Col.4:15). In that setting, where the number of believers could not easily exceed forty or fifty people, the apostle Paul's remarks are much more intelligible. Jon Zens has insightfully written, "It seems to me that we have made normative that for which there is no Scriptural warrant (emphasis on one man's ministry), and we have omitted that for which there is ample Scriptural support (emphasis on one another)." (Jon Zens, Baptist Reformation Review, "Building Up The Body: One Man or One Another?" Vol.10, No.2, p.117.) William Barclay, though unreliable as a theologian, has written insightfully on the spirit of a church meeting as pictured in 1 Corinthians 14:
There is no more interesting section in the whole letter than this, for it sheds a flood of light on what an early church service was like. There was obviously great freedom and an informality about it. . . it must remain true that if a man has a message to give his fellow men no ecclesiastical rules and regulations should be able to stop him giving it. It is a mistake to think that only the professional ministry can ever bring God's truth to men. There was obviously a flexibility about the order of service in the early Church. Everything was informal enough to allow any man who felt that he had a message to give to give it. It may well be that we set far too much store on dignity and order nowadays, and have become the slaves of orders of service. The really notable thing about an early Church service must have been that almost everyone came feeling that he had both the privilege and the obligation of contributing something to it. A man did not come with the sole intention of being a passive listener; he came not only to receive but to give.(William Barclay, The Letters To The Corinthians, Westminster Press, p.134-135.)
Many Christians today ignore the teaching in 1 Corinthians 12-14 because they believe that the gifts of prophecy and tongues have ceased with the closing of the New Testament canon. While a wide diversity of opinion exists in the church today about these gifts, all Christians believe that the singing of psalms and teaching should still occur in the meetings of the church (1Cor.14:26). Thus, even if a large segment of the church believes that tongues and prophecy have ceased, they must still grapple with the participatory spirit in the early church in which any could contribute a song or teaching, among other spiritual gifts.
Other Christians believe that though 1 Corinthians 14 does suggest that the church at Corinth met in a participatory manner, it does not serve as a model for us today, because it was spiritually immature and in need of correction from the apostle in many respects. When Paul writes to them, however, he first describes their church meetings as "each one having a psalm, a teaching, etc.," and then goes on to give them the overarching guideline for everything that takes place in their meetings - "let all things be done for edification" (1Cor.14:26). If the Corinthians were in error in conducting their meetings in a participatory manner, surely Paul would have taken the opportunity in this letter to set them straight. But this is the very thing that he does not do. Although Paul does establish judicious guidelines so that their meetings are conducted in a proper and orderly manner (vs. 40), he does not prohibit mutual participation, but instead encourages it ("let two or three prophets speak," "let the others pass judgment;" and "you can all prophesy one by one"). Others point out that in Paul's later pastoral epistles in which he gives instructions concerning church order, teaching concerning open participation is notably absent. We must remember, however, that Paul writes the pastoral epistles to apostolic representatives (Timothy and Titus) regarding their particular responsibilities to the churches they served. We would expect Paul's emphasis in the pastoral epistles to be different from his letters to entire churches. In his letters to churches, Paul directs the whole body as to their mutual responsibilities to one another; in his letters to particular individuals (Timothy and Titus) he directs them as to their particular responsibilities to the church. Thus, nothing in the pastoral epistles contradicts the full ministry of elders and the full ministry of the entire body.
Still others argue that Paul directs the Corinthian church to minister to one another because it didn't have elders yet. They say that when the church had appointed elders, Paul's instructions on mutual body ministry in the church gatherings would become obsolete as the elders took upon themselves the duty of edifying the church. This, however, is an argument from silence, the least convincing kind of all. Scripture never states that there were no elders in Corinth. On the contrary, in 1 Corinthians 16:15-16, Paul mentions the household of Stephanas as those who have devoted themselves for ministry to the saints, and the ones to whom the church should subject themselves. Though these individuals are not specifically identified as elders, Paul's instructions indicate that they functioned as such. Furthermore, we have every reason to believe that the church at Corinth had elders, as this was the uniform practice of the churches that Paul planted (Acts 14:23; Tit. 1:5).
If 1 Corinthians was the only New Testament book in which all believers were taught to utilize their spiritual gifts for the benefit of the whole, the above-mentioned objections might carry greater weight. The apostle Paul, however, teaches this same practice in other letters as well. For example, in Ephesians 4:15-16 he exhorts, "but speaking the truth in love we are to grow up in all aspects into Him, who is the head, even Christ, from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by that which every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love." In this passage Paul directs the entire church to speak the truth in love. Additionally, every individual Christian (each individual part) must work properly in order for the whole body to grow and build up itself in love. In other words, the edification of the whole body is not the responsibility of one man or a few men. Rather, it is the responsibility of all.
Again, in Romans 12:3-8, the apostle makes this point crystal clear. "For through the grace given to me I say to every man among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think; but to think so as to have sound judgment, as God has allotted to each a measure of faith. For just as we have many members in one body and all the members do not have the same function, so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. And since we have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let each exercise them accordingly: if prophecy, according to the proportion of his faith; if service, in his serving; or he who teaches, in his teaching; or he who exhorts, in his exhortation; he who gives, with liberality; he who leads, with diligence; he who shows mercy, with cheerfulness." Notice several things about this passage. First, God allots each Christian a measure of faith by which he exercises one or more spiritual gifts. Second, God gives different Christians various functions to perform within the body. Third, each Christian is responsible to exercise his gift. Fourth, the gifts Paul lists are those we would expect to see when the church meets: prophecy, service, teaching, exhortation, giving, leading, mercy. Thus, the biblical pattern is uniform - all God's people have the privilege and responsibility of employing their respective spiritual gifts in order to build up the whole church in Christ.
The apostle Peter echoes the sentiments of Paul as well. "As each one has received a special gift, employ it in serving one another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. Whoever speaks, let him speak, as it were, the utterances of God; whoever serves, let him do so as by the strength which God supplies; so that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belongs the glory and dominion forever and ever" (1 Pet.4:10-11). Notice that Peter emphasizes that each believer has gifts, and that he is to employ them, or put them to work. Furthermore, these gifts are comprised of two basic kinds - speaking and serving gifts. Although believers can and should serve one another throughout the week in all kinds of situations, a natural place for believers to put speaking and serving gifts to work is in the meetings of the church. Would not a recipient of Peter's letter have immediately thought of the church meetings as the logical starting place in fulfilling this command? Is it not natural to assume that believers should employ their gifts when they assemble? Is that not what Paul is urging in 1 Corinthians 14 (especially verses 26-31)? Is there any reason to assume that Peter is not describing the church as gathered in 1 Peter 4:11-12? It is unlikely that someone would conclude that Peter wanted his readers to use their spiritual gifts exclusively at times other than church meetings unless he held a previous bias against mutual participation in church meetings.
Mutual Exhortation in Church Meetings
Not only is the body responsible to edify one another through the exercise of spiritual gifts when they gather, they are also to edify one another through mutual exhortation and encouragement.
In Hebrews 10:23-25, the Scriptures declare, "Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful; and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more, as you see the day drawing near." Notice that this text describes the saints as assembling together. But exactly what are the saints supposed to do when they assemble together? The text does not leave us in doubt; the whole body is to stimulate one another to love and good deeds and encourage one another. Furthermore, no mention is made of the pastor performing this stimulating and encouraging ministry. Rather, Scripture says, let us stimulate and encourage. The author of Hebrews is urging the whole body to take up these duties. Often these verses are used to rebuke church members who miss an occasional meeting. However the intent of the passage is to warn professing Christians of "forsaking" (a strong word which means to desert once and for all) the gatherings of the saints and returning to the Old Covenant law, priesthood, and sacrifices. It is a shame that this passage is used so often to browbeat church members into faithful attendance at the stated meetings of the church (which is not the original intent of the passage) but is not used to give direction to the functioning of the church when it has assembled (which is the intent of the passage). The text clearly links mutual exhortation and encouragement with the assembling of the saints.
Our church traditions have misconstrued this text to mean, "let the pastor consider how he may stimulate the church to love and good deeds and encourage the rest of the body as he sees the day drawing near." The author of Hebrews goes on to explain why it is so important for the church to exhort and encourage one another when they assemble. "For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain terrifying expectation of judgment, and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries" (Heb.10:26-27). The meaning of the passage is clear. The fire of hell awaits those who apostatize from the truth. Mutual encouragement and exhortation are the means the people of God must use to avoid apostasy. We neglect these means at our own peril. A dozen systematic theologies line the shelves of my personal library; I have consulted each and every one, and have yet to find one which mentions mutual exhortation as a primary means of the perseverance of the saints. Though mutual exhortation is a biblical means of perseverance, it is one which the church has neglected far too long. Mutual encouragement and exhortation then, according to God's Word, should occupy a central place in the activities of the gathered church. Surely, when one man (the pastor) performs all the exhorting and encouraging, the clear pattern of New Testament church meetings has been violated.
One Anothering in Church Meetings
Not only do we see participatory church meetings emphasized by the stress laid upon each believer to utilize his spiritual gift, and exhort one another when the church gathers, but we also find it in the more than fifty "one another" commands of the New Testament. Scripture enjoins believers to:
1. Love one another (John 13:34-35; 15:12,17; Rom.13:8; 1Thess.3:12; 1Thess.4:9; 2Thess.1:3; 1Pet.1:22; 1Pet.4:8; 1John 3:11; 1John 3:23; 1John 4:7,11,12; 2John 1:5)
2. Be devoted to one another (Rom.12:10)
3. Give preference to one another (Rom.12:10)
4. Be of the same mind toward one another (Rom.12:16; 15:5)
5. Not judge one another (Rom.14:13)
6. Pursue the things which make for the building up of one another (Rom.14:19)
7. Pursue the things which make for peace with one another (Rom.14:19)
8. Accept one another (Rom.15:7)
9. Admonish one another (Rom.15:14; Col.3:16)
10. Greet one another (Rom.16:16; 1Cor.16:20; 2Cor.13:12; 1Pet.5:14)
11. Wait for one another (1Cor.11:33)
12. Have the same care for one another (1Cor.12:25)
13. Serve one another (Gal.5:13)
14. Not challenge one another (Gal.5:26)
15. Not envy one another (Gal.5:26)
16. Show forbearance to one another (Eph.4:2)
17. Be kind to one another (Eph.4:32)
18. Forgive one other (Eph.4:32; Col.3:13)
19. Speak to one another (Eph.5:19)
20. Be subject to one another (Eph.5:21)
21. Regard one another as more important than yourself (Phil.2:3)
22. Not lie to one another (Col.3:9)
23. Bear with one another (Col.3:13
24. Teach one another (Col.3:16)
25. Comfort one another (1Thess.4:18)
26. Encourage one another (1Thess.5:11; Heb.3:13; Heb.10:25)
27. Build up one another (1Thess.5:11)
28. Live in peace with one another (1Thess.5:13)
29. Seek after that which is good for one another (1Thess.5:15)
30. Stimulate one another to love and good deeds (Heb.10:24)
31. Not speak against one another (James 4:11)
32. Not complain against one another (James 5:9)
33. Confess your sins to one another (James 5:16)
34. Be hospitable to one another (1Pet.4:9)
35. Employ your spiritual gift in serving one another (1Pet.4:10)
36. Clothe yourself with humility toward one another (1Pet.5:5)
37. Have fellowship with one another (1John 1:7)
I have personally counted fifty-nine New Testament references to "one another" responsibilities. The critical question then becomes: when should the church obey these commands? Some may argue that we should obey these commands outside of the regular meetings of the church. However, how would a first century Christian have understood these commands? What better opportunity would he have to love, serve, admonish, exhort, fellowship, accept, greet, forbear, build up, encourage, comfort and teach other believers, than in the gatherings of the church? I readily admit that these one-another commands should be obeyed throughout the week, whenever believers are with each other. But obedience to them should certainly characterize the meetings of the church, which comprise our primary opportunities to meet with one another. I submit to you, that if we are to obey these New Testament "one-another" commands, it is important that interaction and open participation characterize our meetings. If the people of God assemble week after week, month after month, year in and year out, as silent spectators in clergy-dominated meetings, it is unlikely that they will consistently obey these commands.
Joint Sharing in Church Meetings
The New Testament Scriptures affirm that joint sharing should form another important activity in our church meetings. In 1 Peter 3:8, all are exhorted to be sympathetic toward one another. The Greek word translated "sympathetic" literally means "suffering or feeling the like with one another." (The New Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon, Hendrickson, p.596.) It should come as no surprise, then, that Paul commands believers to "rejoice with those who rejoice and weep with those who weep" (Rom.12:15). Furthermore, he notes, "if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it" (1Cor.12:26).
In order for us to obey Paul's clear teaching, we must open up our meetings so that people can share their burdens, or rejoice together in God's blessings. In many churches, if a brother comes to a meeting with a wonderful blessing from God he wants to share, he must scurry around after the meeting, in order to communicate it to five or six others before they drive home. Similarly, in most churches, if someone's heart is breaking with sorrow, there is no place in the meeting for them to unburden their hearts and receive the prayer and ministry of the body. Why not open our meetings so that the whole church can rejoice with us in our blessings, and minister to us in our sufferings? In this way, all may be encouraged by the joyful, and minister to the sufferer.
Apostolic Tradition: Obsolete?
by Steve Atkerson
Apostolic tradition, also called apostolic custom, apostolic patterns, New Testament patterns, or New Testament practice, means imitating the practices of the apostles. When scripture does not specifically command us to imitate a certain practice of the apostles, should we still follow it?
This issue has been faced by believers for the past two thousand years. How, exactly, should the church view New Testament apostolic patterns for church practice? Is the practice of the early church merely optional, or is it imperative for us? Are the traditions of the apostles just interesting history or should they constitute some kind of normative church practice?
The church’s problem is compounded because the New Testament has almost nothing to say by way of direct command concerning church matters. Consequently, has been common for believers to dismiss New Testament patterns for church practice as optional. Fee and Stuart, in their book, How To Read The Bible For All Its Worth, state: “Our assumption, along with many others, is that unless Scripture explicitly tells us we must do something, what is merely narrated or described can never function in a normative way” (p. 97, first edition). No one, for instance, would advocate following Jephthah’s tragic example in Judges 11:29ff. The question for us is whether or not Scripture explicitly tells us that we must copy the patterns for church practice described in the New Testament.
. . . How, exactly, should the church view New Testament apostolic patterns for church practice? Is the practice of the early church merely optional, or is it imperative for us? Are the traditions of the apostles just interesting history or should they constitute some kind of normative church practice?
The church’s problem is compounded because the New Testament has almost nothing to say by way of direct command concerning church matters. Consequently, has been common for believers to dismiss New Testament patterns for church practice as optional. Fee and Stuart, in their book, How To Read The Bible For All Its Worth, state: “Our assumption, along with many others, is that unless Scripture explicitly tells us we must do something, what is merely narrated or described can never function in a normative way” (p. 97, first edition). No one, for instance, would advocate following Jephthah’s tragic example in Judges 11:29ff. The question for us is whether or not Scripture explicitly tells us that we must copy the patterns for church practice described in the New Testament.
Holding to Apostolic Tradition is Logical
In 1 Corinthians 4:14-17, we read that Paul planned to send Timothy to Corinth . Paul wanted Timothy to remind the Corinthians of his way of life so that they could imitate him. The immediate context concerns Paul’s faithfulness in service and his humility as an apostle. Paul wrote, “I urge you to imitate me. For this reason I am sending to you Timothy, my son whom I love, who is faithful in the Lord. He will remind you of my way of life in Christ Jesus, which agrees with what I teach everywhere in every church.”
Notice the obvious uniformity of practice that is reflected by Paul’s words. His way of life in Christ was consistent with what he taught everywhere, in every church. There was integrity. There was a uniformity of practice that grew out of Paul’s teachings. His belief determined his behavior. His doctrine naturally determined his duty. In similar fashion, the apostles’ beliefs about the function of the church would surely have affected the way they organized churches (form follows function). Though the direct import of 1 Corinthians 4 is far afield from church practice, to also imitate the apostles’ ways regarding church life would be a wise choice for any fellowship.
If anyone truly understood the purpose of the church, surely the original apostles did. They were hand picked and hand trained by Jesus over a three year period. Then, our Lord appeared to them over a forty day period after His resurrection (Ac 1:3). Jesus also sent the Holy Spirit to teach them things He had not taught them before (Jn 14-16). Thus, whatever Jesus taught His apostles about the church was naturally reflected in the way they subsequently set up and organized churches.
In Titus 1:5, a passage that does deal directly with church practice, Paul wrote, “The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished.” Titus 1 concerns the appointment of qualified elders in every city. It is evident from this Scriptural passage that the apostles did indeed have a definite way they wanted certain things done regarding church. It was not left up to each individual assembly to find its own way of doing things. There was obviously some kind of order, pattern, or tradition that was followed in organizing the churches. Similarly, in 1 Corinthians 11:34 (a passage about the practice of the Lord’s Supper, another church life topic), Paul wrote, “The rest I will set in order when I come” (KJV, italics mine).
Southern Baptist theologian J. L. Dagg astutely wrote in 1858 that the apostles “have taught us by example how to organize and govern churches. We have no right to reject their instruction and captiously insist that nothing but positive command shall bind us. Instead of choosing to walk in a way of our own devising, we should take pleasure to walk in the footsteps of those holy men from whom we have received the word of life . . . respect for the Spirit by which they were led should induce us to prefer their modes of organization and government to such as our inferior wisdom might suggest” (Manual of Church Order, p. 84-86).
Holding to Apostolic Tradition is Praiseworthy
In 1 Corinthians 10:31-11:1, Paul again urged the Corinthians, “Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.” The immediate context concerned seeking the good of others so as to glorify God and bring them to salvation ( 10:31 - 11:1). The word “follow” (1Co 11:1) is from mimatai, the basis for “mimic.” Paul wanted the Corinthian believers imitate him in that regard. Apparently they were already doing well in imitating him in other matters, since Paul stated in the very next verse, “I praise you because you remember me in everything, and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you” (11:2, NASV).
What is a tradition? The regular Greek word for “teaching” is didaskalia (the basis for “didactic”), but significantly that is not the word used here. Instead, paradosis (tradition) is used. In his commentary on 1 Corinthians, Gordon Fee pointed out that although the Greek word for tradition, paradosis, was a technical term in Judaism for oral transmission of religious instruction, in this context in almost certainly does not refer to teaching, but rather to religious traditions regarding worship (New International Commentary on the New Testament, p. 499). A tradition is usually thought of as a custom or a certain way of doing things. It is an inherited pattern of thought or action. A popular definition might be, “things people do on a regular basis.” This same Greek word (in verb from) is used in 1 Corinthians 11:23 in regard to the practice of the Lord’s Supper (that it was passed on) . The point of a tradition is that it is something (usually a practice, such as the Lord’s Supper) that is passed on. Here in 1 Corinthians we see an apostle praising a church for holding to his traditions.
Consider the word “everything” as Paul used it in 1 Corinthians 11:2. It means “all that exists,” or at least, “all that pertains to the subject.” When Paul wrote “everything” (1Co 11:2), what subjects did he have in mind? His use of the word “everything” certainly suggests that Paul’s intended application was larger than just the exhortation found in 1 Corinthians 10:31-11:1 (evangelism). Might “everything” also include church order? Indeed it did. Paul’s praise in 11:2 signals the beginning of a new topic:: head coverings (11:3-16). This new subject is clearly in the realm of church order (propriety in worship).
What do the words “just as” (11:2) indicate about the extent of Corinthian compliance with Paul’s traditions? They obviously adhered to every iota; it was sort of a photocopy effect! They were not willy-nilly about it. Paul praised them for holding to his traditions “just as” he passed them on to them. The apostles evidently designed for the churches to precisely mimic at least some of the traditions they established (here, head coverings). Yet since the word “traditions” (11:2) occurs in the plural, Paul apparently had in mind more than the one tradition of head coverings (Fee, p. 500). Should we shut up our observance to this one tradition only, or should we follow all the patterns for church organization that can be observed exclusively on the pages of the New Testament?
Holding to Apostolic Tradition is to be Universal
Paul quieted those inclined to be contentious about head coverings by making an appeal to the universal practice of all the other churches: “If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice — nor do the churches of God” (1Co 11:16 ).This final statement was designed to win over the contentious people and settle any argument. Head coverings are beyond the scope of this chapter. The point is that Paul expected all the churches to be doing the same thing. Just to realize that one was different was argument enough to silence opposition. Obviously, prior emphasis had been given to certain practices that were supposed to be done the same way, everywhere. Thus, 1 Corinthians 11:16 indicates a uniformity of practice in all New Testament churches.
In 1 Corinthians 14:33b-34, Paul mentioned something else that was to be true universally:“As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches.”Regardless of the correct application of this verse, notice how Paul again appealed to a universal pattern that existed in all the churches as a basis for obedience.
Finally, note how Paul chided the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 14:36, “Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached?” The obvious answer to both questions is no. This further indicates a uniformity of practice among New Testament churches. In some respect the Corinthians were doing something differently from what all the other churches were doing. Evidently all the churches were expected to follow the same patterns in their church meetings. These two questions were designed to pull the Corinthians back into line. Holding to apostolic tradition (New Testament church patterns) was to be universal in the first century and, we argue, today as well.
Jim Elliot, missionary martyr, wrote, “The pivot point hangs on whether or not God has revealed a universal pattern for the church in the New Testament. If He has not, then anything will do so long as it works. But I am convinced that nothing so dear to the heart of Christ as His Bride should be left without explicit instructions as to her corporate conduct. I am further convinced that the 20th century has in no way simulated this pattern in its method of ‘churching’ a community . . . it is incumbent upon me, if God has a pattern for the church, to find and establish that pattern, at all costs” (Shadow of The Almighty: Life and Testimony of Jim Elliot).
Apostolic tradition, also called apostolic custom, apostolic patterns, New Testament patterns, or New Testament practice, means imitating the practices of the apostles. When scripture does not specifically command us to imitate a certain practice of the apostles, should we still follow it?
This issue has been faced by believers for the past two thousand years. How, exactly, should the church view New Testament apostolic patterns for church practice? Is the practice of the early church merely optional, or is it imperative for us? Are the traditions of the apostles just interesting history or should they constitute some kind of normative church practice?
The church’s problem is compounded because the New Testament has almost nothing to say by way of direct command concerning church matters. Consequently, has been common for believers to dismiss New Testament patterns for church practice as optional. Fee and Stuart, in their book, How To Read The Bible For All Its Worth, state: “Our assumption, along with many others, is that unless Scripture explicitly tells us we must do something, what is merely narrated or described can never function in a normative way” (p. 97, first edition). No one, for instance, would advocate following Jephthah’s tragic example in Judges 11:29ff. The question for us is whether or not Scripture explicitly tells us that we must copy the patterns for church practice described in the New Testament.
. . . How, exactly, should the church view New Testament apostolic patterns for church practice? Is the practice of the early church merely optional, or is it imperative for us? Are the traditions of the apostles just interesting history or should they constitute some kind of normative church practice?
The church’s problem is compounded because the New Testament has almost nothing to say by way of direct command concerning church matters. Consequently, has been common for believers to dismiss New Testament patterns for church practice as optional. Fee and Stuart, in their book, How To Read The Bible For All Its Worth, state: “Our assumption, along with many others, is that unless Scripture explicitly tells us we must do something, what is merely narrated or described can never function in a normative way” (p. 97, first edition). No one, for instance, would advocate following Jephthah’s tragic example in Judges 11:29ff. The question for us is whether or not Scripture explicitly tells us that we must copy the patterns for church practice described in the New Testament.
Holding to Apostolic Tradition is Logical
In 1 Corinthians 4:14-17, we read that Paul planned to send Timothy to Corinth . Paul wanted Timothy to remind the Corinthians of his way of life so that they could imitate him. The immediate context concerns Paul’s faithfulness in service and his humility as an apostle. Paul wrote, “I urge you to imitate me. For this reason I am sending to you Timothy, my son whom I love, who is faithful in the Lord. He will remind you of my way of life in Christ Jesus, which agrees with what I teach everywhere in every church.”
Notice the obvious uniformity of practice that is reflected by Paul’s words. His way of life in Christ was consistent with what he taught everywhere, in every church. There was integrity. There was a uniformity of practice that grew out of Paul’s teachings. His belief determined his behavior. His doctrine naturally determined his duty. In similar fashion, the apostles’ beliefs about the function of the church would surely have affected the way they organized churches (form follows function). Though the direct import of 1 Corinthians 4 is far afield from church practice, to also imitate the apostles’ ways regarding church life would be a wise choice for any fellowship.
If anyone truly understood the purpose of the church, surely the original apostles did. They were hand picked and hand trained by Jesus over a three year period. Then, our Lord appeared to them over a forty day period after His resurrection (Ac 1:3). Jesus also sent the Holy Spirit to teach them things He had not taught them before (Jn 14-16). Thus, whatever Jesus taught His apostles about the church was naturally reflected in the way they subsequently set up and organized churches.
In Titus 1:5, a passage that does deal directly with church practice, Paul wrote, “The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished.” Titus 1 concerns the appointment of qualified elders in every city. It is evident from this Scriptural passage that the apostles did indeed have a definite way they wanted certain things done regarding church. It was not left up to each individual assembly to find its own way of doing things. There was obviously some kind of order, pattern, or tradition that was followed in organizing the churches. Similarly, in 1 Corinthians 11:34 (a passage about the practice of the Lord’s Supper, another church life topic), Paul wrote, “The rest I will set in order when I come” (KJV, italics mine).
Southern Baptist theologian J. L. Dagg astutely wrote in 1858 that the apostles “have taught us by example how to organize and govern churches. We have no right to reject their instruction and captiously insist that nothing but positive command shall bind us. Instead of choosing to walk in a way of our own devising, we should take pleasure to walk in the footsteps of those holy men from whom we have received the word of life . . . respect for the Spirit by which they were led should induce us to prefer their modes of organization and government to such as our inferior wisdom might suggest” (Manual of Church Order, p. 84-86).
Holding to Apostolic Tradition is Praiseworthy
In 1 Corinthians 10:31-11:1, Paul again urged the Corinthians, “Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.” The immediate context concerned seeking the good of others so as to glorify God and bring them to salvation ( 10:31 - 11:1). The word “follow” (1Co 11:1) is from mimatai, the basis for “mimic.” Paul wanted the Corinthian believers imitate him in that regard. Apparently they were already doing well in imitating him in other matters, since Paul stated in the very next verse, “I praise you because you remember me in everything, and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you” (11:2, NASV).
What is a tradition? The regular Greek word for “teaching” is didaskalia (the basis for “didactic”), but significantly that is not the word used here. Instead, paradosis (tradition) is used. In his commentary on 1 Corinthians, Gordon Fee pointed out that although the Greek word for tradition, paradosis, was a technical term in Judaism for oral transmission of religious instruction, in this context in almost certainly does not refer to teaching, but rather to religious traditions regarding worship (New International Commentary on the New Testament, p. 499). A tradition is usually thought of as a custom or a certain way of doing things. It is an inherited pattern of thought or action. A popular definition might be, “things people do on a regular basis.” This same Greek word (in verb from) is used in 1 Corinthians 11:23 in regard to the practice of the Lord’s Supper (that it was passed on) . The point of a tradition is that it is something (usually a practice, such as the Lord’s Supper) that is passed on. Here in 1 Corinthians we see an apostle praising a church for holding to his traditions.
Consider the word “everything” as Paul used it in 1 Corinthians 11:2. It means “all that exists,” or at least, “all that pertains to the subject.” When Paul wrote “everything” (1Co 11:2), what subjects did he have in mind? His use of the word “everything” certainly suggests that Paul’s intended application was larger than just the exhortation found in 1 Corinthians 10:31-11:1 (evangelism). Might “everything” also include church order? Indeed it did. Paul’s praise in 11:2 signals the beginning of a new topic:: head coverings (11:3-16). This new subject is clearly in the realm of church order (propriety in worship).
What do the words “just as” (11:2) indicate about the extent of Corinthian compliance with Paul’s traditions? They obviously adhered to every iota; it was sort of a photocopy effect! They were not willy-nilly about it. Paul praised them for holding to his traditions “just as” he passed them on to them. The apostles evidently designed for the churches to precisely mimic at least some of the traditions they established (here, head coverings). Yet since the word “traditions” (11:2) occurs in the plural, Paul apparently had in mind more than the one tradition of head coverings (Fee, p. 500). Should we shut up our observance to this one tradition only, or should we follow all the patterns for church organization that can be observed exclusively on the pages of the New Testament?
Holding to Apostolic Tradition is to be Universal
Paul quieted those inclined to be contentious about head coverings by making an appeal to the universal practice of all the other churches: “If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice — nor do the churches of God” (1Co 11:16 ).This final statement was designed to win over the contentious people and settle any argument. Head coverings are beyond the scope of this chapter. The point is that Paul expected all the churches to be doing the same thing. Just to realize that one was different was argument enough to silence opposition. Obviously, prior emphasis had been given to certain practices that were supposed to be done the same way, everywhere. Thus, 1 Corinthians 11:16 indicates a uniformity of practice in all New Testament churches.
In 1 Corinthians 14:33b-34, Paul mentioned something else that was to be true universally:“As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches.”Regardless of the correct application of this verse, notice how Paul again appealed to a universal pattern that existed in all the churches as a basis for obedience.
Finally, note how Paul chided the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 14:36, “Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached?” The obvious answer to both questions is no. This further indicates a uniformity of practice among New Testament churches. In some respect the Corinthians were doing something differently from what all the other churches were doing. Evidently all the churches were expected to follow the same patterns in their church meetings. These two questions were designed to pull the Corinthians back into line. Holding to apostolic tradition (New Testament church patterns) was to be universal in the first century and, we argue, today as well.
Jim Elliot, missionary martyr, wrote, “The pivot point hangs on whether or not God has revealed a universal pattern for the church in the New Testament. If He has not, then anything will do so long as it works. But I am convinced that nothing so dear to the heart of Christ as His Bride should be left without explicit instructions as to her corporate conduct. I am further convinced that the 20th century has in no way simulated this pattern in its method of ‘churching’ a community . . . it is incumbent upon me, if God has a pattern for the church, to find and establish that pattern, at all costs” (Shadow of The Almighty: Life and Testimony of Jim Elliot).
Preaching or Mutual Exhortation?
by Kevin Craig
The "sermon" is one of the most fixed and expected elements in modern church services. Most people would not feel that they had experienced "church" unless they heard a sermon. Is it wrong to ask some basic questions? Is the "sermon" concept, as it is fixed in tradition, found in the New Testament? Just where did the idea of having a "sermon" in Christian gatherings originate? My study leads me to conclude that the "sermon" concept comes, not from the N.T., but from Greek culture. If this be so, then there are a number of implications that we must think through.
"Preaching" is a Biblical term more akin to "evangelism," or the announcement of the Good News in Christ. Entrance into the Kingdom by people is the goal of evangelism or "preaching," while the building up of those in the kingdom is better called "teaching" (although in a few N.T. passages this distinction is not hard and fast; cf. Hans-Joachim Wiehler. "Preaching in the Church?" Searching Together, Autumn 1982, pp 35-38).
While the N.T. refers to those specifically gifted as "teachers," the duty to teach/exhort falls upon all believers (Rom. 15:14; Heb. 5:12). Teaching is a very broad term in the N.T. It is connected to singing, to the verbal application of the Word to the specific problems of believers, to exhortation to stand against the pressures of the world, and to rebuking wrong doing.
The ministry of the Word, therefore, is given to the entire congregation, while it is recognized at the same time that Christ gives "teachers" to the body of Christ. It must be underscored that to question the "sermon" concept must not be equated with questioning the need for teaching in the church. The N.T. nowhere equates teaching in the church with one man's sermon and neither should we. The issue at stake is this: is the "sermon" concept tradition or truth?
Our contention is that the "sermon" concept has contributed to the malfunction of the church in a number of ways. Believers feel incapable of handling the Word because the impression is given that only "educated professionals" can undertake such things as counseling. In many ways, the biggest roadblock to a functioning priesthood of believers is the sermon. If its origin is to be found in the world of Greek and Roman philosophy, then it should not surprise us that certain problems surround its practice in the church.
. . . The "sermon" as it has come down to us via tradition, has roots that are very suspect. The N.T. knows nothing of the necessity of a "sermon" as we conceive of it. And yet most of us feel uneasy about dismissing it for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that it is ingrained in our practice.
Are we selective in our agenda for reformation? We are often ready to disown the effects of "paganism" in some of our practices. But what will we do when we see clearly the influence of alien forces upon something we have valued dearly for years?
What about our confession, sola scriptura? We want to "go by the Bible." But the Bible will not sustain the "sermon" concept. Just think of all the practices that rest upon the centrality of the sermon. If the sermon is not the necessity that tradition has dictated, then we face the reevaluation of a whole lot of what we do.
We need teaching in the church. Some, not all, are going to be recognized as "teachers" in the assembly. Teaching gifts are given by Christ to the church so that the parts may mature (Eph. 4:11-12). But there can be no justification for dependence upon a class of professional orators. All are to study, to exhort, and to teach. Bible study should be more of a congregational undertaking.
Most people probably feel as though a tremendous void results if teaching in the church does not focus on a sermon. Perhaps this helps us to see how entrapped we are in tradition. We have become almost helplessly dependent upon it. But if teaching in the church is not dependent upon the traditional sermonic form, we can be assured that the Spirit will guide us into forms that will fulfill the mind of Christ for the building up of the body. (Eph. 4:11-16).
. . . In various passages of Scripture we find the duty of mutual exhortation either referred to, or expressly enjoined.
In the epistle to the Romans, the apostle writes, "I myself am persuaded of you, my brethren, that ye also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able to admonish one another. Nevertheless, brethren, I have written the more boldly unto you," Rom. 15: 14. 15. This epistle is addressed, not to the elders, but to the saints at Rome, to whom it was to be read when assembled together. Col. 4:16.
It is alleged, that this passage seems to refer to the exercise of miraculous gifts, but no proof is adduced to show that this is actually the case. It is said indeed, that "it will seem very improbable, if we compare the language of the 14th verse with that of 1 Cor. 1.4.7. where gifts are certainly spoken of." But there is a very slight resemblance between the passages. In the latter, the apostle probably refers to miraculous gift, whereby the testimony of Christ was confirmed in the brethren at Corinth. In the former passage, he merely speaks of their being filled with all goodness, able also to admonish each other. Doubtless here is a gift, but such a gift as is common to the churches in our days. Surely then it is a fair conclusion from this passage, that where the members of a church are able to admonish each other, they should not neglect it.
The above explanation of the passage not proving satisfactory, Mr. Aikman observes, that "all such addresses evidently refer to the discharge of peculiar duties, are, by their very language, limited to the persons upon whom the duties are binding." True; but this is just the question, and we affirm that the peculiar duty of exhortation is binding on the brethren who are qualified for it; and in proof of this, we refer to this passage where the saints are addressed as a collective body, and where the apostle saith, "I myself also am persuaded of you, my brethren, that ye also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish ONE ANOTHER." Does not the apostle here sanction the mutual exhortations of the brethren? Can words more strongly imply, that those 'who are able, ought to admonish each other in the church?'
Having reminded the church at Thessalonica of the happiness of their brethren who had fallen asleep in Christ, the apostle concludes, "Wherefore comfort, or exhort, one another, with these words," I Thess. 4:18. In the same epistle, he says, "Wherefore comfort, or exhort yourselves together, and edify one another, as also ye do." This is evidently addressed to the whole church; for it is added," And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labor among you in the Lord, and admonish you; and to esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake, and be at peace among yourselves," 1 Thess. 5:11,13. That the brethren are here expressly commanded to exhort and edify one another, and that their practice in doing so is referred to, is evident. Some have alleged that these passages exclusively refer to the private conversations of the brethren, when they certainly ought also to promote each other's edification to the utmost of their power. But this is a mistake. In order to understand these and various other precepts, we must observe, that the epistles are not addressed to individuals, but to collective bodies, and consequently such precepts must be understood as applicable to them in every situation, especially when assembled together.
In all the passages then in which the brethren are addressed as a body, and commanded to exercise their gifts for mutual edification, we have an injunction for them to exhort each other when assembled together. If, on the other hand, it could be shown, that the exhortation of the brethren refers merely to private conversations, the same arguments would prove, that the admonition of the elders is also to be thus understood; for no positive example can be adduced from Scripture of the public teaching of an uninspired elder. God indeed bestowed miraculous gifts both on elders and other members of some churches; but if this be no reason why men may not labor in the word and doctrine, although destitute of these gifts, it can never prove that the brethren ought not now to exhort.
As to 1 Thess. 4:18. it has been said, that it "seems immediately to refer to what Paul had just been saying about those who sleep in Jesus. Having given the most consolatory information concerning them, he adds, " Wherefore, comfort (or exhort) one another with these WORDS." We are then asked, Is this the institution of an ordinance? If the remarks which have been already made on the apostolic mode of teaching be attended to, perhaps this question may not appear convincing.
The other passage, 1 Thess. 5:11. is considered as little more than a repetition of the former. Ye are told, "This practice does not appear to be the giving of public exhortation by the brethren at large. Like the former, it was what the women were called to no less than the men, and public exhortation seems to be alluded to in the very next verse, as the distinct employment of those gifted brethren who then conducted all the exercises of public worship. This is a strong assertion, but it requires proof. It never has, and never can be shown, that brethren possessed of miraculous gifts conducted all the exercises of public worship. If this were the case, how is it that miraculous gifts were not declared to Timothy and Titus to be an essential requirement for those who were to shepherd in the churches, and lead the exercises of public worship? And what warrant have we for conducting the exercises of public worship, while destitute of these miraculous gifts?
Nothing appears more plain than that in I Thess. 5:11,12 the brethren are first commanded to comfort and edify one another, as they really did, and then to respect those who are over them; which is a plain proof that public exhortation was not confined to the elders. To set aside this argument, which seems conclusive, a supposition is made "The General of an army in passing along the lines, addresses one of the regiments. "I trust, he says, that this regiment will acquire immortal honor in the field of battle, and that it will be especially distinguished by strict discipline and attention to the orders of its officers." But are the cases parallel? To be so, the General should say, "Soldiers, support each other, and encourage each other, as I see you are doing; and be particularly attentive to the orders of your officers." Should this speech be reported to a person who was a stranger to the art of war, he would naturally conclude, that the officers were not the only persons who were to be actively engaged, and at the same time he would see, that they were to receive particular respect so when we read the apostle's injunction to the Thessalonians, we are clearly taught, that the brethren should at once exhort each other in the church, and highly esteem their elders.
But though the illustration is defective, it deserves consideration. It is a full admission, that the brethren are addressed in their collective, and not in their individual capacity; and consequently our brother gives up the idea of the passage referring to their private conversations.
This passage is peculiarly difficult on the plan of those who deny mutual exhortation; but Mr. Aikman attempts to explain it by giving a translation, which although differing in words, perfectly accords in meaning with our own, and then observing, that "taking the passage as it stands in our translation, it will never prove, in opposition to the plain account 1 Cor. 14 of the manner in which the public exercises of the churches, were conducted, that men destitute of spiritual gifts then engaged in the work of public teaching." Enough, I hope, has been said on I Cor. 14 to prove, that those who could speak to edification and exhortation and comfort, might speak in the church, however they came by the gifts; and therefore, there is no shadow of opposition here. It is strange, that any one would suppose that 1 Cor. 14 which, as they contend, refers to miraculous gifts, a subject with which we are wholly unacquainted, is more plain than such passages as 1 Thess. 4:18: 5:13 and Heb. 10:24, 25.
It is also thought, that when the apostle addresses the church as exhorting or teaching, he judged it altogether unnecessary to refer to those members of the body on whom this office was binding, seeing these were subjects on which there was no necessity of explanation, as every one perfectly understands when we speak of the body seeing or feeling, that it is not the hand that sees, nor the eye that feels. I will so far agree with this. The precept to teach and admonish each other, is only intended for those who are in some measure qualified. No person supposes that all are even occasional teachers. But surely if the apostle had intended that 1700 years after he wrote, none but the elders should speak in the church, he would have written in a different manner. In his days those who had gifts taught their brethren, although not called to be stated teachers. Granting that these were miraculous gifts, to which we have no pretensions, might we not naturally think, that if our elders, who are as destitute of miraculous gifts as ourselves, may teach, the brethren who are qualified for it may exhort; for surely these brethren are not more inferior to the gifted brethren at Corinth, than our elders are to primitive elders possessed of miraculous gifts.
In writing to the Hebrews, the apostle directs them to "exhort one another daily, while it is called today, lest any of you he hardened through the deceitfulness of sin," Heb. 3:13. Can anyone suppose, that this precept does not include the duties of that day, when the brethren are commanded to assemble together for the purpose of instruction and edification. Again, chap. 10:24, 25. "And let us consider one another; to provoke unto love and unto good works; not forsaking the assembling of yourselves together, as the manner of some is, but exhorting one another." Nothing surely can be more evident, than that mutual exhortation formed a part of their exercises when they assembled together.
Upon this passage Mr. Ewing observes, "Many understand the exhorting here recommended, to be mutual encouragement, given by individual Christians to one another, to assemble statedly for the observance of ordinances, notwithstanding the persecution which deterred some from the practice. Thus, Newcome's translation is, "Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting to it; and so much the more," etc. Surely this is most arbitrary and unnatural. It is not properly a translation, but an interpretation. The obvious meaning of the apostle's words is, that they should assemble, and when assembled should exhort one another. Of this Mr. E. seems sensible; for he proceeds - But granting that Heb. 10:24,25 does speak of the exercises of their assembled churches," (indeed it can hardly with decency be denied); "it cannot be understood as referring to a particular ordinance, far less as fixing the manner in which a particular ordinance should be observed, because the word "exhorting" is, in the acceptation supposed, a general term for all the exercises of social worship taken together. But by whom is this supposed? I understand exhorting each other to refer simply to that one ordinance of mutual exhortation, just as I suppose that I Cor. 11:20-31 refers exclusively to the Lord's supper. Though the apostle mentions their assembling, there was surely no impropriety in referring to one particular duty then incumbent upon them.
As to the Hebrews having persons who had shepherds overseeing them, watching for their souls, and speaking to them the word of God, and that these also exhorted them, it is freely granted, but it in nowise affects the passage where the brethren are commanded to exhort each other when they assembled.
But it is said, The term exhort, Heb. 10:24,25 is used to "include the whole of public teaching. To apply it to the spontaneous teaching of any private church members whom the churches have never called nor proved as their teachers, is certainly greatly to misapply the language of the Scriptures." This is merely begging the question, that none are to exhort in the church, but those who have been called and proved. No evidence of this, however, is attempted. We know the elders were teachers in a church. That they are to wait on teaching is undoubted; but there are others to wait on exhortation, Rom. 7:6; and in short every man is to occupy the gift he possesses, Rom. 12:6, 1 Pet. 4:10.
In Hebrews 10: 24,25, we have an express precept addressed, not to the elders, but to the brethren, to exhort one another. Indeed less is said in the New Testament of the elders, and more of the teaching of the brethren, than might have been expected, probably because the Lord knew, that they would endeavor to comfort the edification of the church to their own teaching.
Having thus examined the objections brought against these plain and obvious passages, I would just observe, that after all the pains and ingenuity employed on them, no explanation has been given which seems satisfactory, even to those who oppose exhortation. Our brethren not only contradict each other, but themselves. The various and opposite explanations given of the passages plainly show the difficulty under which they labored. It was the remark of an eminent physician, that formerly there were many cures for the ague, but since the use of bark there was but one. In like manner, there is one, and but one interpretation which will suit Rom. 15:14,15. 1 Thess. 4:18: 5:11; Heb. 3:13, 10:24, 25 and that is, that the brethren are called upon mutually to exhort each other.
In writing to the Colossians, the apostle says, "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, in all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your hearts to the Lord," Col. 3:16. Here is a general exhortation to the brethren to teach and admonish each other; they are not directed to seek for miraculous gifts in order to do this, nor do we hear that they possessed any; but to let the word of Christ dwell in them richly, which is certainly equally incumbent on us, and equally in our power.
There are various other proofs that the brethren were in the habit of teaching in the first churches, and we are sure they were not always inspired, because they sometimes taught false doctrines. Thus, Acts 15:1.2. "Certain men came down from Judea to Antioch, and taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation in with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other with them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question." Here we find uninspired persons, not only teaching in the presence of the apostles, but disputing with them. Will our brethren affirm that they only taught in private? The contrary appears evidently to have been the case; and nothing can be more arbitrary than to affirm, that the teaching of Judas and Silas, verse 32, was public, and at the same time to maintain, that the other was private. The apostle, I Tim 1:6,7 gives directions as to some false teachers; "From which, says he, some having swerved, have turned aside unto vain jangling, desiring to he teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm." This does not seem to refer to elders or other servants, who were to be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers. It is most natural to understand it of improper persons who attempted to teach in the churches. Again, says he, speaking of the same characters, "There are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision; whose mouths must he stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not for filthy lucre's sake." Let it not be said, this was private teaching. What introduced so much confusion into the churches but the Judaizers teaching false doctrines? Did the false teachers at Corinth not teach in public? Those false apostles who had acquired so much influence in the church. It cannot be doubted. Here then are instances which cannot be set aside, of persons who had not the Spirit teaching in the primitive churches and this fact subverts the foundation of the theory of those who oppose exhortation on the ground that we have no instance of an uninspired person teaching.
The principal abuses in the first churches evidently arose from false teachers; see epistles to Corinthians and Galatians. The apostle labors to check the abuse, yet he does not forbid the thing. Our brethren apprehend, that abuses will arise from exhortation, and to prevent these they would supersede the thing itself.
Nothing can be more express than I Pet 4:10,11. "As every man hath received a gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God." This speaking evidently refers to speaking in the church; and it cannot be considered as addressed exclusively to elders. Whoever is possessed of a gift is to use it, and none will maintain, that there are not in the present times persons capable of edifying their brethren. . . . If any member possesses gifts for being useful to his brethren, he is commanded to use them, whether the gift be that of speaking in the church, or any other.
On the whole, it appears, that the evidence for mutual exhortation by the brethren is clear and conclusive. We have seen, 1st, That it was practiced in the Jewish synagogues. 2dly, That it springs from the very nature of a church of Christ, and the relation in which the members stand one to another, and, 3rdly, from the commandment to each member to use the gift he has received. 4thly, various passages of Scripture have been brought forward, in which mutual exhortation is either referred to, or expressly enjoined, together with directions to prevent the abuse of this ordinance. Let this evidence be impartially weighed, and the remarks made upon the apostolic mode of teaching at the same time kept in view and let believers judge with what consistency they can reject this, while they attend to other ordinances for which it is impossible to bring stronger proof.
The "sermon" is one of the most fixed and expected elements in modern church services. Most people would not feel that they had experienced "church" unless they heard a sermon. Is it wrong to ask some basic questions? Is the "sermon" concept, as it is fixed in tradition, found in the New Testament? Just where did the idea of having a "sermon" in Christian gatherings originate? My study leads me to conclude that the "sermon" concept comes, not from the N.T., but from Greek culture. If this be so, then there are a number of implications that we must think through.
"Preaching" is a Biblical term more akin to "evangelism," or the announcement of the Good News in Christ. Entrance into the Kingdom by people is the goal of evangelism or "preaching," while the building up of those in the kingdom is better called "teaching" (although in a few N.T. passages this distinction is not hard and fast; cf. Hans-Joachim Wiehler. "Preaching in the Church?" Searching Together, Autumn 1982, pp 35-38).
While the N.T. refers to those specifically gifted as "teachers," the duty to teach/exhort falls upon all believers (Rom. 15:14; Heb. 5:12). Teaching is a very broad term in the N.T. It is connected to singing, to the verbal application of the Word to the specific problems of believers, to exhortation to stand against the pressures of the world, and to rebuking wrong doing.
The ministry of the Word, therefore, is given to the entire congregation, while it is recognized at the same time that Christ gives "teachers" to the body of Christ. It must be underscored that to question the "sermon" concept must not be equated with questioning the need for teaching in the church. The N.T. nowhere equates teaching in the church with one man's sermon and neither should we. The issue at stake is this: is the "sermon" concept tradition or truth?
Our contention is that the "sermon" concept has contributed to the malfunction of the church in a number of ways. Believers feel incapable of handling the Word because the impression is given that only "educated professionals" can undertake such things as counseling. In many ways, the biggest roadblock to a functioning priesthood of believers is the sermon. If its origin is to be found in the world of Greek and Roman philosophy, then it should not surprise us that certain problems surround its practice in the church.
. . . The "sermon" as it has come down to us via tradition, has roots that are very suspect. The N.T. knows nothing of the necessity of a "sermon" as we conceive of it. And yet most of us feel uneasy about dismissing it for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that it is ingrained in our practice.
Are we selective in our agenda for reformation? We are often ready to disown the effects of "paganism" in some of our practices. But what will we do when we see clearly the influence of alien forces upon something we have valued dearly for years?
What about our confession, sola scriptura? We want to "go by the Bible." But the Bible will not sustain the "sermon" concept. Just think of all the practices that rest upon the centrality of the sermon. If the sermon is not the necessity that tradition has dictated, then we face the reevaluation of a whole lot of what we do.
We need teaching in the church. Some, not all, are going to be recognized as "teachers" in the assembly. Teaching gifts are given by Christ to the church so that the parts may mature (Eph. 4:11-12). But there can be no justification for dependence upon a class of professional orators. All are to study, to exhort, and to teach. Bible study should be more of a congregational undertaking.
Most people probably feel as though a tremendous void results if teaching in the church does not focus on a sermon. Perhaps this helps us to see how entrapped we are in tradition. We have become almost helplessly dependent upon it. But if teaching in the church is not dependent upon the traditional sermonic form, we can be assured that the Spirit will guide us into forms that will fulfill the mind of Christ for the building up of the body. (Eph. 4:11-16).
. . . In various passages of Scripture we find the duty of mutual exhortation either referred to, or expressly enjoined.
In the epistle to the Romans, the apostle writes, "I myself am persuaded of you, my brethren, that ye also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able to admonish one another. Nevertheless, brethren, I have written the more boldly unto you," Rom. 15: 14. 15. This epistle is addressed, not to the elders, but to the saints at Rome, to whom it was to be read when assembled together. Col. 4:16.
It is alleged, that this passage seems to refer to the exercise of miraculous gifts, but no proof is adduced to show that this is actually the case. It is said indeed, that "it will seem very improbable, if we compare the language of the 14th verse with that of 1 Cor. 1.4.7. where gifts are certainly spoken of." But there is a very slight resemblance between the passages. In the latter, the apostle probably refers to miraculous gift, whereby the testimony of Christ was confirmed in the brethren at Corinth. In the former passage, he merely speaks of their being filled with all goodness, able also to admonish each other. Doubtless here is a gift, but such a gift as is common to the churches in our days. Surely then it is a fair conclusion from this passage, that where the members of a church are able to admonish each other, they should not neglect it.
The above explanation of the passage not proving satisfactory, Mr. Aikman observes, that "all such addresses evidently refer to the discharge of peculiar duties, are, by their very language, limited to the persons upon whom the duties are binding." True; but this is just the question, and we affirm that the peculiar duty of exhortation is binding on the brethren who are qualified for it; and in proof of this, we refer to this passage where the saints are addressed as a collective body, and where the apostle saith, "I myself also am persuaded of you, my brethren, that ye also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish ONE ANOTHER." Does not the apostle here sanction the mutual exhortations of the brethren? Can words more strongly imply, that those 'who are able, ought to admonish each other in the church?'
Having reminded the church at Thessalonica of the happiness of their brethren who had fallen asleep in Christ, the apostle concludes, "Wherefore comfort, or exhort, one another, with these words," I Thess. 4:18. In the same epistle, he says, "Wherefore comfort, or exhort yourselves together, and edify one another, as also ye do." This is evidently addressed to the whole church; for it is added," And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labor among you in the Lord, and admonish you; and to esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake, and be at peace among yourselves," 1 Thess. 5:11,13. That the brethren are here expressly commanded to exhort and edify one another, and that their practice in doing so is referred to, is evident. Some have alleged that these passages exclusively refer to the private conversations of the brethren, when they certainly ought also to promote each other's edification to the utmost of their power. But this is a mistake. In order to understand these and various other precepts, we must observe, that the epistles are not addressed to individuals, but to collective bodies, and consequently such precepts must be understood as applicable to them in every situation, especially when assembled together.
In all the passages then in which the brethren are addressed as a body, and commanded to exercise their gifts for mutual edification, we have an injunction for them to exhort each other when assembled together. If, on the other hand, it could be shown, that the exhortation of the brethren refers merely to private conversations, the same arguments would prove, that the admonition of the elders is also to be thus understood; for no positive example can be adduced from Scripture of the public teaching of an uninspired elder. God indeed bestowed miraculous gifts both on elders and other members of some churches; but if this be no reason why men may not labor in the word and doctrine, although destitute of these gifts, it can never prove that the brethren ought not now to exhort.
As to 1 Thess. 4:18. it has been said, that it "seems immediately to refer to what Paul had just been saying about those who sleep in Jesus. Having given the most consolatory information concerning them, he adds, " Wherefore, comfort (or exhort) one another with these WORDS." We are then asked, Is this the institution of an ordinance? If the remarks which have been already made on the apostolic mode of teaching be attended to, perhaps this question may not appear convincing.
The other passage, 1 Thess. 5:11. is considered as little more than a repetition of the former. Ye are told, "This practice does not appear to be the giving of public exhortation by the brethren at large. Like the former, it was what the women were called to no less than the men, and public exhortation seems to be alluded to in the very next verse, as the distinct employment of those gifted brethren who then conducted all the exercises of public worship. This is a strong assertion, but it requires proof. It never has, and never can be shown, that brethren possessed of miraculous gifts conducted all the exercises of public worship. If this were the case, how is it that miraculous gifts were not declared to Timothy and Titus to be an essential requirement for those who were to shepherd in the churches, and lead the exercises of public worship? And what warrant have we for conducting the exercises of public worship, while destitute of these miraculous gifts?
Nothing appears more plain than that in I Thess. 5:11,12 the brethren are first commanded to comfort and edify one another, as they really did, and then to respect those who are over them; which is a plain proof that public exhortation was not confined to the elders. To set aside this argument, which seems conclusive, a supposition is made "The General of an army in passing along the lines, addresses one of the regiments. "I trust, he says, that this regiment will acquire immortal honor in the field of battle, and that it will be especially distinguished by strict discipline and attention to the orders of its officers." But are the cases parallel? To be so, the General should say, "Soldiers, support each other, and encourage each other, as I see you are doing; and be particularly attentive to the orders of your officers." Should this speech be reported to a person who was a stranger to the art of war, he would naturally conclude, that the officers were not the only persons who were to be actively engaged, and at the same time he would see, that they were to receive particular respect so when we read the apostle's injunction to the Thessalonians, we are clearly taught, that the brethren should at once exhort each other in the church, and highly esteem their elders.
But though the illustration is defective, it deserves consideration. It is a full admission, that the brethren are addressed in their collective, and not in their individual capacity; and consequently our brother gives up the idea of the passage referring to their private conversations.
This passage is peculiarly difficult on the plan of those who deny mutual exhortation; but Mr. Aikman attempts to explain it by giving a translation, which although differing in words, perfectly accords in meaning with our own, and then observing, that "taking the passage as it stands in our translation, it will never prove, in opposition to the plain account 1 Cor. 14 of the manner in which the public exercises of the churches, were conducted, that men destitute of spiritual gifts then engaged in the work of public teaching." Enough, I hope, has been said on I Cor. 14 to prove, that those who could speak to edification and exhortation and comfort, might speak in the church, however they came by the gifts; and therefore, there is no shadow of opposition here. It is strange, that any one would suppose that 1 Cor. 14 which, as they contend, refers to miraculous gifts, a subject with which we are wholly unacquainted, is more plain than such passages as 1 Thess. 4:18: 5:13 and Heb. 10:24, 25.
It is also thought, that when the apostle addresses the church as exhorting or teaching, he judged it altogether unnecessary to refer to those members of the body on whom this office was binding, seeing these were subjects on which there was no necessity of explanation, as every one perfectly understands when we speak of the body seeing or feeling, that it is not the hand that sees, nor the eye that feels. I will so far agree with this. The precept to teach and admonish each other, is only intended for those who are in some measure qualified. No person supposes that all are even occasional teachers. But surely if the apostle had intended that 1700 years after he wrote, none but the elders should speak in the church, he would have written in a different manner. In his days those who had gifts taught their brethren, although not called to be stated teachers. Granting that these were miraculous gifts, to which we have no pretensions, might we not naturally think, that if our elders, who are as destitute of miraculous gifts as ourselves, may teach, the brethren who are qualified for it may exhort; for surely these brethren are not more inferior to the gifted brethren at Corinth, than our elders are to primitive elders possessed of miraculous gifts.
In writing to the Hebrews, the apostle directs them to "exhort one another daily, while it is called today, lest any of you he hardened through the deceitfulness of sin," Heb. 3:13. Can anyone suppose, that this precept does not include the duties of that day, when the brethren are commanded to assemble together for the purpose of instruction and edification. Again, chap. 10:24, 25. "And let us consider one another; to provoke unto love and unto good works; not forsaking the assembling of yourselves together, as the manner of some is, but exhorting one another." Nothing surely can be more evident, than that mutual exhortation formed a part of their exercises when they assembled together.
Upon this passage Mr. Ewing observes, "Many understand the exhorting here recommended, to be mutual encouragement, given by individual Christians to one another, to assemble statedly for the observance of ordinances, notwithstanding the persecution which deterred some from the practice. Thus, Newcome's translation is, "Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting to it; and so much the more," etc. Surely this is most arbitrary and unnatural. It is not properly a translation, but an interpretation. The obvious meaning of the apostle's words is, that they should assemble, and when assembled should exhort one another. Of this Mr. E. seems sensible; for he proceeds - But granting that Heb. 10:24,25 does speak of the exercises of their assembled churches," (indeed it can hardly with decency be denied); "it cannot be understood as referring to a particular ordinance, far less as fixing the manner in which a particular ordinance should be observed, because the word "exhorting" is, in the acceptation supposed, a general term for all the exercises of social worship taken together. But by whom is this supposed? I understand exhorting each other to refer simply to that one ordinance of mutual exhortation, just as I suppose that I Cor. 11:20-31 refers exclusively to the Lord's supper. Though the apostle mentions their assembling, there was surely no impropriety in referring to one particular duty then incumbent upon them.
As to the Hebrews having persons who had shepherds overseeing them, watching for their souls, and speaking to them the word of God, and that these also exhorted them, it is freely granted, but it in nowise affects the passage where the brethren are commanded to exhort each other when they assembled.
But it is said, The term exhort, Heb. 10:24,25 is used to "include the whole of public teaching. To apply it to the spontaneous teaching of any private church members whom the churches have never called nor proved as their teachers, is certainly greatly to misapply the language of the Scriptures." This is merely begging the question, that none are to exhort in the church, but those who have been called and proved. No evidence of this, however, is attempted. We know the elders were teachers in a church. That they are to wait on teaching is undoubted; but there are others to wait on exhortation, Rom. 7:6; and in short every man is to occupy the gift he possesses, Rom. 12:6, 1 Pet. 4:10.
In Hebrews 10: 24,25, we have an express precept addressed, not to the elders, but to the brethren, to exhort one another. Indeed less is said in the New Testament of the elders, and more of the teaching of the brethren, than might have been expected, probably because the Lord knew, that they would endeavor to comfort the edification of the church to their own teaching.
Having thus examined the objections brought against these plain and obvious passages, I would just observe, that after all the pains and ingenuity employed on them, no explanation has been given which seems satisfactory, even to those who oppose exhortation. Our brethren not only contradict each other, but themselves. The various and opposite explanations given of the passages plainly show the difficulty under which they labored. It was the remark of an eminent physician, that formerly there were many cures for the ague, but since the use of bark there was but one. In like manner, there is one, and but one interpretation which will suit Rom. 15:14,15. 1 Thess. 4:18: 5:11; Heb. 3:13, 10:24, 25 and that is, that the brethren are called upon mutually to exhort each other.
In writing to the Colossians, the apostle says, "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, in all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your hearts to the Lord," Col. 3:16. Here is a general exhortation to the brethren to teach and admonish each other; they are not directed to seek for miraculous gifts in order to do this, nor do we hear that they possessed any; but to let the word of Christ dwell in them richly, which is certainly equally incumbent on us, and equally in our power.
There are various other proofs that the brethren were in the habit of teaching in the first churches, and we are sure they were not always inspired, because they sometimes taught false doctrines. Thus, Acts 15:1.2. "Certain men came down from Judea to Antioch, and taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation in with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other with them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question." Here we find uninspired persons, not only teaching in the presence of the apostles, but disputing with them. Will our brethren affirm that they only taught in private? The contrary appears evidently to have been the case; and nothing can be more arbitrary than to affirm, that the teaching of Judas and Silas, verse 32, was public, and at the same time to maintain, that the other was private. The apostle, I Tim 1:6,7 gives directions as to some false teachers; "From which, says he, some having swerved, have turned aside unto vain jangling, desiring to he teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm." This does not seem to refer to elders or other servants, who were to be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers. It is most natural to understand it of improper persons who attempted to teach in the churches. Again, says he, speaking of the same characters, "There are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision; whose mouths must he stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not for filthy lucre's sake." Let it not be said, this was private teaching. What introduced so much confusion into the churches but the Judaizers teaching false doctrines? Did the false teachers at Corinth not teach in public? Those false apostles who had acquired so much influence in the church. It cannot be doubted. Here then are instances which cannot be set aside, of persons who had not the Spirit teaching in the primitive churches and this fact subverts the foundation of the theory of those who oppose exhortation on the ground that we have no instance of an uninspired person teaching.
The principal abuses in the first churches evidently arose from false teachers; see epistles to Corinthians and Galatians. The apostle labors to check the abuse, yet he does not forbid the thing. Our brethren apprehend, that abuses will arise from exhortation, and to prevent these they would supersede the thing itself.
Nothing can be more express than I Pet 4:10,11. "As every man hath received a gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God." This speaking evidently refers to speaking in the church; and it cannot be considered as addressed exclusively to elders. Whoever is possessed of a gift is to use it, and none will maintain, that there are not in the present times persons capable of edifying their brethren. . . . If any member possesses gifts for being useful to his brethren, he is commanded to use them, whether the gift be that of speaking in the church, or any other.
On the whole, it appears, that the evidence for mutual exhortation by the brethren is clear and conclusive. We have seen, 1st, That it was practiced in the Jewish synagogues. 2dly, That it springs from the very nature of a church of Christ, and the relation in which the members stand one to another, and, 3rdly, from the commandment to each member to use the gift he has received. 4thly, various passages of Scripture have been brought forward, in which mutual exhortation is either referred to, or expressly enjoined, together with directions to prevent the abuse of this ordinance. Let this evidence be impartially weighed, and the remarks made upon the apostolic mode of teaching at the same time kept in view and let believers judge with what consistency they can reject this, while they attend to other ordinances for which it is impossible to bring stronger proof.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Heb. 10:24-25 -- Serious Interaction
Heb. 10:24-25 -- Serious Interaction
In Heb.3:6-14 and 10:24-29 we are faced with the sober reality that there is no place in the Christian profession for slothfulness. In both contexts apostasy is set forth as the alternative for those who neglect the gospel (3:1). But, also, in both places the same mutual duty is given as the God-ordained means of restraining apostasy and maintaining perseverance: “exhort one another daily...lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin (3:13).... not forsaking the assembling [as a church; Greek: episunagogen]... but exhorting [one another] (10:25).” In the process of the saint’s perseverance, then, a mutual responsibility stands as the primary revealed method of abiding in Christ and His house.
I dare say that there are too many professing Christians who have never considered the importance of the ministry of other brethren in their lives. We live in a society where it is “every man for himself,” and the whole idea of mutual dependence is foreign to our thinking. In light of the Heb.3:13 and 10:25 perspective, can we not see why it is important to practice the “one another”/”each of you” ministry in our gatherings as a church?
Heb.10:25, of course, is cited as a basis for people to “come to church.”
It is probably the strongest passage on such a responsibility in the N.T. But what, according to 10:24-25, is to occur in our assembling? Where in 10:25 can you find the idea that we are to come to hear the ministry of one man? We probably assemble together, but do our services allow for the exhorting of one an other? If we are going to employ 10:25 to press the duty of assembling together, must we not also use it as a guide for what transpires in our services? In light of our practice, it appears that we use about half of the verse rightly (“assemble”), but think little about the other half (“exhort” one another).
For example, Thomas Goodwin, in discussing the “communion of saints, which the members of a church ought to have with one another,” states that, indeed, mutual care “is a constant duty, and that we ought to seek all occasions of acting it” (Works, Vol.11, p.355).
However, conceiving of the church gatherings as focusing on the minister and the sermon, and believing that “in private occasional converse, one member may not have opportunity to discourse with another once in seven years,” Goodwin suggested that a separate “fixed meeting” was necessary, where the brethren could “know one another’s cases and experiences” (Works, Vol.11, p.353). “The duty enjoined” in Heb.10:24, he says, “is a duty distinct from assembling together, which follows in the next verse [10:25]” (Works, Vol.11, p.354). Thus, while the N.T. connects mutual ministry and our gatherings as a church, we have in our practice separated them without exegetical basis. Why? Because we have structured our “corporate public worship” around the “pastor,” and thereby relegated any mutual ministry to occasional meetings, perhaps “once a month” (Colin Richards, “Fellowship,” pp.91, 96, 97).
In light of 1 Cor.12:23, 26, 31 and Heb.10:24-25, is it not time that we either acknowledge the discrepancy or justify our practice? The traditional “order of service” appears to be at odds with the “each of you” principle in the N.T. Unfortunately, it ends up focusing on one ministry, and not on the body. To graphically illustrate this, observe the elements in public worship as articulated by the Westminster Divines in 1645:
Everything in this order is done by the “pastor” and other officers, except the “singing of psalms.” This is essentially what we still practice today. Does this practice reflect a sensitivity to the glimpses of church gatherings we see in the N.T., or is it at odds with them? It seems to me that we have made normative that for which there is no Scriptural warrant (emphasis on one man’s ministry), and we have omitted that for which there is ample Scriptural support (emphasis on one another).
~ Jon Zeus
In Heb.3:6-14 and 10:24-29 we are faced with the sober reality that there is no place in the Christian profession for slothfulness. In both contexts apostasy is set forth as the alternative for those who neglect the gospel (3:1). But, also, in both places the same mutual duty is given as the God-ordained means of restraining apostasy and maintaining perseverance: “exhort one another daily...lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin (3:13).... not forsaking the assembling [as a church; Greek: episunagogen]... but exhorting [one another] (10:25).” In the process of the saint’s perseverance, then, a mutual responsibility stands as the primary revealed method of abiding in Christ and His house.
I dare say that there are too many professing Christians who have never considered the importance of the ministry of other brethren in their lives. We live in a society where it is “every man for himself,” and the whole idea of mutual dependence is foreign to our thinking. In light of the Heb.3:13 and 10:25 perspective, can we not see why it is important to practice the “one another”/”each of you” ministry in our gatherings as a church?
Heb.10:25, of course, is cited as a basis for people to “come to church.”
It is probably the strongest passage on such a responsibility in the N.T. But what, according to 10:24-25, is to occur in our assembling? Where in 10:25 can you find the idea that we are to come to hear the ministry of one man? We probably assemble together, but do our services allow for the exhorting of one an other? If we are going to employ 10:25 to press the duty of assembling together, must we not also use it as a guide for what transpires in our services? In light of our practice, it appears that we use about half of the verse rightly (“assemble”), but think little about the other half (“exhort” one another).
For example, Thomas Goodwin, in discussing the “communion of saints, which the members of a church ought to have with one another,” states that, indeed, mutual care “is a constant duty, and that we ought to seek all occasions of acting it” (Works, Vol.11, p.355).
However, conceiving of the church gatherings as focusing on the minister and the sermon, and believing that “in private occasional converse, one member may not have opportunity to discourse with another once in seven years,” Goodwin suggested that a separate “fixed meeting” was necessary, where the brethren could “know one another’s cases and experiences” (Works, Vol.11, p.353). “The duty enjoined” in Heb.10:24, he says, “is a duty distinct from assembling together, which follows in the next verse [10:25]” (Works, Vol.11, p.354). Thus, while the N.T. connects mutual ministry and our gatherings as a church, we have in our practice separated them without exegetical basis. Why? Because we have structured our “corporate public worship” around the “pastor,” and thereby relegated any mutual ministry to occasional meetings, perhaps “once a month” (Colin Richards, “Fellowship,” pp.91, 96, 97).
In light of 1 Cor.12:23, 26, 31 and Heb.10:24-25, is it not time that we either acknowledge the discrepancy or justify our practice? The traditional “order of service” appears to be at odds with the “each of you” principle in the N.T. Unfortunately, it ends up focusing on one ministry, and not on the body. To graphically illustrate this, observe the elements in public worship as articulated by the Westminster Divines in 1645:
The ordinances in a single congregation are, prayer, thanksgiving, and singing of psalms, the word read, (although there follow no immediate explication of what is read) the word expounded and applied, catechizing, the sacraments administered, collection made for the poor, dismissing the people with a blessing (“The Form of Presbyterial Church Gov’t,” p.216)
Everything in this order is done by the “pastor” and other officers, except the “singing of psalms.” This is essentially what we still practice today. Does this practice reflect a sensitivity to the glimpses of church gatherings we see in the N.T., or is it at odds with them? It seems to me that we have made normative that for which there is no Scriptural warrant (emphasis on one man’s ministry), and we have omitted that for which there is ample Scriptural support (emphasis on one another).
~ Jon Zeus
1 Thess 4:18; 5:11-14--Constant Interaction
1 Thess 4:18; 5:11-14--Constant Interaction
Paul here focuses on the mutual ministry of Christians to one another. The hope all Christians possess is a doctrine by which they may “comfort one another” (4:18). In 5:11, Paul mentions that they practice, as an on-going ministry, the building up of one another: “even as you are doing.”
Again, we are forced to ask, can we meaningfully relate this vital practice to what transpires in churches today? If the brethren rarely see each other during the week, and if the structure of the services focus on the “pastor,” how can we expect this mutual ministry to come to concrete expression?
I suggest here, and will expand on it later, that the reason “one another” ministries are so stifled is precisely because our practice flows out of the conviction that edification comes about through one man’s ministry: “on this office [the “pastor”] and the discharge of it He hath laid the whole weight of the order, rule, and edification of His church” (Owen, True Nature, p.55).The “pastor” becomes the sole source of edification. Thus, according to Goodwin, even when “ordinary” brethren conversed with one another, the focal point was to be “what it was in a sermon that God blessed to them” (Works, Vol.11, p.357). But in the N.T. there is just as much emphasis, if not more, on the profitability of mutual ministry among the general priesthood. Yet this is left virtually untouched in such treatises.
Historically, the duty of mutual edification has been relegated to something which is “occasional,” while for Paul the “one another” ministry was the basic fabric of local church life. Further, this mutual ministry was apparently expressed in the church gatherings (“each of you”), but the Reformed tradition has pushed it outside of such meetings.
In vv.12-13, Paul makes a clear distinction between the saints and their leaders. Those who have been set aside by the people of God as “elders” are to be “known” and “highly esteemed.” The elders are “over them in the Lord.” While this distinction is clear enough, it does not seem to me that our conception of it is always clear. This distinction has been taken to mean that the elders do everything—admonishing, teaching, etc. But we have already seen in Rom.15:14, and can see here in 1 Thess.5:11,14, that there is a general mutual ministry that saints are to perform among themselves. The elders, in particular, are to oversee the mutual functioning of the body. The elders function in a similar fashion to a player-coach on a football team—only in the church there are several coaches, not one.
The function of pastoral leaders is to serve as ‘player-coaches’ of the congregation, by equipping the believers for their various God-appointed ministries.... a player-coach... unselfishly attempts to develop and coordinate the abilities of others while he himself fights the battle with them, shoulder-to-shoulder (Sixteen Tests, p.31).
After giving the general duty of edifying one another in v.11, Paul tells the “brethren” in v.14 that there are specific needs in the body to which they must minister. Again, Paul does not relegate this “warning/comforting/supporting” ministry to the leaders only, but makes it incumbent upon the body to have the same care for one another (1Cor.12:25).
Perhaps some would try to find in v.20, “despise not prophesyings,” a reference to the centrality of one man’s preaching. However, it must be remembered that in 1Cor.14:31 Paul stated: “you may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.”
~ Jon Zeus
Paul here focuses on the mutual ministry of Christians to one another. The hope all Christians possess is a doctrine by which they may “comfort one another” (4:18). In 5:11, Paul mentions that they practice, as an on-going ministry, the building up of one another: “even as you are doing.”
Again, we are forced to ask, can we meaningfully relate this vital practice to what transpires in churches today? If the brethren rarely see each other during the week, and if the structure of the services focus on the “pastor,” how can we expect this mutual ministry to come to concrete expression?
I suggest here, and will expand on it later, that the reason “one another” ministries are so stifled is precisely because our practice flows out of the conviction that edification comes about through one man’s ministry: “on this office [the “pastor”] and the discharge of it He hath laid the whole weight of the order, rule, and edification of His church” (Owen, True Nature, p.55).The “pastor” becomes the sole source of edification. Thus, according to Goodwin, even when “ordinary” brethren conversed with one another, the focal point was to be “what it was in a sermon that God blessed to them” (Works, Vol.11, p.357). But in the N.T. there is just as much emphasis, if not more, on the profitability of mutual ministry among the general priesthood. Yet this is left virtually untouched in such treatises.
Historically, the duty of mutual edification has been relegated to something which is “occasional,” while for Paul the “one another” ministry was the basic fabric of local church life. Further, this mutual ministry was apparently expressed in the church gatherings (“each of you”), but the Reformed tradition has pushed it outside of such meetings.
In vv.12-13, Paul makes a clear distinction between the saints and their leaders. Those who have been set aside by the people of God as “elders” are to be “known” and “highly esteemed.” The elders are “over them in the Lord.” While this distinction is clear enough, it does not seem to me that our conception of it is always clear. This distinction has been taken to mean that the elders do everything—admonishing, teaching, etc. But we have already seen in Rom.15:14, and can see here in 1 Thess.5:11,14, that there is a general mutual ministry that saints are to perform among themselves. The elders, in particular, are to oversee the mutual functioning of the body. The elders function in a similar fashion to a player-coach on a football team—only in the church there are several coaches, not one.
The function of pastoral leaders is to serve as ‘player-coaches’ of the congregation, by equipping the believers for their various God-appointed ministries.... a player-coach... unselfishly attempts to develop and coordinate the abilities of others while he himself fights the battle with them, shoulder-to-shoulder (Sixteen Tests, p.31).
After giving the general duty of edifying one another in v.11, Paul tells the “brethren” in v.14 that there are specific needs in the body to which they must minister. Again, Paul does not relegate this “warning/comforting/supporting” ministry to the leaders only, but makes it incumbent upon the body to have the same care for one another (1Cor.12:25).
Perhaps some would try to find in v.20, “despise not prophesyings,” a reference to the centrality of one man’s preaching. However, it must be remembered that in 1Cor.14:31 Paul stated: “you may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.”
~ Jon Zeus
Rom. 15:14--Nouthetic Interaction
Rom. 15:14--Nouthetic Interaction
Here Paul gives a commendation to the church at Rome. They were “able also to admonish one another.” The Word “admonish” (noutheteo) usually means to lovingly confront a sinful act or attitude with truth. The elders of a church are required to watch over the flock, and admonish when necessary (1 Thess 5:12).
But the duty of admonishing extends to all the priests. These brethren were “able” to admonish one another. This implies that this is a skill which is learned.
Relating this back to Eph. 4:11-12, we can see a specific instance here of how the elders are to “equip” the saints: they are to help train the general priesthood in the ability of “admonishing.” Could Paul come among our churches today and see visible evidence that the brethren at large were “able” to perform this duty?
If admonishing is left to the elders, then it is no wonder that the saints are ill-prepared for this important task. It is in such a realm as this that pastors and teachers are to equip the saints for the work of ministry. I do not see how such training can materialize if edification is conceived of as originating only from one man’s ministry.
~ Jon Zeus
Here Paul gives a commendation to the church at Rome. They were “able also to admonish one another.” The Word “admonish” (noutheteo) usually means to lovingly confront a sinful act or attitude with truth. The elders of a church are required to watch over the flock, and admonish when necessary (1 Thess 5:12).
But the duty of admonishing extends to all the priests. These brethren were “able” to admonish one another. This implies that this is a skill which is learned.
Relating this back to Eph. 4:11-12, we can see a specific instance here of how the elders are to “equip” the saints: they are to help train the general priesthood in the ability of “admonishing.” Could Paul come among our churches today and see visible evidence that the brethren at large were “able” to perform this duty?
If admonishing is left to the elders, then it is no wonder that the saints are ill-prepared for this important task. It is in such a realm as this that pastors and teachers are to equip the saints for the work of ministry. I do not see how such training can materialize if edification is conceived of as originating only from one man’s ministry.
~ Jon Zeus
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)