Should Women Speak?

By Timothy Sparks
tdsparks77@yahoo.com
http://www.timothysparks.com

 

“And the spirits of prophets are subject to the prophets, for he is not the God of confusion but of peace. As in all the assemblies of the saints, let the women be silent in the assemblies; for it is not permitted to them to speak, but let them be submissive, as also the law says. But if they want to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in assembly” (1 Cor. 14:32-35, translation mine).

Spiritual gifts are being regulated in this context. We must approach this passage from the first century perspective, in the days of the miraculous. “He is not the God of confusion but of peace.” The members of Christ’s body at Corinth were abusing and misusing their spiritual gifts. No building up or teaching was being accomplished. They should have done things orderly (14:40) so that all could learn and be encouraged (14:31).

“Let the women be silent in the assemblies; for it is not permitted to them to speak.” “The women” refers to “all women in the congregation.” The root word for the term Paul uses in verse 34, which is translated “be silent,” is σιγάω (sigaō). The same root word occurs in verses 28 and 30. No female was to use her spiritual gifts in the assembly. The one miraculous gift that is particularly dealt with here is that of speaking in tongues. Paul expounds on the proper use of speaking in tongues in chapter 14. In the immediate context, women are to be silent, not uttering a word miraculously.

This does not teach that a woman is to say absolutely nothing in the assembly today. If a woman cannot say anything in the assembly now, how can she be allowed to sing? Paul includes women in the command to sing (Eph. 5:18-19; Col. 3:16). Paul’s statement to the Corinthians prohibited their miraculous gifts in the assembly.

“Let them be submissive, as also the law says.” All the way back to Gen. 2:18 God states that a woman would be a suitable helper for the man. Woman was taken out of man (Gen. 2:21-23). She was made for the man and from the man. God tells the woman, “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you” (Gen. 3:16). Notice the similarity to Gen. 4:7, “its desire is for you, but you should rule over it.” God tells Cain that sin wanted to take control in his life but he must rule over it. Similarly, God was telling Eve that she would feel the urge to take charge and lead her husband, but the husband is to lead the woman. God wants the man to lead in the spiritual realm.

Based on woman’s God-given role, Paul further points out, “the head of woman is man” (1 Cor. 11:3). The law of creation teaches that a woman is to be submissive and not to take a position of leadership over the man. Apparently some of the Corinthian women in the congregation were attempting to lead the men, abusing both their God-given role and their miraculous gifts.

“But if they want to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in assembly.” The congregation at Corinth was in a state of tumult. Now Paul commands that the women are not to say anything in the assembly that might be directed or conducted in such a way as to put her in a leading role. “If they want to learn anything” may be referring to a question or issue that the women might ask or promote. If the women all joined in, the effect might be that the women would be conducting the teaching themselves in a chaotic fashion, which would certainly be disgraceful. The women could ask their own husbands at home. This is not a prohibition against a woman asking a man of the congregation a question outside of the assembly.

Paul’s statement should not be used as a “proof-text” for those who claim that women are not to ask any questions or make any comments during a Bible study. This passage is dealing with the regulation of a woman’s spiritual gifts and a woman’s role of submission. Paul clearly reveals that women must not spiritually teach the men, which is what they were doing when they were speaking in tongues in the assembly.

This entire context devastates the charismatic practice of ecstatic utterance, which communicates no message, no building up and cannot possibly be interpreted because the gibberish is not an actual language. In fact, some charismatic people today even allow their women to “speak in tongues” in their assemblies. Even if miracles did exist today, such would be expressly forbidden since women were not permitted to use their ability to speak in tongues (1 Cor. 14:34), “for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in assembly” (1 Cor. 14:35). Just as the carnal Corinthians exalted the least of the miraculous gifts—speaking in tongues—some also do today. They think they are spiritual by practicing such nonsense. Paul says, “If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things I write to you are a command of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:37).

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Hair or Covering in 1 Corinthians 11?

By Timothy Sparks
tdsparks77@yahoo.com
http://www.timothysparks.com

 

The challenge of determining the “covering” is due to the Greek words used and the context:

1. κατά (kata) = “down from, down upon, down over,” 1 Cor. 11:4
2. ἀκατακάλυπτος (akatakalyptos) = “uncovered,” 1 Cor. 11:5, 13 [with the alpha prefix it negates katakalyptos, which is a combination of kata (“down over”) and kalypto (“cover, hide, conceal”); thus, akatakalyptos means something to the effect of “not having covering down over” or simply “uncovered”]
 
3. κατακαλύπτω (katakalyptō), 1 Cor. 11:6-7 = “to cover” [from kata (“down over”) and kalypto (“cover, hide, conceal”)]
 
4. The context extends to 1 Cor. 11:14-15 where Paul says it is a disgrace for a man to have long hair but a woman’s long hair is her glory. Then Paul says, “For her long hair is given to her for a covering.” Here the word “covering” is περιβόλαιον (peribolaion) which means that which is thrown around; thus a “covering.”
 
5. With Paul’s focus concerning the hair (1 Cor. 11:6, 14-15), I do not see an artificial covering in the context. It appears to me that a man is not to have long hair hanging down and covering his head as a woman would. A woman’s “long hair is given to her for a covering.” This goes back to “nature” (v. 14), the way God created things and set things up.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The Lord’s Supper

By Timothy Sparks
tdsparks77@yahoo.com
http://www.timothysparks.com

 

1. The Lord’s Supper is a joint participation among disciples and between disciples and Jesus (Mt. 26:29; 1 Cor. 10:16-17; 11:27-33).

Some contend that we can eat the Lord’s Supper on Thursday since Jesus and the apostles ate the Lord’s Supper on a Thursday night. However, the Lord’s Supper is observed to “proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes” (1 Cor. 11:26). Jesus was alive when he gave the apostles the example. They could only participate in proclaiming Jesus’ death after he died. Therefore, the Lord’s Supper was not observed on a Thursday night (or more accurately Wednesday night based on Mt. 12:40). The first proclamation of Jesus’ death with the observance of the Lord’s Supper was the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1, 42). The day of Pentecost was on the first day of the week (see 13 Reasons Why Pentecost in Acts 2:1 Fell on the First Day of the Week).

2. Jesus mentioned “the day that” he would drink the fruit of the vine again in his Father’s kingdom (Mt. 26:29).

Every instance of this phrase in the Greek New Testament refers to a twenty-four hour period: Mt. 13:1; 24:36; Mk. 13:32; 14:25; Lk. 10:12; 21:34; Jn. 1:39; 19:31; 20:19; Acts 2:41; 2 Thess. 1:10.

3. The joint participation is seen in the Father’s kingdom.

“They were devoting themselves to the teaching of the apostles and the fellowship, the breaking of the bread, and the prayers” (Acts 2:42).

“The teaching of the apostles” is joined to “the fellowship, the breaking of the bread” and “the prayers.” The breaking of the bread (the Lord’s Supper) in this context is “the fellowship” (based on NA28) or may be viewed as part of “the fellowship” (based on RP Majority Text 2005).

4. “The day that” Jesus mentioned is specifically identified as “the first day of the week” (Acts 20:7), based on the disciples’ and Paul’s example.

Paul and his traveling companions “stayed seven days” in Troas (Acts 20:6) until “the first day of the week” (Acts 20:7). Their specific purpose for “having been assembled” was “to break bread” (Acts 20:7). The infinitive κλάσαι (“to break,” indicating purpose) is used only here in the NT. There is significant meaning for a first day assembly (1 Cor. 11:17-34).

Behm affirms, “within the context of the Pauline mission, the breaking of bread, which is on the Lord’s Day in Ac. 20:7, is a cultic meal, elsewhere described by Paul (1 C. 11:20) as κυριακὸν δεῖπνον (cf. Ac. 20:7: συνηγμένων ἡμῶν κλάσαι ἄρτον with 1 C. 11:33: συνερχόμενοι εἰς τὸ φαγεῖν = v. 20: συνερχομένων ὑμῶν … κυριακὸν δεῖπνον φαγεῖν).”1   Simply stated, Behm is showing the link between Acts 20:7, 1 Cor. 11:20 and 1 Cor. 11:33. These verses all have the concept of coming together to eat the Lord’s Supper.

5. Christians are commanded to participate in the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:23-26).

“As often as” indicates regular frequency; as regularly as there is a first day of the week. “You proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes” indicates that participation in the Lord’s Supper is to continue until Jesus comes.

Therefore Christians know (by command) to partake of the Lord’s Supper and know (by example) when to partake of the Lord’s Supper.

Some people question whether they ate the Lord’s Supper on the first day of the week. The issue is raised whether they were on Jewish time or Roman time. However, we know it was the first day of the week from the text. Are we in any way to suppose they did not actually accomplish what they had assembled to do within the specified time frame of the first day of the week? No. The day is stated, giving us the example to follow. So wherever we live and whatever the first day of the week is called and whatever the time frame of the first day of the week, it is still the first day of the week. The text is clear: “On the first day of the week, our having been assembled to break bread.” We are to understand they came together and accomplished this purpose on the first day of the week. No other day of the week is mentioned for the assembling together for such a purpose.

Reflecting on the study of the Lord’s Supper above and situations that may occur, I ask myself the following questions (and encourage you to do the same).

If I want to be a follower of Christ and follow the approved example of the first century Christians:

1. Why would I violate the NT example of the assembly’s collective participation by eating the Lord’s Supper by myself? [In the past I served individual shut-ins the Lord’s Supper and ate the Lord’s Supper by myself on a Sunday evening. Now I only eat the Lord’s Supper with the collective assembly.]

2. Why would I want to alter the order of partaking the bread first and then the cup?

3. Why would I be for changing the observance of the Lord’s Supper to any day other than the first day of the week?

4. Why would I encourage the assembly to eat the Lord’s Supper either less often or more frequently than every first day of the week?

5. Why would I want to violate Jesus’ example of a prayer of thanksgiving before partaking the bread and another prayer of thanksgiving before the fruit of the vine by changing it to just one prayer for both?

6. Why would I address the prayers of thanksgiving to Jesus when the only evidence from Scripture is that Jesus addressed prayer to the Father?

7. What would motivate me to change anything about the Lord’s Supper that I can clearly see in Scripture?

____________________

              1Johannes Behm, “κλάω,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1965), 730.

Leave a comment

Filed under Lord's Supper

What Is Jesus Saying in Mt. 5:32?

By Timothy Sparks
tdsparks77@yahoo.com
http://www.timothysparks.com

[I am using the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Textform 2005, which is also the reading of the Majority Text: ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ὅτι ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ, παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας, ποιεῖ αὐτὴν μοιχᾶσθαι· καὶ ὃς ἐὰν ἀπολελυμένην γαμήσῃ μοιχᾶται.]

“But I say to you that who, suppose, may have dismissed his wife, discounting an account of fornication causes her to commit adultery; and who, suppose, may have married a dismissed woman commits adultery” (Mt. 5:32, translation mine).

My understanding of Mt. 5:32 is as follows:

1. Anyone who dismisses his wife (excluding/discounting an account of fornication) causes her to commit adultery.

2. Any man who marries a woman who is dismissed by her husband commits adultery.

Proposition 1 states that the action of dismissing one’s wife has the ultimate effect of causing her to commit adultery, given that she would inevitably marry another.

Proposition 2 is an independent clause (a stand alone statement) indicating that any man who marries a dismissed woman commits adultery.

Jesus denounces the husband’s action of dismissing his wife. He places the blame on the husband for her consequent adultery. Parektos logou porneias (“excluding (discounting) an account of fornication”) serves as an exemption clause concerning the husband’s accountability and is linked to poiei (“causes/makes”). The focus is on the word “causes.” The husband did not cause her to commit adultery if she engaged in fornication before he dismissed her. Her sin is her sin. She caused herself to commit adultery through her fornication. In such a case, the husband cannot be blamed for causing her to commit adultery. 

Jesus does not give permission to divorce. Nothing in the verse should cause us to read “does not commit adultery.” Jesus says nothing to suggest that the husband or wife can marry another without committing adultery.

In summary, Jesus blames the husband for causing his wife to commit adultery by dismissing her. Jesus does not exonerate the husband from blame if his wife engages in adultery after he dismisses her.

[Note on the Greek text: Παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας (parektos logou porneias) modifies the main verb ποιεῖ“causes/makes” (not the subjunctive ἀπολύσῃ, “may have dismissed”), serving as an exemption to blame, not as an exception to divorce. Jesus does not approve of a man sending away his wife for committing porneia.]

For the “matter of fornication” see The Exemption Clause (Mt. 5:32).

Leave a comment

Filed under MDR, Mt. 5:32

What Is Jesus Saying in Mt. 19:9?

By Timothy Sparks
tdsparks77@yahoo.com
http://www.timothysparks.com

“But I say to you that who, suppose, may have dismissed his wife not over fornication and may have married another commits adultery. And the one having married a dismissed wife commits adultery” (Mt. 19:9, translation mine).1

Central to the issue of Jesus’ teaching about marriage, Jesus goes back to “the beginning” (Mt. 19:4-8; Gen. 1:27; 2:24) when God instituted marriage. He appeals to a time before God tolerated putting away or divorce, when “it was not that way” (Mt. 19:8). Jesus teaches the truth that always has been and always will be concerning marriage. People will continue to divorce and remarry, but it does not change the truth of God’s Word “from the beginning.” It really is that simple. Do we want to know how God wants marriage? Jesus says to go back to “the beginning” (Mt. 19:4, 8).

The background of God’s law (Deut. 22:22; Lev. 20:10) is crucial to understanding the context of Jesus’ statement “not over fornication” [MH EPI PORNEIA, Mt. 19:9–see also Reasons Mὴ Eπὶ (Mh Epi or Mē Epi) Should Not Be Translated “Except For” (Mt. 19:9)]. We now address whether Jesus gives permission to divide what God united (Mt. 19:6) in a situation of fornication.

Under the Old Covenant:
For adultery = Death penalty (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22)
For fornication during betrothal = Death penalty (Deut. 22:23-24)

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT = “FOR FORNICATION”

NON-CAPITAL PUNISHMENT = “NOT FOR FORNICATION”2

Theoretically, Jesus could have said:
“Whoever dismisses his wife OVER FORNICATION (EPI PORNEIA) and marries another does not commit adultery.”

This was not a lawful option. It would have been an act of disobedience to change the punishment for fornication from the death penalty to either putting away or divorce (Deut. 4:2; Prov. 30:6). Rather, Jesus says, “Whoever may have dismissed his wife NOT OVER FORNICATION (MH EPI PORNEIA; thus, Jesus is addressing a nonsexual dismissal; the penalty of fornication was death) and may have married another commits adultery” (Mt. 19:9).

Stated another way:

1. Under the Old Covenant fornication during betrothal and adultery in marriage was punishable by death (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22-24).

2. It would have been a violation of God’s law to change the penalty for fornication from death to putting away or divorce (Deut. 4:2; Prov. 30:6).

3. Jesus came to fulfill the law, to bring it to completion (Mt. 5:17-19).

4. The Old Covenant was not changed until Christ’s death (Heb. 7:12; 8:4; 9:15-17).

Therefore, Christ did not change the Old Covenant under which he lived but gave corrective teaching, calling people back to God’s will from the beginning (Mt. 19:6-9; Mk. 10:5-12).

Conclusion:

1. Jesus gave clear and precise teaching to the crowds in the region of Judea beyond the Jordan (Mk. 10:1), giving permission for neither putting away nor divorce (please read Mk. 10:2-9).

2. After his definitive teaching, Jesus gave a conclusive summary to settle the matter: “And in the house his disciples asked him again about the same thing. And he said to them, ‘Who, suppose, may have dismissed his wife and may have married another commits adultery against her. And if a woman may have dismissed her husband and may have married another, she commits adultery'” (Mk. 10:10-12).

3. Similarly, Jesus revealed the strength of God’s law and then immediately stressed the result of remarriage after putting away: “But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the law to fail. Anyone dismissing his wife and marrying another commits adultery; and anyone marrying a wife having been dismissed from a husband commits adultery” (Lk. 16:17-18).

Knowing the background of God’s law (Deut. 22:22; Lev. 20:10) is essential to a well-informed discussion concerning whether or not Jesus endorsed divorce for fornication. When we know the background of God’s law under which Jesus lived, we then know that Jesus would have violated God’s law if he had given permission to divorce for fornication. Rather than endorsing divorce for any reason, Jesus focuses on God’s law of marriage “from the beginning” (Mt. 19:4, 8) and emphatically states, “Therefore what God united, a human cannot divide” (Mt. 19:6).

____________________

         1Unless otherwise stated, translations are mine from the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Text Form. See also, Leslie McFall, APPENDIX B, abstracted from his e‑book on divorce (11 august, 2014): AN EXPLANATION FOR THE AUTHOR’S LITERAL TRANSLATION OF MATTHEW 19:9.
           2Leslie McFall, The Biblical Teaching on Divorce and Remarriage, rev. Aug. 2014: 159. https://lmf12.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/divorce_aug_2014.pdf.

Leave a comment

Filed under MDR, Mt. 19:9

The Truth about the Meaning of “Denomination”

By Timothy Sparks
tdsparks77@yahoo.com
http://www.timothysparks.com

 

There is tremendous confusion about the term “denomination,” even though we might hear the word used regularly. When a word is not found within Scripture, we must determine the meaning as defined by others who have done the necessary research to define a word properly. Therefore, we turn to a resource such as a dictionary. Naturally, we have to use some “scholarship” in order to substantiate our claims rather than defining a word to mean whatever we might want it to mean. Such is the case with the word “denomination,” since it does not occur in standard English translations of God’s Word.

I once heard an instructor give his definition of “denomination.” He said that it means “a part of a greater whole,” primarily appealing to the term “denominator” since he wished to link “denomination” with “division.” Certainly, the word “denominator” in a mathematical fraction implies division, and there is much division among religious denominations. However, an injustice is done to the definition of “denomination” since “division” is not synonymous with the primary, secondary, or tertiary definitions of “denomination.” Had the instructor done his due diligence by examining the definition of “denomination,” he would have known that authoritative sources give quite a different meaning.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, “denomination” (a noun) and “denominate” (a verb) originate from the Latin word denominare, which means, “to name, specify by name.” The primary definition of “denominate” is “To give a name or appellation to; to call by a name, to name (orig. from or after something). Now usually with complement: To give (a thing) the name of . ., to call.” Notice, in the definition, the significance of the word “name” since it is also an essential term in defining “denomination.” The primary definition of “denomination” is “The action of naming from or after something; giving a name to, calling by a name.” The secondary definition is “A characteristic or qualifying name given to a thing or class of things; that which anything is called; an appellation, designation, title.” Now, observe that in regards to a mathematical denomination, such as a coin, the tertiary definition is “A class of one kind of unit in any system of numbers, measures, weights, money, etc., distinguished by a specific name.” The fourth listed definition is similar to the preceding three: “A class, sort, or kind (of things or persons) distinguished or distinguishable by a specific name.” We now come to the last listed definition: “A collection of individuals classed together under the same name; now almost always spec. a religious sect or body having a common faith and organization, and designated by a distinctive name.”

In each definition we find the term “name.” We might wonder within Scripture what “name” or “denomination” the Lord gave, if any, to his people, the church. Perhaps you have heard people speak of “scriptural names for the church.” However, in each passage of Scripture we might examine, we will discover that the Lord never named (denominated) the church. Rather, we will find descriptive phrases of possession. The descriptive phrases within Scripture can be paralleled to our use of possessive phrases. For example, “the wife of Jimmy” is most commonly stated, “Jimmy’s wife.” This descriptive phrase does not reveal the name of “the wife of Jimmy.” So, “the church (congregation/assembly) of God” (Acts 20:28) is to be understood, not as a name but as a description: “God’s church (congregation/assembly).” The same is true with “the churches (congregations/assemblies) of Christ” (Rom. 16:16): “Christ’s congregations (assemblies/churches).” In other words, within the New Testament there are descriptions, not names, indicating ownership. Christ and God own the church; the church belongs to God and Christ.

Examine the following descriptions of God’s people:

“the kingdom of Heaven” or “Heaven’s kingdom” (Mt. 16:19)
“the church in Jerusalem” (Acts 8:1; 11:22)
“who were of the Way” (Acts 9:2)
“the churches throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria” (Acts 9:31)
“the church in Cenchrea” (Rom. 16:1)
“the churches of the Gentiles” (Rom. 16:4)
“the church that is in their house” (Rom. 16:5; 1 Cor. 16:19)
“the church of God in Corinth” (1 Cor. 1:2;         2 Cor. 1:1)
“the church of God” (1 Cor. 10:32; 11:22; 15:9; Gal. 1:13;  1 Tim. 3:5)
“the body of Christ” (1 Cor. 10:16; Eph. 4:12)
“the churches of God” (1 Cor. 11:16; 2 Thess. 1:4)
“the body” (1 Cor. 12:18-25; Eph. 4:16; 5:23)
“Christ’s body” (1 Cor. 12:27)
“the church” (1 Cor. 12:28)
“the churches of the saints” (1 Cor. 14:33)
“the churches” (1 Cor. 14:34)
“the churches of Galatia” (1 Cor. 16:1)
“the churches of Asia” (1 Cor. 16:19)
“the churches of Macedonia” (2 Cor. 8:1)
“the churches of Judea” (Gal. 1:22)
“those who are of the household of the faith” or “the members of the family of the faith” (Gal. 6:10)
“the church, which is his body” (Eph. 1:22-23; 5:23)
“members of the household of God” or “members of God’s family” (Eph. 2:19)
“the kingdom of the Son of his love” (Col. 1:13)
“the body, the church” (Col. 1:18)
“his body, which is the church” (Col. 1:24)
“the church that is in her house” (Col. 4:15)
“the church of the Laodiceans” (Col. 4:16)
“the church of the Thessalonians” (1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:1)
“the churches of God in Christ Jesus”            (1 Thess. 2:14)
“the church in your house” (Philem. 2)
“the general assembly and church of the firstborn” (Heb. 12:23)
“God’s household, which is the church of the living God” (1 Tim. 3:15)

While this list is not exhaustive of the descriptions found within the New Testament, these references are sufficient to show that the Lord did not denominate (name) the church. If the Lord had denominated (named) the church, then surely he would have addressed each congregation listed above by a particular name, such as “the Church of Christ in Corinth.” Did you know that the specific phrase “church of Christ” or “Christ’s church” never appears within Scripture? We find only the phrase “churches of Christ” or “Christ’s churches” or even a better translation, “Christ’s congregations” (Rom. 16:16).

Additionally, if God had decided to name the church, surely he would have addressed each of “the seven congregations in Asia” (Rev. 1:4) by that name. However, no name is given. We read only descriptions identifying which congregation is being addressed (Revelation 2-3). While God named his disciples “Christians” (Acts 11:26), a name that appears two more times in the New Testament (Acts 26:28; 1 Pet. 4:16) and alluded to at least once (Jas. 2:7), yet the church remains unnamed. We should also notice that the name “Christian” is always used as a noun, never as an adjective.

When people ask, “What is the name of the denomination you attend?,” they are simply asking you to identify the name on the church building where you claim your “membership.” Their use of the word “denomination” is completely in line with its definition since “denomination” is defined by the word “name.” However, such a concept of “denomination” or “name” for the Lord’s people is foreign to the Scriptures. You simply will not find a name given to Christ’s body.

So, why do denominations exist among us? As long as people unceasingly apply names to their religious groups, there will be denominations. No wonder the Lord prayed so fervently for unity–not among denominations–but among his disciples (Jn. 17:20-23). In the thematic statement of 1 Corinthians, Paul says, “Now I urge you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all say the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be completely joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10).

Paul addresses the issue of those within the congregation in Corinth who were applying names to themselves: “Now I say this, that each of you says, ‘I truly am of Paul,’ ‘but I am of Apollos,’ ‘but I am of Cephas,’ ‘but I am of Christ.’ Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you! Or were you immersed in Paul’s name?” (1 Cor. 1:12-13). It appears that there were those who, in modern terms, would have considered themselves to be “Paulites,” others “Apollosites,” others “Cephasites,” and the only correct group “of Christ,” who, if understood to have been genuinely “of Christ” would properly have been called “Christians.” Paul clearly rebuked them for adopting the other names the Lord did not give. To say, “I’m a Christian” is in harmony with the Scriptures, but to say, “I’m of the Church of Christ” or “I’m Church of Christ” or “I’m a Church-of-Christer,” or “I go to the Church-of-Christ Church” or even to use the phrase, “I go to the Church of Christ” is simply not within the boundaries of God’s Book.

Now that we know the truth about the meaning of “denomination,” what can we conclude about the name of the group to which you or I might consider ourselves to belong? Let us consider the following:

(1) When we give the Lord’s church a name, we are doing something the Lord never did.

(2) Since God did not name the church, do you or I have the authority to do so?

(3) If we do not want to be a denomination, we must not fit the definition.

Here are some possible solutions to our dilemma:

(1) The church does not have to have a name. If the Lord had decided to name the church, he would have done so. God does not require us to have a sign for our buildings. During the first century, the church had no name, no building (they met in their houses), and no sign to indicate where they were gathering.

(2) If we must insist on having a sign for the buildings where we gather, rather than giving the church a name, would it be too much for us to have a sign more in harmony with what we find within Scripture, such as “Christians meet here” or “The church meets here”?

Then, rather than people designating us by a denominational name we’ve applied to ourselves, if they call us “Christians,” we should strive to be all that the God-given name implies and requires (Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Pet. 4:16). [We would do well to search the Scriptures concerning “Who is a Christian?” A fascinating and challenging study would surely be unveiled.]

Remember, if we do not want to be a denomination, we must not fit the definition.

See also A Nameless Church

3 Comments

Filed under Denomination

A Matter of Heaven and Hell

By Timothy Sparks
tdsparks77@yahoo.com
http://www.timothysparks.com

 

“What does the Scripture say” (Romans 4:3)? It is a matter of Heaven and Hell.

Jesus says, “. . . the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth” (John 4:23-24). Jesus further states, “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:31-32). We must know the truth and obey it in order to be freed from the shackles of sin and vain worship. Our souls depend on it. Paul speaks God’s will concerning singing in worship:

“speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord” (Ephesians 5:19).

“Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord” (Colossians 3:16).

If these Scriptures authorized instrumental music in praise to God, then each individual in the congregation would have to play an instrument! God simply authorizes us to sing. Why would we want to add to God’s will? A valuable lesson we can learn from the Old Testament is: Not preconceived ideas, but obedience to God’s Word is what God requires (2 Kings 5:9-14).

God loves us more than we can understand. He gave His Son to die for our sins. God is worthy of our worship, as revealed in the New Testament. We should not seek to be entertained. We should want to worship God in spirit and truth (John 4:24). When our worship pleases God, we glorify Him. God wants to bless us, and He will when we conform our lives to His great will. “You are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and by Your will they exist and were created” (Revelation 4:11).

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Hear Him!

By Timothy Sparks
tdsparks77@yahoo.com
http://www.timothysparks.com

 

Those who are deeply concerned about divine and heavenly matters want to listen to Jesus and obey His words. Long before the Lord Jesus was born of a virgin, God revealed through Moses that a Prophet would come whom God would require people to hear and heed: “The LORD your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your midst, from your brethren. Him you shall hear . . . And it shall be that whoever will not hear My words, which He speaks in My name, I will require it of him” (Deuteronomy 18:15, 19). The Jews, who were curious about who John the Immerser was, asked John a series of questions concerning his identity. Among their questions they asked, “Are you the Prophet?” John answered, “No” (John 1:19-21).

In an interesting way and with very clear words, God removed any doubt about “the Prophet,” specifically identifying Jesus as the Prophet whom Moses foretold would come and the One we should hear. When Jesus was transfigured and Moses and Elijah were present with Him, the heavenly Father’s voice boomed forth: “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear Him!” (Matthew 17:5). The startled disciples, who fell to the ground on that occasion, lifted up their eyes and no longer saw Moses and Elijah . . . “they saw no one but Jesus only” (Matthew 17:8). Moses and Elijah faded from the scene, but Christ and His words will never pass away (Matthew 24:35). We must keep our eyes permanently fixed on Jesus–“looking to Jesus” (Hebrews 12:2)–and we must hear Him.

The mother of the Lord recognized the importance of hearing and obeying Jesus: “His mother said to the servants, ‘Whatever He says to you, do it'” (John 2:5). Sadly, based on the Scriptures, most people will not do what Jesus says. According to Jesus–and contrary to popular opinion–the majority of people will not go to Heaven. They will choose the path of least resistance and follow the broad way to destruction: “there are many who go in by it” (Matthew 7:13). The way to Heaven is narrow and difficult, “and there are few who find it” (Matthew 7:14).

Jesus clearly said, “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven” (Matthew 7:21). Unfortunately, there are those who call Jesus “Lord” in vain: “But why do you call Me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do the things which I say?” (Luke 6:46). Jesus further stated, “Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock” (Matthew 7:24). Those who build on Jesus as their Rock will stand the test of time and temptation. Only fools refuse to do what Jesus says . . . and fools will fail (Matthew 7:26-27). In order to be a spiritual success, we must listen to Jesus.

Whether it is a matter concerning the weekly frequency of eating the Lord’s Supper on the first day of the week in remembrance of Jesus’ sacrifice for our sins (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 11:26) or actively participating in the kind of singing that pleases God (Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16; James 5:13)–or whatever the discussion may be–Jesus is the final authority (Matthew 28:18). Hear Him!

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized