A Time for Non-Conformity
Posted on August 16, 2007
Filed Under Christian Growth, Denominationalism, Weylan Deaver | Leave a Comment
by Weylan Deaver
On one occasion, the Lord remarked, “When it is evening, you say, “˜It will be fair weather, for the sky is red.’ And in the morning, “˜It will be stormy today, for the sky is red and threatening.’ You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times” (Mt 16:2,3 ESV). How many people does that describe? They are caught up in events and carried along by them without ever stopping to look at the big picture, failing all the while to accurately assess what is happening around them. Thus, instead of being transformed into something better than what the world offers, they end up conforming to the values, beliefs and expectations of a far lower common denominator””the status quo.
Yet, God has a much higher standard for His children. “For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers” (Rom 8:29). Rather than taking on the likeness of the world, we are to be re-cast in the image of Jesus. Paul wrote also, “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect” (Rom 12:2). The word conformed is from the Greek συσχηματίζω and means “”¦to conform one’s self to another’s pattern” (The New Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon, p.608).
We can follow either the pattern of the world, or the pattern of Christ. In fact, to reject the latter is to choose the former. The devil labors tirelessly to entice us to the domain where he reigns supreme over the gullible folk who “cannot interpret the signs of the times.” Pressure is brought to bear against Christians because they tend to stand out from the crowd””and, the more evil the crowd, the starker the contrast between sinner and saint. Peter described the reaction of the world to the behavior of Christians when he penned, “With respect to this they are surprised when you do not join them in the same flood of debauchery, and they malign you” (1 Pet 4:4). No matter the maligning received, today, as much as ever, is a time for Christians to absolutely refuse to conform to the world around them. Consider three areas where this must be the case.
NONCONFORMITY IN CONVICTION
The world’s values are a far cry from Christ. Their convictions are hollow lies growing out of diabolic deception. The Bible speaks of “those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false” (2 Thess 2:10,11). To reject truth is to embrace a lie, there being no alternative. But a lie cannot get a man to heaven. So, the devil has foisted on society lie after lie. Satan says that one belief system is as good as another and none should be excluded (pluralism). Satan says that life on earth began eons ago at the concoction of a primordial soup afloat in the sea (evolution). Satan says that God does not exist (atheism) or, if He does, that we cannot know it (agnosticism). Satan says pleasure is life’s goal (hedonism) and is attained, in part, by the accumulation of things (materialism). Satan says that religious belief should be based on emotions (romanticism) rather than grounded in a firm “Thus saith the Lord.” Satan says that one church is as good as another (denominationalism). Basically, Satan does not care what we believe as long as it is not the gospel””the one area wherein belief is crucial (cf. Jn 8:24). As George Bernard Shaw observed, “Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” The New Testament enjoins us, “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus” (Phil 2:5 NKJV). If there is any area where our thoughts, attitudes and beliefs do not reflect those of Jesus, then we need to change our minds. The more our minds are shaped like Christ’s, the less conformed we will be to this world.
NONCONFORMITY IN CONDUCT
Because behavior begins in the heart (Mt 15:19), and because the world does not have the heart (i.e. mind) of Christ, the world’s conduct is not in step with the ethical standard set in God’s word. Therefore, we must take note of “the signs of the times” and not be conformed to society on a number of fronts.
First, we must not conform to the world’s dress. When the sun is hot and more and more bare skin goes on public parade, can people see that you are different? God’s children will clothe themselves in a manner that is modest, appropriate to the circumstances, and which does not stress outer appearance above inner beauty (1 Tim 2:9; 1 Pet 3:3,4; etc.).
Second, we must not conform to the world’s speech. You have but to turn on a radio or television, or go to a movie, or read a novel, or listen at the mall to hear the most obscene language imaginable. Are people so inept with English, and so incapable of controlling their emotions that the only means of self-expression is a curse, a four letter word, a blasphemous use of the divine name? (One wonders whether God’s name would be less abused if it were longer than one syllable, and, therefore, beyond the ability of some to pronounce). The Lord’s name is holy and to be spoken in reverence (Ps 111:9). It is He who tells us, “Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear” (Eph 4:29).
Third, we must not conform to the world’s version of entertainment. Hollywood, on a screen bigger than life in front of a captive audience who paid to subject themselves to it, glorifies fornication, blasphemy, lewdness, innuendo, disrespect, dishonesty, hedonism, perversity, and practically every vice the mind can conceive. Will we be shaped by those who do not know Christ, or will we be molded by Jesus into His image? The Psalmist wrote, “I will not set before my eyes anything that is worthless” (Ps 101:3).
NONCONFORMITY IN COMPROMISE
Finally, we must not conform to the world’s all too often tendency to compromise. Then again, if the world has cut itself loose from the Bible””the only sure mooring in a safe harbor””it is no wonder strongly held, uncompromising convictions are hard to find. Where is the man who would volunteer to be fed to the lions if it furthered atheism’s cause? Where is the man who would sacrifice his health and fortune to preach a message of hedonism? Where is the man who would gladly be burned at the stake before renouncing Darwin’s theory? Where is the man who had rather die than compromise? Ours is a land of confused appeasers. We are confused by the devil’s plethora of competing and contradicting messages, and we want to appease everyone, making sure we never say anyone’s belief is absolutely, categorically wrong. As Winston Churchill said, “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile””hoping it will eat him last.” You can take an uncompromising stand for the truth of God in this life and be rewarded eternally in the next. Or, in an effort to satisfy everyone, you can compromise yourself nine ways to Sunday and, in the end, be swallowed by the crocodile (or, in this case, the devil, depicted as a roaring lion seeking someone to devour [1 Pet 5:8]).
The Lord’s church brooks no compromise with error (Eph 5:11). “Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, “˜I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people’” (2 Cor 6:14-16). Jesus loved God’s truth. He taught it when it was not popular and lived it when it cost Him dearly. Never once did He compromise a single piece of divine truth, whether it meant losing a friend, losing a reputation, even losing His life. To have His mind””to be conformed to His image””is to mirror that same unwavering devotion to the gospel.
Surely, today is a day for nonconformity when it comes to the world. “As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance” (1 Pet 1:14). None could put it better than inspiration itself, when the Lord says, “Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you” (2 Cor 6:17).
The ‘un-denominational’ church
Posted on July 31, 2007
Filed Under Matt Clifton, The Church | Leave a Comment
by Matt Clifton
One of the most misunderstood doctrines of modern times is the doctrine of the church, and how the Lord’s church is not divided into “denominations.” Many insist that different religious bodies can worship differently, and hold different interpretations of scripture, and yet both still be correct. This, of course, cannot be true.
So how are we to understand the church? Can it be divided into denominations? Is “the church” a term that is interchangeable with “the body of Christ,” the “kingdom of God,” the “temple of God,” and other similar terms?
Dr. Rex A. Turner (1989) ably sets out clear arguments showing that the true nature of the church is one that cannot be broken down into smaller subsets (denominations). He also makes good arguments on the purposes of the different terms which are all applied to the church, and what can be learned from those descriptive terms.
Turner begins this section by pointing out that the church has no formal name (p. 275). It is amazing the lengths some “churches” will go to with their names, even as far as creating “new” denominations by combining different manmade names. Hence, we sometimes see names such as “Anytown CME (Catholic-Methodist-Episcopalian) Church.” Goebel Music (1991) relates this amusing, and yet to-the-point story:
A certain religious group was raising funds to build a church building. As they knocked on one door and told the gentleman their purpose and also their plan, he finally said, “All right, I will make a donation to the building program, if you will erect a sign that says, “˜This is the Church of Christ.’” They immediately said, “We cannot do that.” To which the man replied, “Well, I’ll tell you what. I’ll still make a donation if you will erect a sign that says,
“˜This is not the Church of Christ.’” They said, “No, we cannot do that either.” Guess what? They left without a donation (p. 391).
This indeed seems to be the attitude among many denominations. They are quick to place a manmade name on themselves while rejecting the name of Christ only, but certainly do not want people saying that they are not part of the body of Christ.
Turner points out the names used in the New Testament to refer to the Lord’s people: the church, the kingdom of God, the body of Christ, the house of God, the temple of God, and the vineyard of God (p. 276-280). Of all these distinctions, more confusion has been seen on the issue of whether “the church” and the “kingdom of God” are used interchangeably in scripture. Turner affirms that they are (p. 276), and this writer is in agreement with that view.
Part of the confusion stems from the attempt by premillennialists to make “the kingdom of God” into a future occurrence, and “the church” into a temporary, “stop-gap” measure. As Turner describes it:
The dispensationalist will respond by saying: “Yes, Jesus did come to establish his kingdom, but the Jews rejected him and put him to death, and therefore, God took Jesus back to heaven to await the Jews acceptance of him.” The point to be observed is that according to the premillennialist there is no kingdom as of now, and thus there is no person in the kingdom; but how can these assertions be true in light of the fact that Paul wrote: “who delivered us [Paul, and brethren at Collossae] out of the power of darkness, and translated us [Paul and the saints at Collossae] into the kingdom of the Son of his love” (Col. 1:13) (p. 276-277).
The apostle John is also cited as being “in the kingdom” in Rev. 1:9: “I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.”
But does the phrase “kingdom of God” always refer to the present called out believers? Hodge (1979) was of the opinion that “kingdom of God” could refer to different states:
The phrase “˜kingdom of God’ sometimes means heaven, the future state of blessedness; sometimes the external or visible Church, as consisting of those who profess to acknowledge Christ as their king; and sometimes as the invisible Church, consisting of those in and over whom Christ actually reigns (p. 592).
But although Hodge assigns different meanings to different passages in reference to the kingdom of God, he does not deny the current existence of the kingdom. On the fact that different meanings must be taken of the phrase “kingdom of God,” Jackson (2001) agrees, but notes that the passages where it is taken as a present kingdom are very clear:
Sometimes “kingdom” is a reference to the final phase of the triumphant reign of Christ, i.e., it refers to heaven itself. In his final words of encouragement to Timothy, Paul wrote: “The Lord will deliver me from every evil work, and will save me unto his heavenly kingdom” (2 Tim. 4:18). Earlier, in a similar vein, the apostle had declared: “If we endure, we shall also reign with him” (2 Tim. 2:12). Compare this with Christ’s promise that if we “overcome” we will be able to sit down with the Lord in His throne (Rev. 3:21). In one of his epistles Peter announced: “…for thus shall be richly supplied unto you the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ” (2 Pet. 1:11). These passages speak of a “kingdom” or “reign” that is “eternal” and “heavenly” in nature. Moreover, they suggest a state that is yet future. They are, in fact, references to a regal existence in heaven. But they do not negate the New Testament teaching concerning the present phase of the kingdom (pars. 4-7).
This confusion on the part of some, interpreting “kingdom of God” to mean a future kingdom, leads to difficulties with many passages in the Bible. As Music points out:
Jesus had taught that the “church” and the “kingdom” were one and the same divine building. During his earthly ministry, he also made the statement: “Verily I say unto you, There are some here of them that stand by, who shall in no wise taste death, till they see the kingdom of God come with power” (Mark 9:1). It was not long, after the ascension (acts 1:9-11; Luke 24:44-49; esp. vss. 47-49), only a matter of a few days, that Jesus sent forth the Holy Spirit upon the apostles just as he had promised (cf. Acts 1:4-5). This day on which the Holy Spirit came was Pentecost (cf. Lev. 23:15-16, as it informs us about the day “when” Pentecost occurred, etc.), yea, it was a day of “power” (Acts 1:8) (p. 385).
Therefore, if the coming of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2 was the coming of the Spirit in power that Jesus foretold, then it must also be the day the “kingdom of God” spoken of in Mark 9:1 came with power. There is no mistaking that Acts 2:1-6 shows that the Holy Spirit did come in power as a fulfillment of Christ’s words. This means that the kingdom of God must be present, beginning at the time and indefinitely into the future, right up until our present times.
Turner also points out that the people of the Lord are designated “the church,” meaning the “called out” (p. 276). While we’ve already looked at the concept of the meaning of names among denominations, it must also be pointed out that there can only be one church existing due to the fact that there was only one church created.
Roman Catholics like to assert that their organization is the true church. However, Boren (1999) makes the point that how can something be “the true church” if it wasn’t even in existence when the Bible says the kingdom of God—the church–was created?
History informs us that this departure from the faith commenced in the area of “church organization.” It resulted in a hierarchical form of “church government” over a period of some 600 years. Yes, it took that long for the formation of what is known in history as the Roman Catholic Church. After an ongoing power struggle between the so-called “patriarch of Rome” and the so-called “patriarch of Constantinople” for primacy, Boniface III of Rome pronounced himself to be the “universal bishop” (or papa”¦pope) in A.D. 606-07. The “Church” over which he placed himself as head was NOT the New Testament church. It was, and still is, an “apostate Church” (p. 143)
Boren further reminds us that the protestant reformation, from which all denominations sprang, took place beginning in about 1517 A.D., so not only was the Roman Catholic Church not in existence at the time of Acts 2, but neither were any of the denominations we see today.
Much stronger proof need hardly be looked for in this matter. However, many Catholics claim that in Matthew 16:18, the Lord said the church would be founded upon Peter, and that Peter was the first pope. But according to McGarvey (1875) this thought would be impossible due to the imagery used. Jesus refers to Himself as the builder, Peter as the holder of the key, and then an unnamed something as the rock upon which His church will be built. McGarvey says it is very difficult to imagine that Christ would have meant Peter as both foundation and key-keeper at the same time in the same image (p. 144-145), so “rock” must refer to some other object of thought. He concludes that Peter’s confession is that object. Gaebelein (1984) leans more toward Peter being the rock, but denies this gave Peter any special privilege or authority:
But he, along with John, can be sent by other apostles (Acts 8:14); and he is held accountable for his actions by the Jerusalem church (Acts 11:1-18); and was rebuked by Paul (Gal. 2:11-14). He is, in short, primus inter pares (”first among equals”); and on the foundation of such men (Eph. 2:20), Jesus built his church (p. 368).
Boles (1936) disagrees with this view, however, by stating that it is impossible for Peter to have been the rock upon which Jesus would build His church because of the evidence from the original language. He reasons that since Peter’s name in Greek (Petros) means a small stone, and the word translated “rock” is “petra,” meaning a solid ledge of rock, Christ could not have meant He would build His church upon a “small stone” (p. 345).
It seems clear from the context that Jesus by using the term “Petra” referred to the truth that Peter had just confessed, which was the deity of Jesus. The truth that Jesus is the Son of the Living God is the most fundamental and basic of all truths pertaining to
man’s redemption (p. 345).
In summary, Turner lays out a solid definition of what the one true church is, when it was founded, and what terms are used in scripture to refer to God’s “called out.” Culturally, the fact that there is a “one true church,” the one found in the New Testament, means that there are many people today worshipping in an unscriptural manner. The implications for the church are such that we must strive to bring those wanderers into the fold, and also guard ourselves against apostasy. Individuals must weigh the Bible’s teachings in light of a sincere desire to serve God.
When study is done with the intent to follow God’s will, and not that of man and self, one can see the glorious body of Christ described for us in His word clearly, and take positive steps to be sure we are in a right relationship with God.
WORKS CITED
- Boles, H. Leo. (1936). A Commentary on the Gospel According to Matthew. Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate.
- Boren, Maxie. (1999). Is There But One True Church? In Maxie Boren (Ed.), Questions of Eternal Consequence, Fort Worth Lectures ““ 1999 (pp. 140-155). Pulaski, TN: Sain Publications.
- Gaebelein, Frank E. (Ed.). (1984). The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, Mark, Luke. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
- Hodge, Charles. (1979). Systematic Theology, Vol. III. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
- Jackson, Wayne. (2001). Is there a future kingdom? Christian Courier. Retrieved July 27, 2004 from the World Wide Web: http://www.christiancourier.com/notes/futureKingdom.htm
- McGarvey, J.W. (1875). New Testament Commentary on Matthew and Mark. Des Moines, Iowa: Eugene Smith.
- Music, Goebel. (1991). Behold the Pattern. Colleyville, TX: Goebel Music Publications.
- Turner, R.A. Sr. (1989). Systematic Theology. Montgomery, AL: Alabama Christian School of Religion.
When should we keep the Lord’s Supper?
Posted on June 2, 2007
Filed Under The Church, Weylan Deaver | 3 Comments
by Weylan Deaver
Recalling Jesus’ words to his disciples on the eve of betrayal, Paul wrote,
For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes (1 Cor. 11:23-26, ESV).
How often is not enough? How often is too often? Does the day of observing the Lord’s Supper make any difference? Perhaps past generations in the church have taken for granted that all Christians knew the day and the frequency for taking the Supper. If so, that time has passed.
According to a December 12, 2006 article by Bobby Ross, Jr. in the Christian Chronicle, “The Richland Hills church in Texas “” the largest of the nation’s 13,000 a cappella Churches of Christ “” has decided to add an instrumental worship assembly with communion on Saturday nights. Jon Jones, an elder and former pulpit minister at the 6,400-member church, told the congregation Dec. 3 that Richland Hills’ elders “˜fully and completely’ endorsed the decision” (http://www.christianchronicle.org). On that congregation’s website are available a series of lessons from their minister, Rick Atchley, in which he boldly, unapologetically, argues the rightness and expediency of their adopting mechanical instruments in worship and observing the Lord’s Supper on Saturday. Much can and should be said in response, but our focus at present is briefly to nail down the biblical answer to the question, “When should we keep the Lord’s Supper?”
When Did The Lord’s Supper Begin?
Jesus’ establishing of the practice is chronicled in Matthew 26, Mark 14, and Luke 22. “And on the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they sacrificed the Passover lamb, his disciples said to him, “˜Where will you have us go and prepare for you to eat the Passover?’” (Mark 14:12). The feast of Unleavened Bread is synonymous with the Passover (cf. Luke 22:1), which commemorated God’s delivering Israel from Egyptian slavery and passing over (i.e. sparing) their homes when the firstborn of Egypt were miraculously killed. There is a variety of opinion relating to a precise chronology of events surrounding this particular Passover. Jesus was crucified on the morrow (the day after “the first day of Unleavened Bread”). Some conclude the day of crucifixion was Friday (making Thursday “the first day of Unleavened Bread”), whereas a strong case can be made for the crucifixion on Thursday (making Wednesday “the first day of Unleavened Bread”). It is beyond our scope to analyze the merits of either view. Suffice it say the Lord’s Supper was instituted on either Wednesday or Thursday of the crucifixion week.
In Matthew’s account, Jesus remarked to the disciples, “I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom” (Matt. 26:29). Luke’s version has Jesus saying he would “not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God” (Luke 22:16). Thus, the definite impression is given that, though he was inaugurating a practice not seen before, he would not participate again until it found fulfillment in the kingdom. Since numerous verses clearly teach that the kingdom of Christ and church of Christ are synonymous (e.g. Matt. 16:18-19; Mark 9:1; Col. 1:13; etc.), we conclude Jesus meant that the next time he was involved with this practice””i.e. the Lord’s Supper””would be after the kingdom comes. Although by that time the Lord had ascended to heaven, his disciples could reflect on a truth he had told them: “For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them” (Matt. 18:20). So, Jesus’ personal presence in the flesh would not be required for him to be present among his followers after the Supper was “fulfilled in the kingdom.”
Because the Lord’s Supper initially began in the middle of the week instead of Sunday, the question arises whether Sunday should be the day””or, the exclusive day””it is kept by today’s church. Several facts need remembering about the circumstances when Jesus first explained what we now call the Lord’s Supper.
First, Jesus’ resurrection did not occur in the middle of the week. Nor was the church begun on a Wednesday or Thursday. Further, neither Acts nor the Epistles places religious significance on Wednesday or Thursday. There is no hint the early church emphasized either of those days.
Second, when Jesus announced the Supper, there was no church to begin the keeping of it.
Third, as a technical matter, the Law of Moses was still in effect since it had not yet been nailed to the cross (cf. Col. 2:14).
Fourth, since the crucifixion had not happened, neither had the resurrection. Prior to Christ’s resurrection, Sunday had no significance to the disciples. That which would fill Sunday with importance for all believers was still in the future.
Fifth, had Jesus begun the Supper on a Sunday, the Old Testament analogy God intended to draw from it would have suffered. Specifically, Paul would later write, “For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed” (1 Cor. 5:7). It was no coincidence that the crucifixion was timed to the Passover. And, it was not by chance that the Supper was held immediately prior to the crucifixion. All these momentous events unfolded according to God’s “definite plan” (cf. Acts 2:23).
Sixth, after its beginning, there is no indication the Supper ever was kept again until after the church was begun in Acts 2.
What Day Did The Early Church Keep The Lord’s Supper?
It is beyond dispute the early church assembled to worship on Sunday. What made Sunday significant? Sunday was the day Christ came out of the tomb (Mark 16:9). Sunday was the day the resurrected Christ made appearances to various disciples (Luke 24:1-43; John 20:19). Sunday was the day the Holy Spirit descended on the apostles in Acts 2 (Pentecost falling at the beginning of the week). Sunday, therefore, was the day the church of Christ began on earth (Acts 2:1-47).
Little wonder that the first day of the week came to be celebrated by earliest Christians. By the end of the first century, in writing the last inspired book, John could say, “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day” (Rev. 1:10). Numerous Greek and biblical scholars take “the Lord’s day” as a clear reference to Sunday””the church’s day of worship. As W. B. West, Jr. stated, “The Lord requires the first of everything, and He requires the first day of the week in the Christian dispensation. In early Christian literature on this side of the first century, we have a number of great Christian leaders who testify that the early Christians met on the Lord’s day, the first day of the week, to worship God in spirit and in truth” (Revelation Through First Century Glasses, p. 28).
Though extra-biblical literature verifies Sunday as the day of assembly for the earliest saints, the Bible itself reveals that such was the practice at the church in Troas. “On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the next day, and he prolonged his speech until midnight” (Acts 20:7). Two other verses from Acts 20 deserve mention in the same context. Verse six tells that Paul’s company stayed seven days at Troas. Verse sixteen notes that Paul was in a hurry to get to Jerusalem by Pentecost (presumably, to distribute the money he had been collecting from Gentile churches for the poor saints in Jerusalem). If Paul were in such a hurry, why would he linger an entire week in Troas? Though Scripture does not state the reason, a quite possible explanation is that Paul arrived in Troas after the church’s Sunday worship and, wanting to assemble with them before leaving, was forced to wait till the next Sunday rolled around””after which he immediately left town. If so, this would only help substantiate what we already know: that Christians in Troas met on Sunday to “break bread.” To “break bread” was either a figure of speech for the Lord’s Supper, or else a figure of speech for the entire worship (which would include the Lord’s Supper). J. W. McGarvey penned that Acts 20:7 “shows that the first day of the week was the day in which the disciples broke the loaf; and also that the prime purpose of their meeting on that day was to observe this ordinance” (New Commentary on Acts of Apostles, p. 179). Whatever may be said of one part of worship’s being more important than another, there is really no doubt the church in Troas met on Sunday””at least in part””to keep the Lord’s Supper. Per F. F. Bruce, Acts 20:7 “is the earliest unambiguous evidence we have for the Christian practice of gathering together for worship on that day” (New International Commentary on the New Testament: Acts, pp. 407-8).
We know the Troas church met on Sunday to observe the Lord’s Supper. But, did they accomplish that in Acts 20? After all, Paul preached till midnight (v. 7), and it was only later still that he broke bread and ate (v. 11). Some are now saying that the bread Paul broke (in v. 11) was the Lord’s Supper and, since it happened after midnight, Paul took the Lord’s Supper on Monday morning, and, therefore, the church today is justified to take the Lord’s Supper on other days than just Sunday.
Though it sounds reasonable at first, that view does not hold up well under greater scrutiny. Without embarking on an overlong discussion, it should be noted there are a plethora of opinions about the Troas assembly and just what happened and when. Since the Jews and Romans reckoned time very differently, what clock were the saints in Troas using?
If the Troas assembly were abiding by the Jewish clock, then (1) the meeting began sometime after 6:00 p.m. on Saturday, which would be Sunday morning for the Jews; (2) Paul’s midnight speech, followed by the Lord’s Supper would pose no problem, since all would have transpired on a Sunday, which would last till the following evening. Guy N. Woods has a good elaboration of the evidence in favor of this view (Questions and Answers, Open Forum, pp. 67-70).
On the contrary, if the Troas assembly were abiding by the Roman clock, then (1) they were meeting on Sunday night of a day that began the previous midnight; (2) Paul’s midnight sermon would have taken the brethren into the early hours of Monday morning; (3) the breaking of bread that followed Paul’s sermon would have happened Monday morning. Wayne Jackson makes a good case for this meeting beginning on Sunday””not Saturday””night (The Acts of the Apostles, pp. 250-3). If it is right to calculate the meeting via Roman time, the problem becomes: How do you explain their taking the Lord’s Supper on Monday morning? In answer to that, Jackson argues several points persuasively (p. 253), including the following four:
First, only Paul is said to have “broken bread and eaten” (v. 11), whereas, if it were the Lord’s Supper, we would expect a different description indicating the whole assembly participated. If Paul alone partook, then the bread Paul ate was simply a common meal.
Second, the Greek verb (in v. 11) for “eaten” means “to taste.” In The Pulpit Commentary, A. C. Hervey took the position this verb “is never used of the sacramental eating of bread” (vol. xviii, p. 144). Likewise, W. E. Vine held that this verb’s definition was reason enough to conclude that Acts 20:11 describes a common meal, and not the Lord’s Supper. Vine states, “As to whether Acts 20:11 refers to the Lord’s Supper or to an ordinary meal, the addition of the words “˜and eaten’ is perhaps a sufficient indication that the latter is referred to here, whereas v. 7, where the single phrase “˜to break bread’ is used, refers to the Lord’s Supper” (Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, p. 193).
Third, if, in fact, the church in Troas did not get around to taking the Lord’s Supper till early Monday morning, then they failed to do what they assembled to do! Is it reasonable to conclude they assembled on Sunday to take the Lord’s Supper, but then failed to do so? In view of the previous two points, it is a very reasonable possibility that the church kept the Lord’s Supper before Paul ever got up to speak, in which case it would have been observed on Sunday””no matter whether Jewish or Roman time was being used.
Fourth, what about the fact that some Greek manuscripts have a definite article before “bread” in Acts 20:11? Many might think the definite article (i.e. “the” bread) points out a special kind of bread and proves the meal Paul took is, indeed, the Lord’s Supper. However, Jackson reminds us that the Greek scholar, Thomas F. Middleton, published a book in 1841 on The Doctrine of the Greek Article, in which he stated that the Greek article in Acts 20:11 is not conclusive, and that the meal described is “ordinary refreshment” instead of the Lord’s Supper (p. 288).
Now, what can be gleaned from this? First, we may never know whether Jewish or Roman time was being used in the Troas assembly. Second, a genuine Sunday observance of the Lord’s Supper can be maintained, either way. Third, to adopt the view that Paul took the Lord’s Supper on Monday morning is to disregard significant evidence which could easily explain the passages without resorting to a Monday observance. Fourth, in light of the fact that the Troas church assembled on Sunday for the purpose of keeping the Lord’s Supper, we should give them the benefit of any doubt that they did do what they assembled to do. Fifth, if the church at Troas did what they assembled to do, then they did, indeed, take the Lord’s Supper on Sunday. Sixth, to insist that Acts 20:11 is an example of the Lord’s Supper taken on a Monday is to do a disservice to the facts in an effort to push a hermeneutically unfair conclusion (and, dare we say, an unbiblical agenda). Seventh, for all that can be said regarding chronologies and methods of counting time, we know this for sure: The first century church met on Sunday to take the Lord’s Supper!
Then again, Acts 20 is not the only passage bearing on the subject. Remember Paul’s rebuke of the Corinthians? “For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part”¦.When you come together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat” (1 Cor. 11:18, 20). Thus, in Corinth, they would “come together as a church,” and their purpose should have been to eat the Lord’s Supper (though, in their case, they were abusing it to the point it could not be called the Lord’s Supper).
Is there any contextual evidence when the Corinthian assemblies occurred? In point of fact, yes. “On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper, so that there will be no collecting when I come” (1 Cor. 16:2). That verse does not mention the Lord’s Supper, but we can put the pieces together. Paul said the instructions he gave Corinth were given to other churches (1 Cor. 16:1; cf. 7:17; 14:33), which means that assembling “on the first day of every week” was not an anomaly limited to Corinth. Also, an assembly seems implied in order for them to comply with the demand Paul gave. If each Corinthian family had set money aside on Sunday (say, in an empty coffee can on their kitchen counter), then that would have defeated the purpose of the verse, since there would have to be a “collecting” after Paul came. In order to avoid such a collection after Paul’s arrival, they must have been assembling on a weekly basis, during which they pooled their contributions in a common place. Moreover, if they were meeting on Sunday to do that, it would be most unreasonable to assume they were not also singing, praying, teaching, and taking the Lord’s Supper. The Corinthians were already doing those things in worship on Sunday, and Paul simply gave them an additional requirement””the weekly offering of money””to add to the Sunday assembly’s purpose.
Did The Early Church Keep The Lord’s Supper Every Sunday?
What did he mean when, in the Ten Commandments, God said, “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy” (Ex. 20:8)? Remember the Sabbath monthly? Quarterly? Annually? Once a decade? Without a limiting passage indicating otherwise, Israel would be forced to conclude they were meant to observe every Sabbath. Israel would have sinned had they decided to observe the Sabbath monthly. Likewise, Israel would have sinned had they decided to remember Friday instead of the Sabbath.
The New Testament reveals a different day””Sunday””as a special time of remembrance, during which the Lord’s Supper is taken as a feast in commemoration of Jesus’ death. Acts 20:7 pinpoints the day on which Christians gathered to “break bread.” And, 1 Corinthians 16:2 pinpoints the frequency of the Sunday worship assembly (”on the first day of the week” is, in Greek, Κατα μίαν σαββάτων, which literally means “on every first day of the week” [see Fritz Rienecker, Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament, p. 446]).
In conclusion, it should be well noted that, in the Bible, preaching can be found on days other than Sunday (e.g. Acts 13:14ff.). Praying and singing are authorized without being specifically tied to Sunday (Jas. 5:13). However, since the church came into being, the Lord’s Supper is invariably connected to””Sunday! Today certain brethren are teaching it is fine to take the Lord’s Supper on Saturday (or any other day). Is that novel doctrine from heaven or from men (cf. Mark 11:30)? If from heaven, then we should expect to find it plainly authorized on the pages of inspiration (Rom. 10:17; cf. 14:23; Heb. 11:6). If from men, then we should adamantly reject it as spiritual poison which makes worship vain (Matt. 15:9).
Though he was neither inspired nor perfect, J. W. McGarvey understood more Bible than a boatload of modern preachers bent on changing the New Testament pattern of worship, and we concur with these sentiments he published in his 1892 New Commentary on Acts of Apostles (p. 179):
“Such being the purpose of the Lord’s day meeting, as surely as the disciples met every Lord’s day, they broke the loaf on that day. Slight as this evidence is, when taken in connection with the universal practice of the church in the second century, and for a long period afterward, it has proved sufficient to win universal agreement among biblical scholars, that this was the apostolic custom; and as the example of the apostles acting under the guidance of the Holy Spirit shows plainly the will of the Lord, our custom should be the same, and all the excuses which we ingeniously frame for rejecting this custom are invalid.”
Musical instruments in worship on the decline?
Posted on June 2, 2007
Filed Under Instrumental Music, Matt Clifton | 4 Comments
by Matt Clifton
That title may be a little over-the-top, but there are certainly currents of change happening among “reformed” theologians. Even while a few congregations of the Lord’s church are dabbling in the use of mechanical instruments of music in worship, it appears that some among the denominations are turning away from this unscriptural practice.
One instance of this can be found in the new book, “Old Light on New aWorship: Musical Instruments and the Worship of God” by John Price. A review of this book is located here.
Price, a baptist minister of Grace Baptist Church in Rochester, NY, argues strongly in this work that instruments of music have no place in Christian worship.
Another treatise on musical instruments in worship has been written by Brian Schwertley, minister of Westminster Prebyterian Church in Waupaca County, Wisconsin. A second online article may be found here by G.I. Williamson, another Presbyterian minister.
We applaud the diligent study these writers have done and are doing on this subject.
Avoiding Extremes
Posted on June 1, 2007
Filed Under Brandon Renfroe, Christian Growth | Leave a Comment
by Brandon Renfroe
He never saw it coming.
It was cold, the rain was likely cascading down in sheets, and he had just survived a harrowing experience at sea, culminating in shipwreck and a desperate swim to shore. Though probably near exhaustion, his mind still foggy because of the events of the previous two weeks (cf. Acts 27:33), the apostle Paul managed to think practically, knowing the fire that had been kindled must be kept burning.
Click to Continue Reading This Story…
Evolution: A Science Teacher’s Perspective
Posted on June 1, 2007
Filed Under Apologetics, Brandon Renfroe | Leave a Comment
by Brandon Renfroe
In addition to preaching the gospel, it is also my good fortune to teach science on the high school level. Such has been a very interesting experience, to say the least, and one fraught with more than its share of delicate situations.
Click to Continue Reading This Story…
What is the church of Christ?
Posted on May 30, 2007
Filed Under Mark Lindley, The Church | Leave a Comment
By Mark Lindley
What does one mean when he says, “I am a member of the church of Christ?” Many who are not members of the church of Christ believe that when one makes such a statement, he is claiming membership in a denomination. In fact, many sincere, religious people believe that all churches are basically the same, because they feel that all are denominations. Please understand, however, that those who claim membership in the church of Christ are not claiming to be members of a denomination.
Click to Continue Reading This Story…
Paul and Baptism
Posted on May 30, 2007
Filed Under Matt Clifton, Salvation | Leave a Comment
by Matt Clifton
It is sometimes stated that the writings of the apostle Paul give no particular emphasis to baptism as a command of the gospel. In fact, the average “man on the street” evangelical adherent will claim that since Paul said Christ sent him “not to baptize, but to preach the gospel” (1 Cor. 1:17), it must mean that baptism is not a part of the gospel, nor necessary for salvation.aa But how does Paul treat baptism in his writings? Does he really isolate baptism in water from the gospel? Does Paul see baptism as unnecessary and inconsequential? If not, what purposes and needs does Paul see being fulfilled by baptism?
Click to Continue Reading This Story…
a- Blomberg, Craig L. The NIV Application Commentary, 1 Corinthians. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994. Blomberg claims that 1 Corinthians 10:1-12 is a proof that baptism is not required for salvation, but in both his references (p. 46 and pp. 191-197) he fails to give exegetical support to the statement, other than to say that the Israelites were not literally immersed in water while following the cloud and at the crossing of the Red Sea. Somehow he applies Paul’s figurative use of “baptism” in reference to the Israelites to the Bible’s literal teaching in regards to baptism and conversion.aaa
Who wrote Hebrews?
Posted on May 29, 2007
Filed Under Matt Clifton, New Testament Commentary | 1 Comment
by Matt Clifton
New Testament scholars down through the years have been left in a quandary when it comes to consideration of the authorship of the book we know as the Epistle to the Hebrews. After all, although traditionally it was ascribed to Paul as the author, there is the looming fact of the omission of his name in the greeting, where it characteristically appears in thirteen epistles of Paul.
Did Paul write the letter to the Hebrews? If not, who did?
Click to Continue Reading This Story…
Mere Christianity
Posted on May 19, 2007
Filed Under Brandon Renfroe, Denominationalism | Leave a Comment
by Brandon Renfroe
One of the most treasured volumes in my library is Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis’ classic work on apologetics. Lewis’ avowed goal was to set forth his conception of the basics of Christian faith and practice, irrespective of sectarian ideologies. Though one will not always agree with Lewis’ theology, the method in which he treats the human condition is nothing short of masterful. Indeed, if one is able to separate the wheat of truth from the chaff of ecumenism, there are many golden nuggets to be mined from Lewis’ vast depository of writings.
Today, if one were to set forth a “mere” Christianity more in keeping with the teaching of the New Testament, what would it look like? That such an effort is necessary is evident from the fact that an increasing number have no real conception of the distinctive nature of the church for which the Savior died. Unable to conceive of Christianity other than in terms of an “-ism,” they view virtually every religious body, regardless of its teachings, as being on equal footing. It was for this reason that N.B. Hardeman once lamented that his greatest difficulty as a preacher was to help others comprehend the non-denominational nature of the church. Said Hardeman:
In this country of ours, we’ve been bred and born and reared in the denominational idea until it has become such a mass of confusion that it’s next to impossible for any man to make clear the distinction between the church of the Bible and a human organization, founded by some uninspired man, at some other time than the year 33, at some place other than the city of Jerusalem (198).
It is not terribly difficult to convince a reasonable mind of the singular nature of the Lord’s church. To wit, if there is but one body (Eph. 4:4), and if that body is the church (Eph. 1:22-23), there can be only one church. No degree in philosophy, logic, or theology is needed to draw such a simple conclusion.
The problem in most minds, as Hardeman alluded to, stems from dueling conceptions of this one church. Many within the community of “Christendom” view the church as a jigsaw puzzle of sorts, with the various denominational bodies coming together to form the whole. Others, though in the decided minority, realize that while the church is the body composed of every saved individual on earth (cf. Eph. 5:23), only those who have done exactly what the Bible requires to do are in fact saved (cf. Rom. 6:17).
Coming to a proper understanding of “mere Christianity” involves making at least one crucial, yet fundamental, distinction; namely, that conflicting ideas cannot both be correct. In their book World Religions & Cults 101, Bruce Bickel and Stan Jantz describe the thinking of those who would place Judaism, Islam, and other world religions on par with Christianity. Viewing “God” as living at the top of a large “mountain,” they believe the various belief systems of the world represent different paths which eventually lead to the summit. Just as every winding trail eventually reaches the mountain peak, all religions, it is believed, eventually lead to God. The problem with this mindset, Bickel and Jantz argue, is that “all religions can’t be true.” This is because “all religions are different and mutually exclusive at various points” (10). Thus, if Christianity confidently contends for Jesus as the Son of God, and Judaism just as fervently rejects this notion, obviously both cannot be correct.
Though many readily concede the veracity of this initial point, they fall prey to essentially the same error when they seek to excuse similar divisions among those claiming to follow Christ. Few there are among us who have not heard the tried and true, “We’re all going to heaven, just taking different roads to get there.” What is this if not another version of the “God at the top of the mountain” analogy? In this case, Christ is sitting at the top of the mountain, and the various denominational bodies that dot our landscape are the pathways that lead to the top. If we can understand its fallacy in the one instance, the same should be apparent in the other. Did not Christ speak of a “strait and narrow way” (not ways) which leads to glory? (cf. Mt. 7:13-14). Consequently, if one church argues that baptism is “for” the remission of sins (cf. Acts 2:38), while another contends that baptism is “not for” the remission of sins, it should go without saying that these positions””and the religious bodies that hold them””cannot be reconciled.
At the outset, then, a plea for mere Christianity would recognize the “common faith” (Tit. 1:4) and “common salvation” (Jude 3) of which the Bible so clearly speaks. That is, there is a uniform body of objective truth set forth in the sacred scriptures, and a definite process to which men must submit as result, if they would be cleansed from their sins. When writing to the Romans, Paul described this as “that form of doctrine” they had “obeyed from the heart” (Rom. 6:17). In short, there are not differing “schemes of redemption” or “plans of salvation” to which men must submit.
Additionally, a plea for mere Christianity would surely involve wearing nothing other than the “noble name” of Christ (cf. Jas. 2:7). When the divine name was bestowed upon the disciples in Antioch of Syria, it was Christian (Acts 11:26). When Paul made his defense before Agrippa, it included a plea for the ruler to become a Christian (Acts 26:28). Indeed, it is in wearing the name Christian that we bring glory and honor to God (1 Pet. 4:16).
Unfortunately, many in our day are unduly enamored with names which, if they do not completely displace “Christian,” are at the very least given equal billing with it. When asked of their religious affiliation, scores will respond by offering the name of a man, doctrinal position, or congregational arrangement to which they subscribe. It is only after seeking clarification that they will append the name “Christian” to themselves. Is there nothing amiss in this procedure?
In reality, this problem is not a new one. Modern day division may be traced back to its seed form in the church at Corinth. When the apostle Paul directed his first letter to the brethren there, he rebuked them for displaying inordinate allegiance to those who had taught them the gospel. Specifically, some were apparently wearing the names of Paul, Apollos, and Cephas (Peter) as religious appellatives. Since none of these men had been crucified on their behalf, and, further, since none of the Corinthians had been baptized into their name, they had no right to their names (cf. 1 Cor. 1:11-13). Applying this ancient problem to more modern times, Bible scholar J.W. McGarvey observed, “If it was sinful for these brethren to assume the names of men, how can it be innocent in us to do the very same thing?” (147-148). It could be argued that the sin of today is even more egregious in its nature, for if the Corinthians were wrong for wearing the names of apostles and prophets, how much more blame do some today bear for wearing the names of uninspired men? In truth, there is only one name for those who claim to follow the Lord to wear, and that is Christian.
Finally, a plea for mere Christianity would not be complete without the realization that religion, to be effective, must be active. Those who seek to follow Christ, the perfect example (cf. 1 Pet. 2:21), must go about “doing good” (Acts 10:38). “Pure religion,” as James would write, involves “visiting” and “keeping”””action words! (Jas. 1:27). We must ever keep in mind that the “doers” of the word are blessed, not “hearers only” (Jas. 1:22). Only by practicing what we preach will men see our good works, and come to glorify the heavenly Father (Mt. 5:16). Any religion which would suggest that “penance” may supplant “repentance” cannot be other than a counterfeit!
If the Savior’s prayer for unity is ever to be realized (cf. Jn. 17:20-21), His people must lay aside the divisions which so easily beset them and pledge total allegiance and fealty to none other than the “King of kings and Lord of lords” (1 Tim. 6:15). This is our calling, and it is a noble one.
Sources
Bickel, Bruce and Stan Jantz (2002), World Religions & Cults 101: A Guide to Spiritual Beliefs, (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers).
Hardeman, N.B. (2001 Reprint), Hardeman’s Tabernacle Sermons, Vol. 4, (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).
McGarvey, J.W. (n.d.), Original Commentary on Acts, (Bowling Green, KY: Guardian of Truth Foundation).
« go back — keep looking »Polls
Loading ...-
