• Abuse of Authority
• Abuse of Authority Revisited
• Apostles and Prophets
• Appointing Elders
• Becoming an Elder

• Does Baptism Regenerate?
• Ecclecia and Koinonia
• Hermeneutics
• Hermeneutics Revisited
• The Lord's Day and the Lord's Supper

• The Sabbath Issue
• The Silence of Women in the Assembly
• The Word of God
• The Word of God - Again

Abuse of Authority Revisited

[The following letter has been condensed for the sake of brevity]

You say you have not seen many cases of the abuse of authority in the churches. Perhaps not in house churches, or perhaps not severe cases. But I have been in plenty of systematized (a better term, I think, than institutionalized) churches where abuses were obvious, even if normally minor in apparent effects. In the last systematized church I was in, one of the recognized teachers (an "elder elect") was teaching adherence to the
Ten Commandments from Romans 7:1-6 in one of our parish (home) meetings. I responded by telling him that his point was contradicted by the text, that if we are joined to Christ for justification (one side of the coin of salvation), that we become as adulteresses if we then join ourselves to Moses for our sanctification. When this teacher continued to peddle his Old Covenant theology, I published a short paper answering his arguments, and distributed it on the church's literature table at our Sunday meeting. . . . But this Sunday, one of the elders approached me and told me to never place anything on the table again without gaining elder permission. When I asked him by what authority he felt he could limit my exercise of my believer-priesthood, he said "I can tell you this by virtue of being ordained an elder in this church." . . . In other churches I've been in, I have heard pastors say things like, "I don't let my friends call me Bill, they call me PASTOR!" . . . So, I think that in many systematized churches (probably most) there is a lot of abuse of authority, even if most of it is relatively minor and seemingly "inconsequential." However, I agree with you that in the home churches there has been a tendency to reject any hint of authority in men. I still struggle over this issue, at times; although the pendulum of abusive authority has begun to find its proper place. The problem seems to be that
all too often, men gain authority by virtue of becoming leaders, rather than becoming leaders by virtue of gaining authority. A man must have authority in the church before he is recognized as an authority in the church, not the other way around.

--Ian A. Paul

Yes, alas, there is such abuse, and I stand corrected on my earlier statement. I guess I had in mind many of the later institutional Evangelical churches I attended and forgot my former roots as an Independent Baptist, where there indeed is such abuse of authority. (I remember in Bible College I was compelled against my will to attend a Sunday School group with which I was most uncomfortable due to some "positive thinking" principles that were being taught--and I was twenty-seven years old at the time!). In these cases, where the leaders coerce agreement rather than persuade their flock, there is a legitimate reason--indeed, an obligation--to break away. 

--E.S.

Apostles and Prophets

Dear Eric,

I forget where I was reading it (I think it was in the article on "Modern Day Apostles?"), but somewhere on your site I read that the "apostles and prophets" of Eph. 2:20 are one and the same individuals. The argument was based on an application of the Granville Sharp's Rule, as I recall.

I believe this interpretation is mistaken. While the Granville Sharp's Rule is infallible, it does not apply to plural nouns or proper names. This does no damage, however, to the point you were ultimately trying to make; that the foundation has been completed. For it is not a sure foundation that is continually being revised, and is subject to revision.

The apostles and prophets of Eph. 2:20 are almost certainly the apostles and prophets of New Testament times (i.e., the first century). This can be seen in that the mystery of Christ was not made known to other generations "as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets" (3:5 -- NKJV). Of course, some might suggest that the prophets, here, refers to the prophets of the Old Testament, now sitting in heaven. However, one would then expect Paul to have simply said, apostles and saints, as certainly there
were more than prophets in heaven.

Well, that's all. I still think your site is way cool, and that NTRF provides the best material for home assemblies available anywhere.

--Ian Paul

You're probably referring to my response in this forum to the question titled "Apostles and Prophets." There I state that Eph 2:20 falls under Granville Sharp's rule. While you are technically correct that Granville Sharp excluded plurals and proper names from the absoluteness of his rule (although he was quick to add that some plurals do indeed fit his rule--"in [the case of plurals] there are many exceptions; though there are not wanting examples, even of plural nouns, which are expressed exactly agreeable to this rule"), most grammarians today subscribe to a revised view of the rule. Granville Sharp mistakenly thought that when two nouns are separated by kai ("and"), if the first noun has the article but not the second noun, the two nouns always refer to the same person or thing. We now know that exceptions exist (e.g., 1 Thess 2:12, "the kingdom and glory"; and Phil 1:7, "the defense and confirmation of the gospel"). What most grammarians these days believe is that when one article ("the") governs two or more nouns (singular or plural, and all separated by kai), then all the nouns are to be considered as a group. Hence, "the Pharisees and Sadducees" (Matt 16:1) are not the same people, but are considered to be one group by Matthew because they have the same purpose of catching Jesus in a trap. 

This notwithstanding, there are many instances where Granville Sharp's rule applies in its original form not only to singular but also to plural nouns. In Rom 16:7 Paul speaks of Andronicus and Junia, "the kinsmen and fellow-prisoners of me." In Gal 1:7 he mentions "the ones who trouble you and who wish to pervert the gospel of Christ." In Col 1:2 Paul greets "the saints and faithful brothers in Christ." In 1 Thess 5:12 Paul commands us to "respect the ones that labor among you and who are over you in the Lord and who admonish you" (here there are three plural nouns). In each of the cases above, one article governs two or more plural nouns separated by kai. Yet in each case it is clear that the two or more nouns all refer to the same people. Moreover, while there are indeed examples of this construction where the two nouns cannot refer to the same person (although they are still seen as part of the same group; cf. Matt 16:1), I cannot find even one unambiguous example where Paul uses this construction for groups of people where the two nouns refer to distinct groups. This is why I stand by my original statement that the phrase "the apostles and prophets" in Eph 2:20 refers to the same people. Another good example of this kind of construction in Paul can be found in the same book: "and he gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers" (Eph 4:11). In each of the phrases above, the noun is preceded by its own article--except in the case of "pastors and teachers" where there is only one article governing both nouns. I think Paul's intent here is to lump together "pastors and teachers" as one group of men--"pastors, who are also teachers." Similarly in Eph 2:20 Paul really means to say, "apostles, who are also prophets."

--E.S.

Appointing Elders

What did Paul mean when he told Titus to appoint elders in every town? If elders, as some of your materials say, naturally assume leadership in the church by virtue of their natural authority as the more mature members
of the house-churches, why was there a need for Titus to 'appoint' them, as one appoints an officers of the church?

--Tom Matic

This is essentially explained in our article titled "Church Government." The short answer is, both concepts are true. Paul makes it very clear to the elders of Ephesus that the Holy Spirit made them overseers (Acts 20:28). Yet it is equally clear that Paul commanded his associates to "appoint" elders in each city. Yet he does not stop there. These elders are to be "faithful men who are able to teach others" (Tit 2:2), and who also meet some pretty stringent moral qualifications (1 Tm 3:1-7, Tit 1:5-9). Yet Titus and Timothy (those Paul commissioned to "appoint" these elders) where in their respective cities for only a short period of time. It seems doubtful that these associates of Paul could have been in these cities for the length of time required to both observe a consistent lifestyle and then to train the elders they eventually chose. Without a doubt they must have appealed to the witness of the church not only in references to the character of these men, but also to the requirements set forth in 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1, as well as to the leadership abilities of these men. This principle is certainly true of the seven that were chosen in Acts 6:3-4: "Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word." The job of Timothy and Titus was no doubt made easier by the church pointing to those whom they thought were candidates. In any case, we have no reason to assume otherwise.

--E.S.

Becoming an Elder

How does one become a pastor of a new testiment church, and If your wife is in rebellion does that stop you from answering your call? [Also], I have another question about your understanding of the baptism of the Holy Ghost. I'm not a fool but some of my penticostal brother's do acted more demonic than holy. How are you thought's on this subject.

--Michael R.J. De'Angelo

"Pastors" (or, more accurately, elders) of the church will have natural leadership abilities and a strong desire to know the Word of God so that they can "refute those who oppose" and keep the church sound in the faith. These men are recognized by the local assembly with whom they meet, and are trained by existing elders. One of the criteria for being an elder is that he must "manage his household well." If your wife is in rebellion (and I am not certain to what extent she is in rebellion; nor even the nature of that rebellion), that would certainly hinder you from managing the household of God. While this may be a reflection on your ability to be the head of the household, it may simply be due to your wife's attitude and have no reflection on your abilities whatsoever. On the other hand, even if you fall into the latter category, your wife's rebellion would certainly prove to be a distraction in your service as an elder. I would reconsider your certainty about the notion of God "calling" you to be an elder. Biblically speaking, the word "calling" is used only of a calling by God to become a Christian; It is never used in reference to becoming a pastor, elder, or any other kind of Christian worker. Instead, there are very specific criteria outlined in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. If you meet these criteria, you may be an elder. If you do not (which is what you have already indicated), you may not. However, that does not mean your value in service to the church is thereby diminished. What is it that appeals to you about being an elder. The opportunity to teach the body of Christ, perhaps? If so, consider becoming a teacher in the body rather than an elder (while elders must always be able to teach, teachers are not necessarily elders). You may still operate in the gifts the Lord has given you for building up the church without becoming an elder.

As for your question on baptism of the Holy Spirit, your perception is accurate. What is currently going on in the name of the Holy Spirit these days has absolutely no resemblance to what we find in the Scriptures. All Christians have been baptized in/by the Holy Spirit by virtue of their salvation in Christ (1 Cor 12:13).

--E.S.

Does Baptism Regenerate?

I am 15 yrs old, and was so excited about this church, I have read about it and found all of its practices to be those taught in the bible (mainly the New Testament Church) so I really was, until I was reading and read about your beliefs on baptism....my question is how can one read any of the following scripture: Mark 16:15-16, Acts 2:37-38, Acts 22:16, I Peter 2:21, Romans 6:1-6, and still not believe that baptism is essential to salvation....please answer this question in-depth, but not using words that i wouldn't understand) Please include scripture, too. Thanks A lot.

--Bailey Brigham

The answer is pretty simple, really--none of the passages you cite teach that water baptism is necessary for salvation. Moreover, each one of these passages is specifically addressed in the article titled "Baptism--Does It Regenerate?" Please read this article again for details, and for answers to
your questions.

--E.S.

Ecclecia and Koinonia

I am trying to study the word ecclessia and not coming up with much other than what Vines Exp. Dic. has to say. I'm not as versed in Greek but it seems that there is something more to the word and wondered if you had uncovered any more on this word. I can't help but feel in my heart that there is a correlation with ecclessia and the word koinonia. The reason I'm curious about this is because our English bible translates congregation and assemblies in many passages, but they are not by the literal Greek considered ecclessia or "church life" meetings. Any insights or corrections on this would be greatly received.

--Brad Thomas

The basic meaning of the word ecclesia is "a gathering"; hence, it is used in the Scriptures both for the gathering of the saints, as well as the gathering of secular assemblies or even mobs (Acts 19:32, 40). In other words, there is nothing distinctly "Christian" about the word ecclesia. The context must always determine what kind of gathering is in mind. Koinonia, on the other hand, has a more narrowly religious connotation. The woodenly literal meaning of koinonia is "a participation in that in which others also participate." It is used in 1 Cor 10:14-22 for three different kinds of religious associations: the church, Israel, and pagan religions. In the case of the church, koinonia is a participation in the body and blood of Christ (in which others also participate). In the case of Israel, the priests participate in the altar (more accurately, the food of the altar)--something in which others also participate. In the case of the pagans, to participate in their sacrifices is to have a share (with other sacrificers) in demons. Koinonia connotes a relationship that transcends physical boundaries,
whereas ecclesia may in some cases (though certainly not all) be limited to physical boundaries. If there is a correlation between ecclesia and koinonia in the case of the church, it is that the former (the gathering) is merely one dimension of the latter (a spiritual union with Christ that is also shared by others).

--E.S.

Hermeneutics

I have a question that relates to equipping the saints. Do you have any plans to publish articles that will teach believers how to properly interpret the Bible? Along that line, could you please let me know what hermeneutic you use to interpret scripture and would you let me know what scriptural evidence there is for your hermeneutic. Also, if you do not plan to publish any papers on this subject, is there a book on the subject of biblical interpretation that you recommend?

--Ray Kane

No immediate plans to publish articles on this issue. However, this happens to be one of the subjects we are offering online at our Biblical Studies Center. Our hermeneutic? We interpret Scripture according to the plain sense of the text, taking into account that the plain meaning of the text is sometimes figurative. I guess the biblical basis for this is that God communicates to man in a way he can understand. He has not obscured the meaning of his Word, otherwise he may as well have not given it to us in the first place. What purpose would there be for God to tell us his plan of salvation in a way that cannot be plainly understood. The Greek philosophers of the first century rejected the gospel as "foolishness" because it was too simple, too understandable by the common man (1 Cor 1:18--2:5). This is not to say that all of Scripture is easily understandable (2 Pet 3:16); but the difficult passages can be understood through the hard work of exegesis (the art and science of discovering what the text must have meant to the original readers by investigating the occasion of the letter, the readers' situation, and the customs of the day).

--E.S.

Hermeneutics Revisited

[The following has been excerpted from a rather lengthy letter] 

Concerning your response to the question of hermeneutics, I would like to know what verses indicate that God wrote the Bible in a plain manner? I ask this because of the many verse which seem to indicate just the opposite (Mark 4:13, Psm. 78:1-7; Prov. 1:5-6; Eccl. 12:9; Mt. 13:10-18, 34-35; Mk. 4:30, 34; Luke 8:4, and Heb. 9:9). 

We cannot and must not trust any information outside of the Bible. Only the Bible itself is completely trustworthy. We can be sure that the reason there are so many interpretations of various Bible passages nowadays, is because the above biblical principle is NOT being adhered to OR it is not being used as the sole method of interpretation. 

The biblical hermeneutic is not just a matter of comparing scripture with scripture, but using ONLY scripture to interpret scripture. This method is essential because God declares in Isaiah 55:8 & 9 that our thoughts and ways are far from His thoughts and ways. The pertinency of this method is further developed when one realizes that in the flesh of mankind dwelleth no good thing, (Rom 7:18) "For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not." 

Therefore, let us heed the admonition of Matthew 22:29, "Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God." Notice that the Bible nowhere insinuates that one is in error because they are missing some type of secular historical information. Many scholars justify their utilization of secular historical information to understand difficult Bible passages by rationalizing that, "many scholars rely on such resources," however, when such a path is followed in the absence of Biblical validation, one should keep in mind Romans 3:4, "God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged." Let us rather follow the Biblical example of the Bereans of Acts 17:11, "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." 

This exegesis, Scripture defining Scripture, is accomplished without the use of external sources. No allusions were made by Christ to extra-biblical sources to unravel His words. A major difficulty in the use of extra-biblical sources is the realization that many Christians are without such sources. An excellent example, is the tribe to which Wycliffe translators come and create a written language, then translate the Scriptures for them. No other information of any sort is available. If historical or other sources are needed, it would leave them with no ability to understand the Holy Word. 

--James Riscinti

Let me take your response point by point:

Concerning your response to the question of hermeneutics, I would like to know what verses indicate that God wrote the Bible in a plain manner? I ask this because of the many verses which seem to indicate just the opposite (Mark 4:13, Psm. 78:1-7; Prov. 1:5-6; Eccl. 12:9; Mt. 13:10-18, 34-35; Mk. 4:30, 34; Luke 8:4, and Heb. 9:9).

None of the passages you cite supports the point you are making. Mark 4:13 is itself explained in vv.
14-20. It is not the Scriptures that are unclear here, but rather Jesus' spoken words. Ps 78:1-7 tells us that the "hidden" things are now being uttered. It goes on to say that these "hidden" things would not be hidden from subsequent generations (vv. 4, 6). In context, the "hidden" things are things that were clearly commanded long ago (i.e., the Law of Moses), but that the stubborn and rebellious Israel did not obey (v. 8). They were "hidden" only in the sense that they were ignored and neglected for several generations--not that they could not be understood (read through the commands of the Law in Exodus through Deuteronomy sometime and see if you can find any that are all that difficult to understand). Prov 1:5-6 does indeed allude to "sayings and riddles of the wise," but the entire book of Proverbs sets out to explain the meaning of these things. So again, the Scriptures clarify the "sayings" of the wise. The same is true of the Ecclesiastes passage you cite. Each of the passages you cite in Matthew, Mark and Luke are recorded instances of parables spoken by Jesus, but which are explained afterwards to the disciples in private--yet the explanation itself is also recorded for us.
Again, let's be careful not to confuse the veiled oral proclamation of Jesus with the Scriptures that clarify that veiled oral proclamation. As for Heb 9:9, I confess that I do not know how you are using this passage to support your point.

We cannot and must not trust any information outside of the Bible. Only the Bible itself is completely trustworthy. We can be sure that the reason there are so many interpretations of various Bible passages nowadays, is because the above biblical principle is NOT being adhered to OR it is not being used as the sole method of interpretation. The biblical hermeneutic is not just a matter of comparing scripture with scripture, but using ONLY scripture to interpret scripture. Notice that the Bible nowhere insinuates that one is in error because they are missing some type of secular historical information. Let us rather follow the Biblical example of the Bereans of Acts 17:11, "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." This exegesis, Scripture defining Scripture, is accomplished without the use of external sources. No allusions were made by Christ to extra-biblical sources to unravel His words. A major difficulty in the use of extra-biblical sources is the realization that many Christians are without such sources. An excellent example, is the tribe to which Wycliffe translators come and create a written language, then translate the Scriptures for them. No other information of any sort is available. If historical or other sources are needed, it would leave them with no ability to understand the Holy Word.

I know personally only two men who have proposed the hermeneutic you are proposing here. Both were very astute thinkers, but neither one could defend this hermeneutic very well when pressed with hard examples. And by the way, these men disagreed with each other on several other issues of theology (which demonstrates that your proposed hermeneutic has not resolved the "so many interpretations" issue). While I applaud your emphasis on the fact that the Bible is the only completely trustworthy source of truth, I do not think this observation leads to your conclusion that "we cannot and must not trust any information outside of the Bible," and that we cannot utilize non-biblical sources to shed light on the meaning of the biblical text. I would submit a few considerations that militate against this idea. 

First, your hermeneutic is not consonant with the biblical precedent we have. The biblical writers themselves employ non-biblical sources in their own writings. Jude alludes to and quotes from two books of the Jewish Pseudepigrapha (the Assumption of Moses and 1 Enoch) in Jude 9 and 14. Paul quotes Greek poets in Acts 17:28, Titus 1:12-13, and 1 Cor 15:33. Paul also alludes to Jewish tradition in 1 Cor 10:4. This is not to say that any of these sources are authoritative for the biblical writers (they are not), or that the same points could not have been made without these non-biblical sources; only that the biblical writers do not seem to hold your assumption that we cannot and must not trust any information outside of the Bible.

Second, when applied to real-world examples, this method of hermeneutics is one-dimensional at best. With the possible exception of Romans, all the letters of the New Testament are "occasional" documents; that is to say, they are written in response to some specific situation or crisis that the original readers were going through. One passage that comes to mind in this regard is 1 John 5:6-8, which reads: 

"This is the one who came by water and blood-Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement."

What does John mean by "water and blood"? Why does he think it is important to include it here?
How do the water and blood "testify"? Without a proper understanding of the historical context in which John writes, it is all but impossible to understand this text fully. When, on the other hand, we research the historical context in which John writes, we find that his statements make perfect sense in this letter. John is writing in response to incipient Gnosticism. Gnosticism was a patchwork mixture of many philosophies, including Judaism, Christianity, and something akin to "New Age" philosophy. These Gnostics believed that Jesus was some sort of emanation or "spark of light" from God (as were angels). All brands of Gnosticism made a sharp distinction between the material and the spiritual, but different groups applied that teaching in different ways. Some, believing all that is material is evil, became ascetics and refused every earthly pleasure (marriage, certain foods, etc.)--which sheds light on some of the things written by Paul, who battled the same heresy in many of his writings (Col 2:20-23; 1 Tim 4:3). Others, believing that once they had reached a state of enlightenment (or "perfection") whatever was done in the flesh was inconsequential since it did not affect the spiritual man, indulged in sin of every kind. Those of the first group (called Docetists) could not accept the notion that an emanation of God could take on evil flesh, and so postulated that Jesus only "seemed" to be human and only "seemed" to take on human flesh (perhaps now it is becoming more apparent why John insists in 1 Jn 4:2 that "every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God"). Those of the second group believed that Jesus and Christ were two separate entities, and that "the Christ" united with the man Jesus after his baptism and departed from him on the cross shortly before his death. John, on the other hand, wants us to know that Jesus IS the Christ (1 Jn 5:1)--not that he was indwelt by the Christ for only part of his life. He was the Christ both before his baptism and after his death. Now 1 John 5:6-8 begins to make more sense:
"This is the one who came by [dia, literally, "through"] water and blood [baptism and death]-Jesus Christ [one person, not two]. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood [i.e., he was the one person of "Jesus Christ" both at his baptism and at his death--contra the Gnostic belief that he was simply the man Jesus without the Christ at both of these events]."

Obviously, there is nothing in the Bible itself that specifically tells us what the Gnostics believed, and we would be short-changing ourselves by ignoring the historical context in which the biblical writers wrote. Moreover, the method of hermeneutics that you are proposing not only suggests that the Scriptures were written in a vacuum, but also implies some sort of dictation theory of inspiration (i.e., the biblical writers simply wrote what they were verbally told to write). Put it this way: The first readers of John's letter understood completely what John was saying because they were intimately acquainted with the historical context of the letter and with the Gnostic heresy. How are we at an advantage by intentionally blinding ourselves to this same historical background?

Finally, this method of hermeneutics is not what the Reformers had in mind in their Reformation slogan, Sola Scriptura ("the Scriptures alone"). Contrary to popular belief, Sola Scriptura does not mean that all truth must be derived from the Bible (obviously the Bible does not tell us that George
Washington lived and died--it is a "true" and reliable fact even though it is not found in the Bible).
Instead, Sola Scriptura means that only those teachings that are found in the Bible are binding on the conscience of the believer. This does not eliminate other areas of study as reliable sources of information that can shed light on the biblical text (such as the historical context of the NT documents). Having said this, I would want to add the caveat that this principle has been abused (e.g., the attempt by many to use certain tenets of psychology to "shed light" on the biblical text when in reality those tenets simply contradict it; the same holds true for egalitarians who overturn the plain reading of the text to advance their agenda of an extended role of women in Christian ministry). But the abuse is easily spotted, and it should not be used as grounds for dismissing the legitimate use of reliable sources in biblical exegesis.

--E.S.

The Lord's Day and the Lord's Supper

About Acts 20, I once read a Greek prof's critique of restoration movement writings (a movement in the mid-1800's which produced the Church of Christ and te Christian Church mvoements.) These movements eat a wafer of bread for communion in the morning. One thing this prof pointed out was that _supper_
refered to an evening meal. Another point made by my missionary to be friend going to ISrael is probably that this meeting occured on Saturday night. (The evening of the first day of the week.) From a Jewish perspective at the time, I would imagine that this makes sense. Even in Indonesian "malam Ahad" literally 'Sunday night' refers to what we call Saturday night. I was wondering what you guys believe about in Revelation where it says "I was inthe Spirit on the Lord's day." Do people think it refers to Sunday at the
house church there? Iv'e heard one explanation that makes a lot of sense. Since it can be translated 'I was in the Spirit on the day of the Lord' that it refers to the idea of John being at the eschatalogical day of the Lord
in a spiritual experience. I've read where 7th day adventist person said 'the Lord's day' here refered to the sabbath. It doesn't really argue for recognition of Sunday worship, imo.

--Link

I will try to take your questions in order. The Lord's Supper is indeed an evening meal (though I think the "meal" part is much more significant that the "evening" part--see my articles on Rethinking the Lord's Supper). There is absolutely no evidence that the meeting was held on Saturday night. All biblical evidence that can be posited for such a position is ambiguous and can just as easily support a Sunday evening meeting. I recommend the book by my former mentor, D.A. Carson, titled From Sabbath to Lord's Day. See also my article titled "The Lord's Day." The "Lord's Day" in Rev 1:10 probably does not refer to the eschatological day of the Lord because of the nomenclature itself. The phrase used here (kurion hemeran) means literally "the day belonging to the Lord." The word kuriakos occurs only here and one other place in the New Testament. The other instance is 1 Cor 11:20 where Paul refers to the "Lord's Supper" (literally, "the Supper belonging to the Lord"). The significance of this word appearing in only these two instances cannot be missed. The Lord's Supper was, in the first century, the purpose for the church meeting (see my series of articles entitled "Rethinking the Lord's Supper," parts 1, 2, & 3). Likely, the reason that the Supper was called the kuriakon deipnon ("the supper belonging to the Lord") is precisely because the day for eating the Supper was itself called the kuriakon hemeran ("the day belonging to the Lord"). The phrase for the eschatological day of the Lord is hemera tou kuriou (see e.g. 2 Thess 2:2).

--E.S.

The Sabbath Issue

Why is the first day of the week referred to as "The Lords Day" when Jesus himself refers to the seventh day sabbath when He says that He is Lord of the Sabbath day, .Mark 2:28. Also the fourth commandment of God's Ten Commandments. Exodus 20:8-11. I cannot find anywhere in the Bible the first day of the week being referred to as The Lords Day. In fact the term The Lords Day is found only once in the Bible Revelation 1:10, but there is no references of any number day. 

--Phillip Sizemore

The Mark passage you cite is often used by seventh-day sabbatarians to show that Jesus promoted Sabbath keeping. But the passage in context makes the exact opposite point. The passage in its entirety reads: 'One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. The Pharisees said to him, "Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?" He answered, "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions." Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath."' (Mark 2:23-27).

Jesus is responding to the Pharisees' accusation that his disciples were "breaking" the Sabbath. The Pharisees correctly interpreted the commandment not to do any work on the Sabbath as applying to harvesting, but legalistically regarded plucking any grain in a field as "harvesting." Jesus responds by pointing out that even David broke a commandment when it came to satisfying the need for food.
David ate bread that was unlawful to eat unless by a priest. Yet, Jesus implies that David broke no law in doing so because the purpose was to aid those who were hungry. Jesus then responds with the verses in question: "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath." Are we really to conclude that Jesus would make the points he does only to end it by saying, "Therefore make sure you keep the Sabbath." Such a conclusion makes absolutely no sense of what has come before. Instead, Jesus is saying that the Sabbath was placed in the law for man's benefit--so that man could rest from his labors and not work himself to death. The Sabbath wasn't given to bind man to a legalistic ritual ("the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath"). So, when Jesus says, "the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath," he is saying " I am Lord over the Sabbath, so I can dispense of it whenever I find it necessary." He certainly was not reinforcing Sabbath keeping for his followers. Such an interpretation is utterly foreign to the context.

--E.S.

The Silence of Women in the Assembly

I have been in home group/community settings for some time but there is a difficulty I have had. Since I take the NT seriously, I believe women should keep silent in the assemblies (1 Cor. 14; 1 Tim. 2). If there are 15 men and 15 women, it would be easier for the women to be silent since there would be enough men to speak/edify/exhort, etc. But, if there happens to be one or two or three men and (say) five, seven, or 10 women, it is a little more difficult or awkward for the women to be absolutely silent. (I take the passages above to not only disallow women to teach, but to ask questions, make announcements, etc.) How does one handle this very practical situation? Especially if there is only one seasoned and mature man (maybe yourself or me?) and a couple other total novices to the Christian faith, just converted off the street! Your help would be appreciated.

--Richard Hollerman 

Many of us who also take the NT seriously disagree that the Scriptures command absolute silence for women in the assembly. In my opinion (and in the opinion of most evangelical NT scholars) 1 Corinthians 14 disallows women to speak only with reference to judging prophecies (see the article titled "The Silence of Women in the Church"). It seems equally evident that 1 Corinthians 11 allows women to pray and prophesy in the assembly; and the 1 Tim 2 passage you mention says only that women must learn in tranquility, not in absolute silence (see the article titled "Women as Teachers of Scripture?"). My colleague, Steve Atkerson, would disagree with me on this point, but we have decided that the Scriptures are not completely clear on the issue and have learned to live with each other's opinion on it. However, you do point out an inherent weakness of the "absolute silence" position. What do you do when the majority of the assembly consists of women? It is both awkward and contrived (and a bit reminiscent of the institutional church) to have a situation in which two or three people are engaged in a discussion while the majority of the assembly looks on in audience fashion. My advice to you is to read again the articles concerning the role of women in the church, comparing them with the Scriptures, and see if the NT does indeed teach absolute silence for women in the assembly. Another resource I would recommend is Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, by Piper and Grudem, and published by Crossway Books. It addresses every major passage related to the women's issue. 

--E.S.

The Word of God

What or who is the Word of God?

--Mike Almada

Without further clarification about what passage(s) you have in mind, it is difficult to give a specific answer. In some contexts the "word of God" refers to the written revelation of the Old Testament. In other contexts it refers to the oral proclamation of prophets and apostles. I suspect, however, that what you have in mind is John 1:1: "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God." Here the "Word of God" is clearly the incarnate Son of God. Why is he called the "Word of God"? Probably because he reveals God in a similar way that verbal proclamation reveals him--only in much greater depth. Not only does Jesus tell us about God ("He has declared--literally, exegeted--him," Jn 1:18), but he does the works of God, speaks the very words of God, acts, responds and communicates the very essence of God. He is able to do this because he himself is God. He is the Word of God in the sense that he communicates God perfectly to us. John's Gospel was probably written to Alexandrine Jews, who were at once steeped in Hellenistic philosophy and the Torah. The "Word" (Logos) would have held much significance to them, as any student of philosophy can attest ("Logos" was the subject of many of the philosophical writings of that time); and of course the Logos of God held its own significance in an Old Testament context. John probably has in mind the various ways that Logos was used in his day--but he gives his own unique spin on the meaning as applied to Jesus.

--E.S.

The Word of God--Again

RE: "What or who is the Word of God?" I had no specific passage in mind, yet it seems to me that this term is used for different things. Sometimes it is used to refer to scripture while other times it is used as a title or description of God. Is there anywhere that scripture refers to itself as the Word of God? The only uses of this term that I know of always refer to God. While I believe in the canon and accuracy of scripture, is it accurate to refer to it as the Word of God?

--Mike Almada

As you rightly point out, the phrase "word of God" is indeed used of Jesus and the Gospel message. However, there are several passages of Scripture that speak of the word of God in terms of his written revelation. Jesus equates the word of God with Scripture in Jn 10:35: "If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came-and the Scripture cannot be broken." Paul takes a similar stance in 2 Cor 4:2: "Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God." It was not the gospel message that Paul's Jewish opponents accused him of distorting, but rather the OT Scriptures. But I think one of the clearest passages in this regard is Mk 7:9-13: 

"You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.' But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban' (that is, a gift devoted to God), then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that" (Mark 7:9-13; cf. Matt 15:6).

Here the phrase "word of God" clearly refers to OT Scripture. I think we can safely say that the Scriptures are the word of God--even if in nothing more than a derived sense. Paul tells us that Scripture is theopneustos (God-breathed, 2 Tim 3:16), and gives this as the reason that Timothy can have complete confidence in it. Obviously, if the Scriptures themselves are "breathed" by God, they can be no less the word of God than the oral proclamation of the gospel.

--E.S.