The Synagogue and Biblical Interpretation (Part Two)

The Synagogue and Biblical Interpretation 

(Part Two)

I first addressed this subject in an article posted in September 2016 (Series Part One).  Much of my same preliminary concerns and thoughts remain.  For those who don't want to click on the link and read the article in its entirety here's a synopsis.  First, the Old Testament contains zero references, either prescriptively or descriptively, in relation to the Jewish Synagogue (the inter-testamental notes in your Bible don't count).  Therefore, from the start there is no example, command, or precedent for Jewish synagogue worship.  Second, Jesus worshipped in the synagogue.  So Jesus actively participated in (man designed) worship practices. Third, the apostles continue to worship and evangelize in the synagogue years after Christ's bodily resurrection and ascension.  So what?  Seems clear that neither first century Jews, the Messiah, nor his followers had any scruples about participation in this inter-testamental Jewish institution.

This directly relates to so many issues Christians disagree on today.  How do we worship?  How do we live?  So many social justice issues are simply not addressed in the scriptures.  You are left with two historically debated options (at least in the application for worship and no this not an either-or fallacy).  I am assuming that when the scriptures claim, "all scripture is given by inspiration of God," and it can make a person "perfect/mature" then either in principle or precept the Bible addresses every potential issue you will face.  First, do we restrict our worship practices to (only) what is clear prescribed or even commanded in the pages of scripture?  Or on another level, do we restrict our worship to what is revealed in the NT?  Second, do we have the freedom or liberty to practice in worship concepts or methods that are not explicitly forbidden in the pages of scripture?  Not sure?  How about prayer books, Sunday school, prayer meetings, youth group, or number of services?  These positions matter.

Again, how do I as a Baptist wrestle with the synagogue and worship?  To further heighten the tension, they also worshipped in the synagogue on the sabbath. You'll have to re-read the articles I've posted on that issue another time.  But again, try applying the above principles to your Lord's day (Sunday) worship service (or how every many of them you have on that day).  See how hard this can be if you want to stringently adhere to position of only practicing what is explicitly practiced or commanded in the scriptures (or perhaps only the NT)?

Since I'm a Baptist I'll use myself and my beliefs as an example.  Consider the title "Baptist."  This designates my beliefs concerning one particular Christian ordinance as found in the pages of the New Testament.  If I am bound only to what is explicitly stated or practiced in the NT then what conclusions do I draw?  Again, my intent is to state what the Bible actually says not what a group or denomination practices.  First, when should a person be baptized?  Before or after a confession of faith?  Must it be that particular individual who makes a confession before that same individual is baptized?  Second, when actually should they be baptized?  One week, month, or year later?  Must I see some evidence or credibility of genuine faith?  How do I know?  Do I baptize them the same day?  Do I re-baptize them if they did really believe the gospel the first time?  Third, what formula should I use?  Do I baptize them in the name of the Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy spirit or in Jesus' name only? 

Back to our original topic of this article.  At what point does the synagogue play into this conversation?  First century Jews, Jesus, and the apostles/disciples don't seem  concerned about be limited to the pages of what the OT alone states.  Eventually I will need to draw on the synagogue to revisit the plurality of lay elders in a local church.  How they are to be chosen and who should be responsible for it?  But this will have to wait for now.

Thoughts encouraged.  

Dialogue interesting.  

Hope it helps to actually further and build up Christ's body.

Christian Liberty and the Lord's Day/Sabbath Situation (Part Nine)

Series Part One     Series Part Two       Series Part Three       Series Part Four
     
Series Part Five     Series Part Six         Series part Seven       Series Part Eight

One issue that has continually reappeared throughout church history is the Sabbath/Lord's day issue.  Before closing with some descriptive/prescriptive principle/commands/patterns drawn from Rom 14 and 1 Cor 8-10 I would like to review some issue discussed in this series.

First, when did the Sabbath begin?  Is it a creation ordinance such as marriage?  Was it a latter motivation for one of  ten commandments?  If only one of the ten does it still have force today, some say yes and some say no?  

Second, how was the Sabbath practiced within the nation of Israel in the Old Testament and in the gospels?  It obviously was important and even selected and practice after returning from a 70 year captivity.  It is obvious that Jesus still observed the sabbath day (though not according to the man made additions of the Pharisees).

Third, the book of Acts records for us the disciples worshipping in the synagogue on the sabbath and meeting in churches on the first day of the week.  It was on the first day of the week when the historical event of Christ's bodily resurrection occurred.

Lastily, Paul's epistles to several local NT churches addressed this issue, both directly and in principle.  

So if many evangelical Christians today make not connection between the Sabbath and the Lord's day in 2016, how and when should we worship?  Some have taken great liberties while others have not.  Historically some people have fled homes and came to new countries for religious freedom.  I would also had from a historical stand point several church confession have highlighted this idea of personal liberty, especially in relation to application of the OT ceremonial law, and the uses and abuses of liberty (see London Baptist Confession, Chapter 21, "Of Christian Liberty and Liberty of Conscience"). 

I would like to suggest some principles (out of an actual belief in sola scriptura) on how we can live our Lord's day in a way pleasing to the Lord.  I will extract these principles from the above mentioned texts Rom 14 and 1 Cor 8-10.  By way of introduction, anyone familiar with these texts knows they can pack a punch to liberty, conscience, stumbling blocks, and actually practicing love for a brother.  Typically ad hominem rhetoric can emerge here in heavy dose: worldly, licentious, liberty, legalist, and antinomianism (whatever these terms mean).

By way of distinction, I would like to suggest Rom 14 addresses conscience/practice issues based on actual OT precedent or command among believers (I see no reference in the text to unbelievers).  On the other hand, 1 Cor 8-10 is addressing a believers partaking in a "neutral" activity made sinful based on its association to a place or ritual.  This context in contrast to Rom 14 contains scenarios pertaining to both believer's practice with believers and with unbelievers.  It is this latter category that feeds the music and culture and "neutral" issue.  If people can be convinced that culture and/or music is morally neutral then they can fight to apply these three chapters (don't need to make this one up, read the literature on this one). 

First some principles from Romans 14.  Paul addresses two kinds of believers: weak and strong.  Some would suggest we don't want to be either but a third type who is neither weak nor strong.  I do not expect anyone to agree with these, but these are only suggestions hopefully obvious from the text;

1)  Whether Jew or Gentile, some genuine Christian people, believe there are principles and or commands given in the Old Testament which their consciences are bound to keep (both days of observance and/or food and drink categories).  They may be tempted to or actually do look with judgment upon others.  

2)  On the other hand, whether Jew or Gentile, some genuine Christian people, do not believe there are principles and or commands given touching on days of worship (Sabbath in specific--for Israel only) and food/drink consumption (usually but not always fleshed out in alcoholic consumption).

From here I would like to make some applications that I have preached on multiple times extracted from Rom 14:13-23.  For sake of this thread I am rewording the statements to be applicable to the Lord's day/sabbath issue.  Consider with each point the consideration: Is my liberty or view here more important than love for a brother?
1) Do not knowingly cause another Christian to stumble through you liberties practiced on the Lord's Day?  (v.13)
2) Do not knowingly cause another Christian grief through your liberties practiced on the Lord's day? (v.14-15)
3) Do not knowingly destroy another Christian through your liberties practiced on the Lord's day? (v. 15)
4) Do not knowingly ruin your own testimony, witness, credibility, or ability to minister to others through your liberties practiced on the Lord's day (v. 16-19)
5) Do not knowingly tear down another Christian through you liberties practiced on the Lord's day (v. 20-21).
6) Do not condemn yourself by practicing your liberty on the Lord's day (v.22-23).

On to 1 Corinthians 8-10.  This section begins in the same fashion as 1 Cor 16 with "Now as touching" (same underlying Greek text).  The focus here directly referenced by many Bible chapter headings is "Food offered to idols."  So right off the bat the topic is the consumption of food but not just any food but food (meat in this case) associated with idol temple worship "things offered to idols" (v. 1).  Here again I would like to extract some principles from this three chapter context of 1 Cor 8-10.
1) Will this activity of mine on the Lord's day edify or tear down my fellow believer (1 Cor 10:23-30)?
2) Will this activity of mine on the Lord's day cause a "weaker brother" to stumble and/or to violate his conscience (1 Cor 8:9-13)?
3) What activity or liberty of mine will most contribute to the cause of the gospel (1 Cor 9:1-27; 10:32-33)?
4) Can I participate on the Lord's day in this liberty of mine to the glory of God (a good old camp verse I quoted many times before a meal at the WILDS) (1 Cor 10:31)?

This does not exhaust the issues involved but is simply an example of principles for living and worshiping on the Lord's Day.
I don't expect this to convince anyone but perhaps it will be a help to some struggling with this issue.

Thoughts and comments encouraged.

The Epistles and the Lord's Day/Sabbath Conversation (Part Eight)

The Epistles and the Lord's Day/Sabbath Conversation (Part Eight)

Series Part One     Series Part Two       Series Part Three       Series Part Four
     
Series Part Five     Series Part Six

There are very few actual references in the epistles to the Sabbath or to the Lord's Day.  Technically there is only one reference to the "first day of the week."  It is this one reference we will end with.
So from here we discuss 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 after some preliminary comments on related passages.

"Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye.  Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come."

Two other related texts are Gal 4:10 and Col 2:16.  Gal 4:10 reads, "Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years" and Col 2: 16 states, "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days."

From here we have two goals: (1) to explain the texts in their specific context, and (2) to revisit the prescriptive/descriptive discussion as each text relates to the Lord's day/sabbath issue.

In Gal 4:1-7, Paul focuses on the believers sonship.  In verses 9-12 he focuses on their desire to want to return again to a situation he describes as "to the weak and beggarly elements" (v. 9).  He immediately qualifies this statement by identifying their observance of particular calendar events.  The events being described no doubt are part of the Jewish ceremonial calendar.   If not this then what is he referring to?  The text does not explicitly say observing these events is sinful in and of itself.  This would be contradictory to his own personal practice throughout the book of Acts, both passover, pentecost, the sabbath, and vows.  It would also be in contrast to his own teaching from Rom 14:5, "One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike."  So if I am following Paul's argument it is not the observance of the sabbath (think: day, months, times and years) which is sinful.  It is the intent or motive that is driving the observance of these events.  This interpretation meshes well with Gal 3:1-5, where Paul was addressing a similar issue of law and faith and its relationship to receiving the Spirit (think: new birth).  It seems most obvious that they are trying to return to a position of having a righteous standing before God on the basis of obeying the law itself (I would suggest this is actual "theological legalism").  That position in itself is contrary to a righteousness of God by faith alone (Rom 3).

If a position on the church and its relation to the law is taken not allowing for the above interpretation then of course this makes it easy to see Paul's direct reference to any part of the ceremonial (or even any pre-determined part) of the law to not apply to the church.  I still have problems with this interpretation for the following summary reasons (not exhaustive): (1) nearly every NT sermon bases its texts or proof-texts from the OT; (2) the ten commandments themselves are repeatedly quoted even in direct reference to the church (see Eph 6:1-2); (3) you have to come to the conclusion that both Paul's teaching throughout the epistles and his personal practice in Acts are in error, since he is repeatedly trying to obey the law and avoid offense in its practice.  As to the ongoing application of the Mosaic law for the church today needs to be the topic of another thread (I would suggest this boarders on "theological antinomianism" not to be equated with "practical antinoianism").  I would define this (practical antinomianism) as the belief that a believer does not have to obey the precepts and/or commands of scripture nor is the reality of "progressive" sanctification a necessity for believers (these ideas will be readdressed in a later thread). I would suggest to an extent this in no way detracts from those who believe they are presently under the law of Christ as NT believers.  I do want to be careful here to avoid being accused of setting up straw men, ad hominem arguments, equivocation, and especially not either/or fallacies. If using the above labels draws criticism in this regard, then I apologize in advance.

Back to the other two texts.  Col 2;16 appears in a section where Paul is addressing a false philosophy.  Again the idea appears to be a warning of the concepts taught by false teachers.  Similar terms appear in relation to the Mosaic law, especially with ceremonial overtones: "holy day" "new moon" and "sabbath days."  Clearly the context again is drawing attention to the fact (just like back in Acst 15) there are people teaching that the observing of the these calendar and/or ceremonial aspects of the law are necessary to have a righteous standing before God.  Later on he reemphasizes this which the addition of human elements "Touch not, taste not, handle not" (v. 21).  Again issues that are of man-made derivation, "the rudiments of the world" (v. 20) and "the commandments and doctrines of men" (v. 22).  None of this is in contrast or contradiction to Paul's lifestyle practice or doctrinal teaching elsewhere on this subject.  To try to earn a righteous status before God via obedience to these would be in my estimation "doctrinal legalism." Not trying to create a straw man but the unfortunate reality is that there are those in evangelical circles who would accuse the same of Christians either of "doctrinal or practical legalism" for actually suggesting that Christians should obey the 500+ imperatives in the NT (ironic concept to obey scriptural commands out of love for Christ and God, the one law giver according to James).  (There are other dangers in this area making it certain that a thread on progressive sanctification is forthcoming).

Again these previous two texts did not directly address the "first day of the week" terminology.  They only made reference to "days' or to the "sabbath."  We turn now to the only reference in the epistles to "the first day of the week" (1 Cor 16:1-2).  This text is introduced by one of the last of introductory formulas in 1 Corinthians translated with the phrase "Now concerning."  Paul's immediate concern is the collection of finances (v. 1).  Paul uses an plural imperative verb (one of the 500+ NT commands) to instruct them to gather money for collection (v. 2).  It is not the collection of money that is our focus here, but on the particular day of the week in which it is to be collected, "the first day of the week" (v. 2). The text itself makes not direct connection with the sabbath nor with Christ's bodily resurrection form the dead (we would need to extrapolate this information from the gospel accounts).  What is important is how Paul addresses his readers.  It is almost as though the pattern for meeting on this day has already been occurring.  He gives no command for them to meet here nor in any other text (via command) to meet on the "first day of the week."  But he from what I can surmise assumes this is the day on which they are meeting corporately.  I don't believe it is too much of a stretch to interpret the text this way.  Consider the the fact that this letter was most likely written on his third missionary journey (Acts 18-21).  It is in this same chapter content where the previous identification occurred in Ephesus when they met on "the first day of the week."  Again its not that much of a guess to assume Paul already understood this corporate meeting pattern already in progress when he writes this letter.

So with this information in mind what should we do with it.  Is there a direct command or pattern to worship on the first day of the week?  I find a lack of any chapter and verse that says Christians must (via obedience to a NT command, "assuming this is not legalism").  On the other hand I find an incredible descriptive pattern showing on multiple occasions that NT believers in two different cities (Ephesus and Corinth) met on "the first day of the week."

The most I can extrapolate from the "day" and "sabbath" references is that some people do not believe there are in any way, form or fashion principles that can be applied to "the first day of the week."  Again I am perplexed in addressing a position that finds no place for the mosaic law for believers (especially considering the vast plethora of OT texts used to draw principles, applications, and even commands for NT believers).  So I guess if you have to be dogmatic needing a chapter and verse (prescriptive reasoning) for a NT worship day of the week, your going to have struggles.  However if the NT pattern matters (descriptive reasoning) then there is great weight to say Christians should be meeting corporately "on the first day of the week."  I would suggest this is "the Lord's day" (Rev 1:10).  This is the day Christ rose bodily from the grave and the NT church met corporately for worship.

Hope this helps some.
Again comments encouraged.
In so far as interpretation errors emerge of which I am to blame (I can only hope a better more consistent option for these texts can available).

One more thread to come on Christian Liberty and the Lord's Day/sabbath issue.

Worship Pattern in Acts: Prescriptive or Descriptive? (Part Seven)

Worship Patter in Acts: Prescriptive or Descriptive (Part Seven)

Series Part One     Series Part Two       Series Part Three       Series Part Four
     
Series Part Five     Series Part Six   

So when did the first century believers actually meet for corporate worship?  This is an important question.  In my lifetime alone there have been mega-churches and religious meetings on nearly every day of the week.  But which day did the disciple/apostles first meet?

Okay stop here and think.  What principle does the above paragraph encourage?  Did you notice it?  What is descriptive and what is prescriptive?  We can't forget this pattern which repeats throughout the scriptures.  The transitional period in which our next text appears is a critical moment in church history.

Let's rehearse some the transitional elements from Acts two thru chapter twenty.  Remember the monumental change in history (Pentecost) has just occurred.  We now have the outpouring the Holy Spirit upon every individual, both man and woman (not just leaders or specific individuals).  How or in what manner are they worshiping?

Notice in Acts 2:46 that from a corporate religious perspective nothing has really changed after Pentecost, "they continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house."  These believers are still going to the temple.  This same pattern will continue in the next chapter when a man is healed "into the temple" (3:1).  Here in the latter portion of this verse is one of several verses used by the house church movement to justify/defend their activities (many books written on this subject).  But consider this from a descriptive/prescriptive view point?  Are we commanded today to have worship services in our houses?  Are we commanded to have a church building?  If we want to be consistent with the verse and not have any alternative motives then we as Christians should still be meeting in the temple?  Note also they were "breaking bread" in their homes not having worship services.  As the book of Acts progresses it is clear that the focus is still around "the sabbath" and "the first day of week" (whether or not these two overlap or not is another issue).

Fast forward to Acts 20.Our concern is verse seven, "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them."  This is the first and only reference to the disciples meeting on the first day of the week.  Let's consider the text and then think carefully about some descriptive/prescriptive applications (sadly, the temptation is to think, "they did it so we should too, howbeit this is very selective on our part).  So what are the details.

First,  why did they choose this particular day of the week?  The only reference to this day is all four gospels recording this is when the women went to the tomb and Christ was not there.  It is a specific day not a daily activity.

Second, the terminology to "break bread" occurs here again.  This is what Acts 2 recorded was happening from house to house.  Here they are meeting in an "upper chamber" with height enough to cause some pain if one should happen to fall out of the window.

Third, there is no command in this verse to gather on this particular day of the week.  Note in the text it appears to be a pattern already in practice, "when the disciples came together."  For the technical type, the verb is a perfect passive participle (to be fair, very few commentaries I checked draw attention to this verb, howbeit they do acknowledge the pattern/command struggles, with differing terminology).  Put simple it is a past action with ongoing results.  If this is true, then they have been meeting in the past on the first day and are continuing to meet on the first day at the time of this verse.  Even without the verb as weight on this matter, the descriptive/ prescriptive struggle does not go away.

So let's apply the basic details here.  From a descriptive point of view, we can see what they were doing in Acts 20.  Is this a pattern we are to repeat today or was this meeting on the first day a one time event (we will address this again in 1 Cor 16)?  Is this only a first century situation that has no bearing on what we do in 2016?  On the other hand, from a prescriptive view, there is not command to worship corporately on the first day of the week.  Do we need a command here to do so?  Is there enough of a pattern developing built upon texts of scripture that will not be contradicted later in the epistles?  We shall see.

Hope this helps some.
Comments and corrections encouraged.

Lord's Day Worship: Remembrance of Christ's Bodily Resurrection from the Dead (Series part Six)

Series Part One     Series Part Two       Series Part Three       Series Part Four

New Testament Lord's Day Worship

The first reason Christians worship on the Lord's day is a remembrance of Christ's bodily resurrection from the dead.

The first of four main passages addressing why Protestant Christians worship on Sunday and not Saturday is out of remembrance for this specific historical event.  This event is record in all four of the gospels (though there is quite a variance of views on when Jesus actually died during the passion week, ranging from Wed. thru Fri.).

Please note the text references:

"In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week,..." (Mt 28:1)

"And very early in the morning the first day of the week" (Mk 16:2)
"Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared to Mary..." (Mk 16:9)

"Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning" (Lk 24:1)

"The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early," (Jn 20:1)**

**(Technically the Greek gloss for the word the English word "day" does not appear.  However, every translation I can find supplies this idea which the context surely commends.  This will be key in the book of Acts where the disciples worship on the "sabbath" in the synagogue and then gather for worship on a different calendar day, "the Lord's Day).

 These women went to tomb, found the stone rolled away and Christ was not there.  He had bodily risen from the dead.

I am referencing this text first to establish a textual basis for worship on what we call the Lord's Day (Rev 1).  We gather corporately for worship based on a biblical text.  Please note there is no command in any of these four texts to worship on this particular day.

Strict Sabbath-keeping denominations still gather for corporate worship on the Sabbath (our calendar day of Saturday, "the seventh day").  Quickly to be fair, they do so out of what they believe is obedience to the Decalogue, believed not to be abrogated in any way, a lack of command to worship otherwise, this is when Christ went to the synagogue, and a multitude form of genetic fallacies.

By way of reminder, a "genetic fallacy" put simply is to say an argument is wrong based on the source of the argument not necessary the argument itself.  Import Roman Catholicism or Seventh-Day Adventists.  If Rome or the SDA said something erroneous elsewhere then it must be wrong here too (sorry just don't have time to deal with every issue, well at least not in this series, maybe elsewhere).

As a Protestant Christian (a Baptist in particular), I worship on the Lord's day corporately.  I do not do it solely based on this historical narrative event.  This event provides the the memorial or remembrance focus for this particular day of the week (similar to the Lord's Table, 1 Cor 11).  There are other reasons too.  When the multitude reasons are combined the weight surely points to the fact that in the NT believers worshiped on the Lord's Day (as distinct from the calendar Lord's day) and this is both instructive descriptively (this is what they were doing) and prescriptively (commands and principles that don't contradict what they were doing) for Christians today in 2016.  It is these other reasons found in the NT which we will address in future articles.

May this article help those struggling with this issue.

Comments and suggestions encouraged.

Pastoral Hierarchy: Is there a prescriptive or descriptive order among elders? (Part Five)

Series Part One       Series Part Two        Series Part Three       Series Part Four

Pastoral Hierarchy: Is there a prescriptive or descriptive case for an order among elders/pastors?

Ever heard the terms senior pastor, youth pastor, assistant pastor, college and career pastor?  If you have heard of these terms, were they of equal pay and authority?  Was one of them over the others?

How about among those who have some form of lay/paid elders in their local church.  Are they all of equal authority?  Are some more authoritative than others or do they all get one equal vote when decisions are made?  Ever wondered why?

Before covering some of the basic scriptural texts addressing this issue so comments are needed.
First, some use the above terms simply in a pragmatic way.  Allow me to elaborate.  A church may reach a size where either the one pastor or the congregation feels that more help is needed.  They therefore "call" another individual to fill/serve in another "pastoral" position.  Well, you can't just call them both pastor.  So one becomes the senior pastor and the next what is called his assistant.  If given an age category perhaps youth, college/career or senior citizen pastor.

So in essence, they actually have a "plurality" of elders within their local church, however in this case they both are normally "on staff" or "paid" elders as opposed to a "lay" elder who has a full/part-time job to help pay the bills (it must be noted that in some churches even the senior pastor is technically a "lay" pastor since he works a full/part-time job to meet his family's financial needs).  Normally, but not always the second or third pastors are also ordained by the local church (but not always).  Or add in another variable his wife works a full/part-time job so that he can pastor a local church (I'm sure there is a broad array of views on this one, including paying the "hubbies" way through seminary).

Second, some use the above terms as part of a church hierarchy.  This means that some church leaders are actually in a position above other church leaders not part of their local congregation.  This means that leaders outside of that local church (or a group of them) can make decisions that are then placed upon other local churches.  This is no small matter.  Sometimes the group outside of the local church actually owns the building the people are meeting.  Think of the consequences of this.  If the local church does not submit to or obey the rules/laws/decrees of the higher governing body they can and have actually lose their church (sometimes pastor/elders have been removed from their pulpits).  We will have to address the one main text for this concept in a later thread (just for a hint: try reading Acts 15 and think in prescriptive/descriptive terms for local churches today).  Many entire denominations function within this structure (note your KJV still retains the church structure of "bishops" and "elders").

Third, some simply have a combination of the above two positions,  But is there any biblical precedent either descriptively or prescriptively to have some church leaders more authoritative than others, both of which are identified as "elders" or "pastors."

There are mainly two ways in which this question is answered.  You decide whether the texts are actually teaching the relationship of pastors to other pastors in the same local church.  Or on the other hand, are we looking for any hierarchy found in scripture and using it for justification?  Is this being descriptive, prescriptive or neither one?

First, is the relationship among the twelve apostles.  From this concept, two items are extrapolated.  Peter always appears first in the listing of the twelve.  This is determined to mean he is more authoritative creating an ecclesiastical hierarchy.  Within this grouping Peter, Andrew, James, and John appear together at the top of the list (Mt 10).  Acts 1 keeps the top four but changes around the order "Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew."  Unfortunately, the listing breaks down for the mount of transfiguration (Mt 17), Andrew is nowhere to be found.  So this position has to rely entirely upon the listing of the twelve exclusively or simply that Peter appears first each time or that he answers first on a regular basis (Mt 16).  If I'm not mistaken, didn't Rome do this already with him?

Second, as has been discussed in an earlier thread in this series 1 Timothy 5:17-18 is a key text in this issue.  Do some elders teach and other elders rule?  Do all elders rule and some teach?  Or is it the same elders doing the ruling and teaching?  Is it the grammar of the passage that actually produces a pastoral hierarchy or are there outside factors?  You make the decision.

Comments encouraged.  Hope this helps anyone in these areas.
I have tried to accurately represent each position through probably not every possible caveat.

The Lord's Day/Sabbath and the Ten Commandments (Series Part Two)

Series Part One

The Lord's Day and Sabbath Issue.  What does the Decalogue (The Ten Commandments) teach us in relation to this issue?  I find it ironic in this issue that many complain about their removal from court house lawns and public places and then turn around to find multiple ways not to follow them anyway.  

By way of review, the previous article began this discussion with the seventh day of the creation week (Genesis 2).  Some Christians place the bedrock for the Sabbath as a creation ordinance.  Other start here in the Ten commandments.  So how would these two options relate to the prescriptive/descriptive discussion?

First, if the sabbath observance is attached to creation and not the Mosaic law, then it like other concepts rooted in creation still has weight today (think marriage, family, etc...).  On the other hand, if the sabbath observance depends upon a prescriptive command rooted in the mosaic law, then their is a greater likelihood it could be laid aside as a "civil" or "ceremonial" portion of the law, in some fashion removed through Christ's sacrificial death on the cross for our sins.

What is the command under discussion?
"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.  Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD, thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, they manservant, nor they maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within they gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is them is, and rested the seventh day wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." (Ex 20:8-11).

Deut. 5: 15 applies the fourth commandment to the nation's actual exodus from bondage and not to the creation itself, "And remember that thout wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the LORD thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the LORD thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day."

Let's consider the background.  This is fourth of the ten commandments given to the nation of Israel following the nations exodus from bondage in Egypt.  But what people want to know is how much if any applies to me today?  When Jesus died how much of the law did he fulfill?  Is there NT precedent to answer or at least help to think about this issue?  Even if we can't agree as to any NT applications, perhaps at a minimum if sola scriptura means anything, we can find at least in principle, applications to help with the sabbath day/Lord's day issue.

With that stated I would at this time like to consider two NT examples before later discussing other related texts and issues.

First, what was the Messiah's view of the Decalogue?  Let's consider Mat 19:16-22.  An individual comes to Christ asking about "eternal life" (v. 16).  We are concerned with Jesus' response.  He actually quotes five of the ten commandments (vv. 18-19).  Although he did not quote the one in question here, it is interesting that Christ still believed the law was applicable to his time in the first century.  But perhaps your thinking that was before the cross.

Second, consider another example (after the cross and directly given in imperative form to a local church).  Consider Eph 6:1-2 (Col 3 repeats the command but makes no connection to the decalogue).  In this context Paul directly applies the fifth commandment to children in the local church.  In verse one children are given an imperative, "Obey your parents in the Lord."  He directly follows this by quoting the fifth commandment,"Honour thy father and mother," as though it still applies and is a motivating factor for believers in the church.

What are some take away's from this idea:

First, if sola scriptura means anything (not just a phrase to make us sound "Cool, Trendy, and Reformed"), we need to be able to find commands and/or principles to govern every issue in life.  If not then stop using the phrase sola scriptura because you really mean "mostly scriptura."

Second, both Jesus and Paul believed the ten commands can and should be quoted and/or applied to NT situations.  What is at questions is must the fourth command be repeated in the NT (as a command) not just an observance throughout the gospels and Acts to be applicable today?  This question is actually a huge deal.  Check out the literature on this one.  This is a huge hurdle for this particular command to the NT church.

Third, name calling (think ad hominem) will not help in this issue.  It certainly is not an exegetical or theological argument (sabbatarian, legalist, antinomian, liberty, license, etc...).

At the end of the day, does the Lord's day mean anything to us in 2016 at all (assuming any kind of parallel can be shown in days ahead)? In closing I would like to quote from one of my professors concerning this day, "Tragically, it is all too common that the only difference in practice between Christians and the ungodly on Sunday is the couple of hours spent in church." (p. 104, The Beauty of Holiness by Michal P. V. Barett).  Does this describe us?

If your respond is "but I have liberties," then you've already decided.

Just some thoughts to consider.
Thoughts and comments encouraged.
More to come concerning this issue of the Sabbath and the Lord's Day.

The Prescriptive Authority of the New Testament Epistles in Determining Local Church Polity (Part Four)

Series Part One       Series Part Two        Series Part Three

The Prescriptive Authority of the New Testament Epistles in Determining Local Church Polity

Part one of this series focused on the passages directly related to the authority or responsibility relegated to or practiced by the local church congregation (the majority of these references were in relation to church discipline issues).  Part two of this series focused on the passages referring to the idea of having multiple pastor/elders within one local church (three from Acts, four from the epistles).  The third article focused on the interpretive struggle between identifying descriptive and prescriptive texts.

Ultimately, these concepts will have to be reconciled with each other.  As to how they are reconciled shows up more practically in our local church polities (which coincidentally appears to fall along denominational lines, but not exclusively). 

Consider the options, church polity can place some, most, or no authority with the local congregation (this option also brings into account other issues such as the priesthood of the believer and the perspicuity of scripture, or all the church discipline passages).  Another option would be to have one primary pastor/elder with no authority given to the local congregation.  Perhaps a third option would be to have some form of relationship entailing both the congregation and the pastor/elder.  But even with a melding of these two ideas, it leaves untouched the idea of how to handle the passages seeming to teach multiple elder/pastors within one congregation.  Even after solving this issue, we still have to address the role and purpose which the New Testament assigns to the elder/pastor.

It is this dilemma (if there is one) which necessitates a focus upon the descriptive and prescriptive texts.  Which texts in relation to church polity merely described what they did in the first century but are no longer binding upon local churches today (the descriptive position)?  Or which texts addressing this issues directly related to us today either by command or by principle/precedent (the prescriptive position)?  Don't forget how you relate these two texts together will shift the weight of authority to one of these two categories.

 

Let's consider the four possible options: (in relations to church polity—this seems to come close to a special pleading)

First, the narrative passages in Acts are prescriptive and the epistles are descriptive.  Second, the narrative passages in Acts are descriptive and the epistles are also descriptive.  Third, the narrative passages in Acts are prescriptive and the epistles are also prescriptive.  Fourth, the narrative passages in Acts are descriptive and the epistles are prescriptive.  A fifth possible option which shows how hard this issue is would be that Acts and the epistle both contain descriptive and prescriptive passages (which is probably the best option).

The title of this post tells you where I personally believe the biblical weight should be placed in understanding these five potential options.  This position enables the epistles themselves to interpret what is applicable for today.  This position also allows for keeping the authority in the text but also reaching different conclusions on this issue.  By way of digression, please understand that as you look at your NT you are not seeing the order in which the books of your NT were written.  A quick glance at the dating of the books will help the reader see that the NT epistles were individually written throughout the narrative of the book of Acts (some even after the events of Acts).

Before directly addressing the texts under debate, consider some of the options (if you were asked directly) as to how they weigh in on related issues:

1.  Should we ordain homosexuals as pastor/elders in the local church?  (I'm not asking you what your position is on this, but on what actual texts do you appeal to on this issue--where are they located?).

2.  Should we ordain both men and women as pastor/elders in the local church? (If you quickly think of 1 Tim 3 or Tit 1, what ramifications might there be if the epistles are only descriptive, or worse case only Paul's opinion on the issue, or only addressing a first century situation)?

3.  Should we financially support every pastor/elder the local church ordains?  If so on what basis do you make a distinction between paid and unpaid pastor/elders?

I would like to offer some thoughts on the key texts related to this issue of a plurality of elders within a local church (not necessarily answers, but contrary thoughts to those dogmatic on this issue):

1 Timothy 3:1-2, 8, 12

    a.  The focus on the the overseer here is for the office identified in the singular and with the article.     b.  Depending on the position you are trying to defend, this will determine the function of the article seen in the text.

    c.   Taking this into account, deacons appears in the plural twice (vv. 8, 12) in contrast to "the overseer" (v. 1).  How does this affect the article appearing before overseer but not before deacons plural?  What article usage will be applied and why?

1 Timothy 5:17 "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine."

This text hinges on the function of the word "especially."  Think of these two primary options:

     a. Does it mean that all elders "rule well" and only some of these "labour in word and doctrine?"  Think as though one group is a sub-set of the whole group.  You could do a word study of how the Greek term translated "especially" occurs in the NT (this might help avoiding theological based options).

     b.  Does it mean that all the elders "rule well" and this same group are the ones "who labour in the word and doctrine?"  Technically think of an appositional relationship, "the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, (that is) they who labour in the word and doctrine."

2,  Tit 1:5 "that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee"

 a.  For this text to bear weight on the plurality position, the understanding would need to be there is only one local church in each city (of which there is no reason to believe there is only one church in each city, especially considering the number of house-church settings mentions in the NT).

  b.  This text only supports the idea that Titus is to ordain elders in each city (there is no reference to whether there should be one or more elders in each local church).  You would have to equate city with the word church to get help for plurality in this text.

3.  Acts, 14, 15, 20

      a.  All these passages in Acts depend on the fact that they are prescriptive and not just descriptive for the plurality of elders in each local church to have weight.

      b.  The plurality of elders position must still wrestle with the house-church model presented in the NT, the potential understanding of "church" as the universal and not local church, or perhaps even if "the church" should be understood collectively for the local churches in that particular city.

These are some general thoughts categorizing what I am seeing in print on these issues.  Some even to the point of calling congregational polity "satanic."  The last articles in this series still need to address that actual biblical function and/or role pastor/elders have in the NT.  Also if the "plurality" texts in Acts are the actual model, what would then be the hierarchy among them?  Who decides?  Unfortunately, wrestling with the prescriptive and descriptive concepts is not always easy, but to think it doesn't exist or doesn't help is not being academically honest.

Just some ideas to consider.

Hope this helps some on this issue.  More to come.

Drop a line and tell me what your thinking.