I think the following paragraph can be a useful tool in how we address/discuss/debate the different topics that face the church today.
Thomas Campbell in "The Declaration and Address" noted that we often reach conclusions from biblical data using inferences. In the 13 propositions, Campbell set the principle of deductions and inferences when "fairly inferred or deducted from scripture" may be taught as doctrine. However, he went on to say that these deductions or inferences should not be made a test of fellowship. His reasoning was that even though biblical teachers reached their conclusions using solid hermeneutical principles, there may be some who simply do not see the connection. As a result, the conclusions reached by deduction or inference should not be binding on others beyond their capability to make the connection. (Michael Hines, June 2009, Restoration Herald)
The reason Michael Hines made this comment was an ongoing discussion in the Restoration Herald concerning the Evangelist and the Elder/Pastor in the church.
Michael Pemberton is an Evangelist with White Fields Evangelism and strongly believes that the located minister is in fact the Evangelist in today’s church. In his view the Evangelist is a valid office within the church based on what Paul told Timothy. He sites 2 Timothy 4:1-5 as the work of this office. He sites Ephesians 4:11-12 as evidence of the office itself.
In Pembertons view the office of both elder and evangelist must coexist since in his view each is to appoint and ordain the other. He sees the evangelist as the one who is to rebuke and discipline the sinning elder and the elder the sinning evangelist. No elder is appointed and ordained by elders he says. To Pemberton the command to Timothy to "do the work of an Evangelist" is evidence that Timothy was in fact an Evangelist
Hines on the other hand, says that to draw such deductions and inferences based on only three mentions of the Evangelist in scripture is at best weak and a defense of ones own paid position in the church. The three instances mentioned are Luke’s identification of Philip as an Evangelist in Acts 2:1-8, the admonition by Paul to Timothy to "do the work of an Evangelist in 2 Tim 4:5, and the Gift of God in Eph 4:11. From these three passages it is deduced or inferred that there is an office of Evangelist. Since it is his opinion that there is no other reference in the NT of this title and absolutely no writings in either the second or third century of any such office, we should be careful in drawing such inferences.
While he thinks it can be legitimately inferred that such a role existed in the early church, there may be better explanations of the use of the term. The clearest example we have is Philip (actually called an evangelist) who spread the good news (which the Greek implies) and was what Jesus commanded all the disciples to do in the great commission but never as a located office. Paul he says was simply reminding Timothy that part of his responsibility included what some might call "soul winning" along with setting things in order in the Ephesian church as his representative or delegate. There is no indication that this was to be a located office within the early church. More accurately we may see this functioning as a church planter today.
One would see this church planter as the establisher of new assemblies, appointing the elders and then moving on but in no way as a located minister of salary working along side of or either over or under such elders. Hines concludes with this. "In my view, those who argue for the term Evangelist recognize that the New Testament says nothing specific about the one "man minister leader" in the early church yet want to defend their role as a paid servant". Stranger still, as has been my position, is the lack of any qualifications for said office or any criteria in which to judge this mans ability or competence to hold this office if it exists. Simply saying he should be held to the same standard as the Elder/Pastor is a noble goal but again there is no scriptural support for this either. If a man meets all the qualifications and desires of Eldership, then he is an elder and not an evangelist.
Keeping in mind the first paragraph and not making this a matter of any test for fellowship. I will be curious to see how this plays out over the next few months. What do you think?
John
Monday, June 15, 2009
Monday, June 8, 2009
Riddle me this.
As the joker often asked Batman, Riddle me this?
The year is 1932. Two men are walking down the street very late one night, and a policeman stops and questions them. Since they are acting suspicious he searches them and finds a pint of whisky on the one and only a few gold coins on the other. The man with the whiskey is quickly arrested and tossed in jail for 18 months.
The year is now 1934. The first man gets out of prison and meets his old friend and once again they go out and are stopped by the same policeman while out very late at night. The first man again has a pint of whisky in his possession and the second man only a few gold coins in his pocket. This time the police arrest the man with the gold coins and the man with the whisky is let go.
What's happening here?
Just reading the account I gave gives little clue as to what happened or was happening. Scripture is often like this. We read something and it seems not to make much sense until we go to extra-biblical history to fill in some blanks. Take the account of the Pilate telling the Jews he had found no guilt in Jesus, but upon hearing "you are not a friend of Caesar", Pilate immediately folds, washes his hands and does as the Jews wanted. Unless we read what Pilate’s standing was at the time with Augustus and Rome we would not know why this was such a powerful statement. Pilate had fallen out of favor due to many bad reports of abuse and killing of Jews and another report would be disastrous to him.
Another example would be why the Pharisees would not go into Pilate’s residence for fear of defiling themselves and not being able to eat the Passover that evening. But hadn’t Jesus eaten the Passover Seder the night before? Could Jesus have been mistaken or was it merely a meal of convenience? But since Gods command was to eat it on Nisan 14 according to the ordinance wouldn’t this have been disobedience and eliminated Jesus as a sinless lamb to go to the cross? Well since the Jews followed a Lunar year and we a Solar we can see some interesting developments. We know we have to add one day every four years (leap year) to make up the accuracy of our calendar. The Lunar year was far more fragile and sometimes up to 5 days had to be added periodically to keep it accurate. There was also a division between the cities in the northern regions and southern regions as to what day Nisan 14 fell during certain years. Jesus being from the North and most Pharisees adhering to the Southern reckoning (Judea) we then see this discrepancy.
Now back to the riddle above. In 1932 prohibition was still in effect and so having a pint of whisky in ones possession was against the law. However in 1934, prohibition was repealed but Franklin D Roosevelt had signed a law making it illegal for United States citizens to possess gold. Knowing the history, culture and traditions of a given time and people makes our understanding all that much clearer.
John
The year is 1932. Two men are walking down the street very late one night, and a policeman stops and questions them. Since they are acting suspicious he searches them and finds a pint of whisky on the one and only a few gold coins on the other. The man with the whiskey is quickly arrested and tossed in jail for 18 months.
The year is now 1934. The first man gets out of prison and meets his old friend and once again they go out and are stopped by the same policeman while out very late at night. The first man again has a pint of whisky in his possession and the second man only a few gold coins in his pocket. This time the police arrest the man with the gold coins and the man with the whisky is let go.
What's happening here?
Just reading the account I gave gives little clue as to what happened or was happening. Scripture is often like this. We read something and it seems not to make much sense until we go to extra-biblical history to fill in some blanks. Take the account of the Pilate telling the Jews he had found no guilt in Jesus, but upon hearing "you are not a friend of Caesar", Pilate immediately folds, washes his hands and does as the Jews wanted. Unless we read what Pilate’s standing was at the time with Augustus and Rome we would not know why this was such a powerful statement. Pilate had fallen out of favor due to many bad reports of abuse and killing of Jews and another report would be disastrous to him.
Another example would be why the Pharisees would not go into Pilate’s residence for fear of defiling themselves and not being able to eat the Passover that evening. But hadn’t Jesus eaten the Passover Seder the night before? Could Jesus have been mistaken or was it merely a meal of convenience? But since Gods command was to eat it on Nisan 14 according to the ordinance wouldn’t this have been disobedience and eliminated Jesus as a sinless lamb to go to the cross? Well since the Jews followed a Lunar year and we a Solar we can see some interesting developments. We know we have to add one day every four years (leap year) to make up the accuracy of our calendar. The Lunar year was far more fragile and sometimes up to 5 days had to be added periodically to keep it accurate. There was also a division between the cities in the northern regions and southern regions as to what day Nisan 14 fell during certain years. Jesus being from the North and most Pharisees adhering to the Southern reckoning (Judea) we then see this discrepancy.
Now back to the riddle above. In 1932 prohibition was still in effect and so having a pint of whisky in ones possession was against the law. However in 1934, prohibition was repealed but Franklin D Roosevelt had signed a law making it illegal for United States citizens to possess gold. Knowing the history, culture and traditions of a given time and people makes our understanding all that much clearer.
John
Friday, June 5, 2009
Our New Electronic Age
One of my fellow Elders just e mailed me a link to a story about a church that now allows twittering during service. Really, Twittering? You can read it yourselves at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30970139//
This got me thinking that perhaps we have gone too far. I can agree with using all the tools available to us but this may be over the top. As the Pastor said its not like I can say double click here to be saved or click here to have communion sent to your desk top, etc.
This same Elder and I got to thinking, what kind of message we could expect during a sermon? "Didn’t you preach on this last year"? "Isn’t it a bit too cold or too warm in here"? I used to preach in a bi-racial church where the "Amen’s" and "Praise the Lords" were a sense of encouragement and urged me on in the word. I dare say there is no encouragement in something twittered behind me that I can not see or hear.
On one of the forums I participate on, a newly hired pastor let us know that he was an assistant pastor. The senior pastor had just left some months back (under good conditions) and he was made interim senior pastor. After a couple of months the congregation voted to remove the "interim" from his title. He got resounding congratulations and prayers of encouragement. One Pastor however made a statement that got to me. "It’s nice to see a congregation test driving a minister before they hire him". Test driving ministers? That got me to thinking again. By now you probably see I think way too much about such things.
What if we instituted a system like "Pastor fax" for ministers we hire? Like Car Fax where all the previous repairs and accidents are listed so the buyer has an informed history before buying. Perhaps his doctrinal stand was a bit skewed and had to go into an authorized dealership for realignment or had some major body work done. Maybe we could classify pastors as we do cars? Those who graduated in the 60's’ rather then senior ministers, could be called muscle ministers. Those older ministers could be called classics. The Gen X ministers could be called hybrids and those smaller new church plants who can’t afford a minister yet and have sermons pod cast into the assembly can be the new electric ministers? This may catch on.
Don’t get me wrong I love the new tools available to us in ministry but we should be careful not to remove the human factor. Community and personal relationships are very important. Right before each time I preach I ask the assembly to go and greet any visitors or to greet someone they had not spoken to that day yet. Watching this interaction is a blessing for me in the preparation to speak Gods word. I cannot see the same blessing if they all remained in their seats twittering hello’s to each other.
John
This got me thinking that perhaps we have gone too far. I can agree with using all the tools available to us but this may be over the top. As the Pastor said its not like I can say double click here to be saved or click here to have communion sent to your desk top, etc.
This same Elder and I got to thinking, what kind of message we could expect during a sermon? "Didn’t you preach on this last year"? "Isn’t it a bit too cold or too warm in here"? I used to preach in a bi-racial church where the "Amen’s" and "Praise the Lords" were a sense of encouragement and urged me on in the word. I dare say there is no encouragement in something twittered behind me that I can not see or hear.
On one of the forums I participate on, a newly hired pastor let us know that he was an assistant pastor. The senior pastor had just left some months back (under good conditions) and he was made interim senior pastor. After a couple of months the congregation voted to remove the "interim" from his title. He got resounding congratulations and prayers of encouragement. One Pastor however made a statement that got to me. "It’s nice to see a congregation test driving a minister before they hire him". Test driving ministers? That got me to thinking again. By now you probably see I think way too much about such things.
What if we instituted a system like "Pastor fax" for ministers we hire? Like Car Fax where all the previous repairs and accidents are listed so the buyer has an informed history before buying. Perhaps his doctrinal stand was a bit skewed and had to go into an authorized dealership for realignment or had some major body work done. Maybe we could classify pastors as we do cars? Those who graduated in the 60's’ rather then senior ministers, could be called muscle ministers. Those older ministers could be called classics. The Gen X ministers could be called hybrids and those smaller new church plants who can’t afford a minister yet and have sermons pod cast into the assembly can be the new electric ministers? This may catch on.
Don’t get me wrong I love the new tools available to us in ministry but we should be careful not to remove the human factor. Community and personal relationships are very important. Right before each time I preach I ask the assembly to go and greet any visitors or to greet someone they had not spoken to that day yet. Watching this interaction is a blessing for me in the preparation to speak Gods word. I cannot see the same blessing if they all remained in their seats twittering hello’s to each other.
John
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Keep it Simple
As a coin collector I try to keep informed with what the US Mint is doing with the coins so many of us take for granted in our pockets. My mind immediately goes to thoughts of who once held that coin before me. Especially the really older ones. Coins from the Roman and Greek periods can still be gotten inexpensively and who knows who once held them. But back to our own Mint. Edmund Moy, the US Mint director has said there are discussions going on concerning a "Strategic Coin Reserve" to hold coins should there be a disruption of production at either of the US minting facilities, that would disrupt the production of coinage for commerce. That sounds pretty ominous doesn’t it? More like a home security issue. But there is not now or will there be in the near future any coin shortage. What is clear is that with these hard economic times, many people are emptying those coin jars and cans they toss their pennies and nickels into at the end of each day. As a result the banks are not ordering new coins from the Federal Reserve (those responsible for the distribution of coinage) and so the Reserve is not ordering from the Mint. What has become clear is that this is a ploy to keep Mint workers on the payroll during lean times and this got me to thinking.
In the church we have a lot of programs that either do not work, are not being worked or are simply on the books because some old time leaders put them there years ago. Sadly we refuse to let them go or discontinue them from a sense of tradition or habit. Some are such sacred cows that for any pastor to suggest ending such programs would probably cost him his job.
A recent article in the Christian Standard was geared toward "Simple Church". that is not to say Easy Church but just a more simple way of doing what we are called to do. One pastor I spoke to still has a Sunday Evening service where only he and his wife and another couple attend. While I am sure these few are being blessed is this the best way to continue with time and resources being stretched so thin? Some churches do VBS at a financial loss just because its always been done. Perhaps a rethinking of what we want to accomplish and how we are to get there is in order. This may mean cutting some sacred cows and trimming some fat but in the end it may produce a more efficient church ministry or outreach.
A church of less then 100 people with 24 different ministries on the books has to be stretched to their limit. While that same church ministering with less programs and more involvement in the ones they decide on would be more beneficial. I think what has elevated these sacred cows is the idea that we have to be relevant to each and every person we encounter and I think we all know that is impossible. Just as we do not all have the same Spiritual gifts, I do not think every assembly has to be relevant to every person. As someone once said, "Keep the main thing, the main thing". We as local assemblies are to be about seeking and saving the lost. We cannot do it all, nor should we even try. One plants and another waters and the Holy Spirit brings forth the harvest. Focus on what you "can" do and do it well. Keep it simple but keep it productive, rather then keeping it complicated and nothing being done of any significance to further the kingdom.
John
In the church we have a lot of programs that either do not work, are not being worked or are simply on the books because some old time leaders put them there years ago. Sadly we refuse to let them go or discontinue them from a sense of tradition or habit. Some are such sacred cows that for any pastor to suggest ending such programs would probably cost him his job.
A recent article in the Christian Standard was geared toward "Simple Church". that is not to say Easy Church but just a more simple way of doing what we are called to do. One pastor I spoke to still has a Sunday Evening service where only he and his wife and another couple attend. While I am sure these few are being blessed is this the best way to continue with time and resources being stretched so thin? Some churches do VBS at a financial loss just because its always been done. Perhaps a rethinking of what we want to accomplish and how we are to get there is in order. This may mean cutting some sacred cows and trimming some fat but in the end it may produce a more efficient church ministry or outreach.
A church of less then 100 people with 24 different ministries on the books has to be stretched to their limit. While that same church ministering with less programs and more involvement in the ones they decide on would be more beneficial. I think what has elevated these sacred cows is the idea that we have to be relevant to each and every person we encounter and I think we all know that is impossible. Just as we do not all have the same Spiritual gifts, I do not think every assembly has to be relevant to every person. As someone once said, "Keep the main thing, the main thing". We as local assemblies are to be about seeking and saving the lost. We cannot do it all, nor should we even try. One plants and another waters and the Holy Spirit brings forth the harvest. Focus on what you "can" do and do it well. Keep it simple but keep it productive, rather then keeping it complicated and nothing being done of any significance to further the kingdom.
John
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Memorial Day Thoughts
I used to get a kick out of Jay Leno questioning young people about current events, history and names of certain Americans to test their knowledge. I say I used to, because it became very obvious that our young people have been cheated out of a rich knowledge of things I guess I take for granted. Not one group of 100 College Students could find six (6) majors countries in Europe on a map. That same group could not identify at least ten (10) states within the continental United States on a map. I find that sad.
I recently visited a discussion forum where someone had asked if there was a web site that had some of the Old favorite Hymns but with modern wording? I wondered why anyone would rally want that? To which I was told "to make it relevant for young people today". It seems this person thought the that the "Thee’s" ad "Thou’s" were archaic and needed some revision. Well, I did some investigation and found that while most newer English translations of the Bible have eliminated these two words from the older versions (The KJV in particular), and translate both words in the newer English versions as "You". The problem with this is that in the older English, Thee and Thou meant something entirely different. Thee is general and often plural, while Thou is singular and more specific and personal. It seems we are willing to sacrifice accuracy for relevancy and again at a cost to our young people.
One objection was made to my comment where one hymn says "we lift up our Ebenezer". The poster said a better translation would be we lift up our "stone of help" which is what Ebenezer means in Hebrew. But in doing so we miss the significance of not only the word itself but its biblical and geographical significance.
This Hymn line comes from 1 Samuel 7:12-13 (NASB)
12 Then Samuel took a stone and set it between Mizpah and Shen, and named it Ebenezer, saying, "Thus far the Lord has helped us."
13 So the Philistines were subdued and they did not come anymore within the border of Israel. And the hand of the Lord was against the Philistines all the days of Samuel.
Today Eben Haezer still exists as a small town and any student of scripture should be aware of its significance.
All this is to lead to my main point. I asked a few youth this week what Memorial Day was and why we celebrate it? One youth answered that it is the day LifeGuards officially come on duty at the beach. Another said it was the official start of summer. Anther said it was an official school holiday. Not one said it was a day we set aside to remember and honor those who have fallen in the line of duty in the protection of this great country. Not one. Have we cheated out young people to the extent that Memorial day is nothing more then a day off from school or the day they can finally and safely go into the water? One has to wonder what is being thought about when we commemorate the Lords Supper on Sunday. Is it to them what scripture tells us, a remembrance of the Lord and His sacrifice for us? A proclamation of the Lords death until He comes? Or is it just a mid service snack? Or a refrain in service in preparation for the sermon time? I think the dumbing down of America has finally come of age.
John
I recently visited a discussion forum where someone had asked if there was a web site that had some of the Old favorite Hymns but with modern wording? I wondered why anyone would rally want that? To which I was told "to make it relevant for young people today". It seems this person thought the that the "Thee’s" ad "Thou’s" were archaic and needed some revision. Well, I did some investigation and found that while most newer English translations of the Bible have eliminated these two words from the older versions (The KJV in particular), and translate both words in the newer English versions as "You". The problem with this is that in the older English, Thee and Thou meant something entirely different. Thee is general and often plural, while Thou is singular and more specific and personal. It seems we are willing to sacrifice accuracy for relevancy and again at a cost to our young people.
One objection was made to my comment where one hymn says "we lift up our Ebenezer". The poster said a better translation would be we lift up our "stone of help" which is what Ebenezer means in Hebrew. But in doing so we miss the significance of not only the word itself but its biblical and geographical significance.
This Hymn line comes from 1 Samuel 7:12-13 (NASB)
12 Then Samuel took a stone and set it between Mizpah and Shen, and named it Ebenezer, saying, "Thus far the Lord has helped us."
13 So the Philistines were subdued and they did not come anymore within the border of Israel. And the hand of the Lord was against the Philistines all the days of Samuel.
Today Eben Haezer still exists as a small town and any student of scripture should be aware of its significance.
All this is to lead to my main point. I asked a few youth this week what Memorial Day was and why we celebrate it? One youth answered that it is the day LifeGuards officially come on duty at the beach. Another said it was the official start of summer. Anther said it was an official school holiday. Not one said it was a day we set aside to remember and honor those who have fallen in the line of duty in the protection of this great country. Not one. Have we cheated out young people to the extent that Memorial day is nothing more then a day off from school or the day they can finally and safely go into the water? One has to wonder what is being thought about when we commemorate the Lords Supper on Sunday. Is it to them what scripture tells us, a remembrance of the Lord and His sacrifice for us? A proclamation of the Lords death until He comes? Or is it just a mid service snack? Or a refrain in service in preparation for the sermon time? I think the dumbing down of America has finally come of age.
John
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Angels and Demons?
Dan Browns first movie (actually his second book) The DiVinci Code was a very controversial one to say the least. Mary Magdalene as the wife of Jesus, Jesus having Children, the church only having an edited version of the scriptures and all the other nonsense. It did open the opportunity for some great discussion however and that is always a good thing.
Browns second movie (actually his first novel) called Angels and Demons is also church based in its story line but far less controversial. It concerns the kidnapping of four (4) Cardinals who are to be branded and killed and an amount of anti matter made into a bomb hidden in the Vatican during the choosing of a new Pope. This would devastate the Catholic church at its highest level.
Robert Langdon is once again the hero of the story, who must locate the Cardinals and the bomb before its too late. Throughout the movie he is led by clues left by a group called the "Illuminate". A group of science minded individuals who after the excommunication of Galileo for stating a scientific truth (that the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around)set out to destroy the Catholic church. In a reaction the church sets as as well to destroy them and so they are forced to go underground. leaving clues in Art and literature as to their existence.
Like The DiVinci Code this is one of the most thrilling suspense stories I have ever read and could not put the book down. What do you think? would you see it or not?
John
Browns second movie (actually his first novel) called Angels and Demons is also church based in its story line but far less controversial. It concerns the kidnapping of four (4) Cardinals who are to be branded and killed and an amount of anti matter made into a bomb hidden in the Vatican during the choosing of a new Pope. This would devastate the Catholic church at its highest level.
Robert Langdon is once again the hero of the story, who must locate the Cardinals and the bomb before its too late. Throughout the movie he is led by clues left by a group called the "Illuminate". A group of science minded individuals who after the excommunication of Galileo for stating a scientific truth (that the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around)set out to destroy the Catholic church. In a reaction the church sets as as well to destroy them and so they are forced to go underground. leaving clues in Art and literature as to their existence.
Like The DiVinci Code this is one of the most thrilling suspense stories I have ever read and could not put the book down. What do you think? would you see it or not?
John
Saturday, May 9, 2009
The Communion Controversy
As I said in a previous blog, the Lord left the church two ordinances, rites or sacraments. They are baptism and the Lords Supper or Communion. We already looked at the controversy surrounding Baptism and so now lets look at the second.
I am not going to discuss the "what Communion is" issue, whether the literal flesh and blood or Spiritually the flesh and blood or just emblems as a remembrance. That is a different discussion. What I would like to talk about is how the Lords Table is treated today and its frequency of observance.
In a recent forum discussion where Pastors from different assemblies discuss (debate) different topics, we were talking about the Lords Table and its placement in the assembly. I almost fell over when one Pastor said, "you still have one of those?" To which he explained that his church had removed the actual table as it had become "an idol" for too many in that assembly. An Idol? I had to wonder if the cross would be the next thing removed, or the pulpit?
Many recently have relocated the Table to the rear of the assembly hall or meeting place. Some of these same churches do not have a communion time but tell people they can partake on their way out. I can imagine inviting some friends or relative over to dinner and telling them the food was in the garage on their way out. Is that what they were invited for?
I think we have lost our sense of what the Lords supper originated as and what it was meant to convey. It was instituted during a Passover Seder, instituted as a remembrance of Gods great deliverance of Israel from the bondage of Egypt. Jesus took this very Seder to institute another remembrance different in some ways but very similar in others. Both were memorials and had a specific purpose.
Luke 22:19 (NASB)
19 And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me."
The word remembrance there is anamimnēskō and does not only mean to bring to ones mind intellectually but to actually relive or participate again in something. This is why Israel was told at the Seder to read the Exodus story along with the 10 plagues. They were to go back in their minds for the purpose of never forgetting what was done for them. the idea is made clearer in Paul’s words to Timothy 2 Timothy 1:6 (NASB)
6 For this reason I remind you to kindle afresh the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands.
Timothy was not only to be reminded but to kindle afresh the gift. It was more then merely remembering but to make it real again.
Paul’s account or record of that evening uses the same word for remembrance but adds some other information we need to look at.
1 Corinthians 11:23-26 (NASB)
23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread;
24 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."
25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."
26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.
First this information was given to him by the Lord and is now passed on to the church in Corinth. For both the bread and cup he says in remembrance. But there is more. like Luke Paul uses the words "which will be broken" of the bread. It is in the future tense. Something not done that evening at the table but at a point we now know was on a cross. He also uses the word "often" twice. Once concerning the cup and the second time concerning both emblems. So what does often mean?
Many today have reduced the amount of times they participate in the remembrance. Some once a month, others once a year at Easter. The word for often there is hosakis and means often. No hidden meaning or difficult to understand. But it is only used three times in the NT. Twice here and once in Revelation 11:6 (NASB)
6 These have the power to shut up the sky, so that rain will not fall during the days of their prophesying; and they have power over the waters to turn them into blood, and to strike the earth with every plague, as often as they desire.
This really seems like little help in this matter since it seems that often in Revelation depends on desire or decision rather then a strict sense of doing it as often as possible. But how did the early church understand the Lords Supper and its participation?
Acts 2:40-47 (NASB)
40 And with many other words he solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them, saying, "Be saved from this perverse generation!"
41 So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls.
42 They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.
43 Everyone kept feeling a sense of awe; and many wonders and signs were taking place through the apostles.
44 And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common;
45 and they began selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need.
46 Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart,
47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved.
Right after the great sermon of Peter’s on Pentecost we are told that those who received (believed) his word were baptized and at that point were added to the churches number. They then communed or fellowshipped together in specific ways. Devoting themselves to the apostles teachings, fellowship, prayer, sharing what they had with one another and doing this from house to house "daily" and with gladness and sincerity of heart. As a result the Lord was adding to their number daily those who were being saved. But I purposely left some things out (I hope you caught them). They were breaking bread from house (v 46) to house taking their meals with one another. This is a common meal shared among brethren. However in verse 42, we are told they were devoting themselves to "the" breaking of the bread. The definite article there distinguishes this breaking of "the" bread and breaking bread taking their meals together. The earliest church did both and they did it daily. That is how they understood the word often.
Not long afterwards the Lords Supper was taken only on the first day of the week when the church met to give its offerings but not until recently do we see any less then that. When the church assembled it met to offer praise and worship, hear Gods word, pray and share in the fellowship meal the Lord had left them. It was a sharing of something common they all shared. What does it say when we move the table to some outside vestibule and focus our attention on the preacher or the sermon? It says that the Lords Supper is some how of lesser importance then the man standing at the podium. What does it say when we only partake in remembrance once a month or once a year? As humans we are prone to forget and the Lord knew that. This is why he has always given His people visuals to bring their minds back to what is important.
Perhaps even more important are Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 11 as to why often is a better way to partake then seldom
1 Corinthians 11:26 (NASB)
26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.
This message can never be done to often. It is our proclamation of what price was paid for our redemption and reconciliation and we are not ashamed to let everyone know it.
I have heard the notion that if done too often it becomes "common". I find it interesting that this is never said of prayer, which is commanded to be done continually. Does prayer, communicating with our Lord, ever become common? I am not aware of any preacher who tells the assembly not to give their offering every week so it wont become common. Do you?
John
I am not going to discuss the "what Communion is" issue, whether the literal flesh and blood or Spiritually the flesh and blood or just emblems as a remembrance. That is a different discussion. What I would like to talk about is how the Lords Table is treated today and its frequency of observance.
In a recent forum discussion where Pastors from different assemblies discuss (debate) different topics, we were talking about the Lords Table and its placement in the assembly. I almost fell over when one Pastor said, "you still have one of those?" To which he explained that his church had removed the actual table as it had become "an idol" for too many in that assembly. An Idol? I had to wonder if the cross would be the next thing removed, or the pulpit?
Many recently have relocated the Table to the rear of the assembly hall or meeting place. Some of these same churches do not have a communion time but tell people they can partake on their way out. I can imagine inviting some friends or relative over to dinner and telling them the food was in the garage on their way out. Is that what they were invited for?
I think we have lost our sense of what the Lords supper originated as and what it was meant to convey. It was instituted during a Passover Seder, instituted as a remembrance of Gods great deliverance of Israel from the bondage of Egypt. Jesus took this very Seder to institute another remembrance different in some ways but very similar in others. Both were memorials and had a specific purpose.
Luke 22:19 (NASB)
19 And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me."
The word remembrance there is anamimnēskō and does not only mean to bring to ones mind intellectually but to actually relive or participate again in something. This is why Israel was told at the Seder to read the Exodus story along with the 10 plagues. They were to go back in their minds for the purpose of never forgetting what was done for them. the idea is made clearer in Paul’s words to Timothy 2 Timothy 1:6 (NASB)
6 For this reason I remind you to kindle afresh the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands.
Timothy was not only to be reminded but to kindle afresh the gift. It was more then merely remembering but to make it real again.
Paul’s account or record of that evening uses the same word for remembrance but adds some other information we need to look at.
1 Corinthians 11:23-26 (NASB)
23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread;
24 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."
25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."
26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.
First this information was given to him by the Lord and is now passed on to the church in Corinth. For both the bread and cup he says in remembrance. But there is more. like Luke Paul uses the words "which will be broken" of the bread. It is in the future tense. Something not done that evening at the table but at a point we now know was on a cross. He also uses the word "often" twice. Once concerning the cup and the second time concerning both emblems. So what does often mean?
Many today have reduced the amount of times they participate in the remembrance. Some once a month, others once a year at Easter. The word for often there is hosakis and means often. No hidden meaning or difficult to understand. But it is only used three times in the NT. Twice here and once in Revelation 11:6 (NASB)
6 These have the power to shut up the sky, so that rain will not fall during the days of their prophesying; and they have power over the waters to turn them into blood, and to strike the earth with every plague, as often as they desire.
This really seems like little help in this matter since it seems that often in Revelation depends on desire or decision rather then a strict sense of doing it as often as possible. But how did the early church understand the Lords Supper and its participation?
Acts 2:40-47 (NASB)
40 And with many other words he solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them, saying, "Be saved from this perverse generation!"
41 So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls.
42 They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.
43 Everyone kept feeling a sense of awe; and many wonders and signs were taking place through the apostles.
44 And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common;
45 and they began selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need.
46 Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart,
47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved.
Right after the great sermon of Peter’s on Pentecost we are told that those who received (believed) his word were baptized and at that point were added to the churches number. They then communed or fellowshipped together in specific ways. Devoting themselves to the apostles teachings, fellowship, prayer, sharing what they had with one another and doing this from house to house "daily" and with gladness and sincerity of heart. As a result the Lord was adding to their number daily those who were being saved. But I purposely left some things out (I hope you caught them). They were breaking bread from house (v 46) to house taking their meals with one another. This is a common meal shared among brethren. However in verse 42, we are told they were devoting themselves to "the" breaking of the bread. The definite article there distinguishes this breaking of "the" bread and breaking bread taking their meals together. The earliest church did both and they did it daily. That is how they understood the word often.
Not long afterwards the Lords Supper was taken only on the first day of the week when the church met to give its offerings but not until recently do we see any less then that. When the church assembled it met to offer praise and worship, hear Gods word, pray and share in the fellowship meal the Lord had left them. It was a sharing of something common they all shared. What does it say when we move the table to some outside vestibule and focus our attention on the preacher or the sermon? It says that the Lords Supper is some how of lesser importance then the man standing at the podium. What does it say when we only partake in remembrance once a month or once a year? As humans we are prone to forget and the Lord knew that. This is why he has always given His people visuals to bring their minds back to what is important.
Perhaps even more important are Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 11 as to why often is a better way to partake then seldom
1 Corinthians 11:26 (NASB)
26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.
This message can never be done to often. It is our proclamation of what price was paid for our redemption and reconciliation and we are not ashamed to let everyone know it.
I have heard the notion that if done too often it becomes "common". I find it interesting that this is never said of prayer, which is commanded to be done continually. Does prayer, communicating with our Lord, ever become common? I am not aware of any preacher who tells the assembly not to give their offering every week so it wont become common. Do you?
John
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
