Authority
Preface to this Topic, by Dave Brown
Does Jesus Still Communicate Directly Today? by Bryan Gibson
Do All in the Name of the Lord Jesus, Author Unknown
Back to the Basics, by Bryan Gibson
Method: Command, Example and Necessary Inference, by Dave Brown
Method: Examples that Establish Biblical Authority
Method: Generic and Specific Authority, by Dave Brown
Method: Necessary Inference, by Dave Brown
By What Authority Do Churches Take Care of Their Needy? by Dave Brown
By What Authority—Do We Sing, by Dave Brown
Are We Being Too Strict? by Bryan Gibson
Return to Bible Subjects Articles page
PREFACE TO THIS TOPIC
By Dave Brown
This is by far one of the most important topical areas covered in these articles. For, if we are not all acting according to the same concept of authority, there cannot possibly be unity within the body of Christ. So, before going into what the Bible teaches on any subject, it is essential that we resolve and agree upon: (1) that the Bible is sufficient to provide us with all of the information that we need, and (2) the methods for establishing authority for practices from the Bible.
We start with three general articles: (1) Does Jesus Still Speak Directly to People Today? Most who answer YES have little regard for Biblical authority because they get their information directly from God; (2) Do All in the Name of the Lord Jesus -- we hear people saying "in His name" over and over, but do they have any idea of just what this phrase means? and (3) Back to Basics, a general article on authority.
After that we get into the specific Biblical methods for establishing scriptural authority followed by two examples, one on benevolence and the other on an act of worship (singing). Finally, there is an article answering the question: are we being too strict? As you go through the articles on authority, ask yourself: Is it even possible to be too strict when we are talking about obedience to our Maker and Creator, who gave His Son to be sacrificed for the forgiveness of our sins?
DOES JESUS STILL COMMUNICATE DIRECTLY TODAY?
By Bryan Gibson
[Editor's note: this subject it totally critical to the theme of this page. For, if God speaks to all of us today, why do we need the Bible? What if what we hear Him saying to us contradicts the clear statements of the Bible? And, even if God only speaks to a few of us or to one (e.g., a "Pastor," some priesthood or the Pope) this still defies the need for our going to the Bible as individuals to assure that they are teaching the truth.]
In answering this question, we need to make sure that we are guided, not by what we “think” or “feel,” but by what the Bible teaches.
In 1 Corinthians 2:10-13 we learn that the Holy Spirit searched “the things of God” and revealed them to the apostles. This was in fulfillment of the promise Jesus had made to His apostles earlier, that the Holy Spirit would “guide them into all truth” (John 16:13). The apostles preached what was revealed to them, but they also put it in written form. According to Ephesians 3:3-5, these things were written so that others could “read” and “understand.”
If the Holy Spirit guided the apostles into “all truth,” and they* in turn wrote this down for all future generations to read, what need is there for additional revelation? According to 2 Peter 1:3, the Lord “has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness.” We have all we need in the Scriptures to make us “complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17). In other words, the revelation we have in the Bible is complete, so complete that we are warned not to go outside of it (2 John 9), take away from it, or add to it (Revelation 22:18-19; see also Galatians 1:6-9).
Notice carefully the wording of Hebrews 1:1-2: “God…has in these last days spoken to us by His Son.” He does not continue to speak; He has spoken, and He has done that through the written word. If we want to hear Jesus speak today, we must listen to His word, the Bible, and specifically the New Testament. After all, it is by His word that we will be judged in the final day (John 12:48).
*They here would include those prophets to whom the apostles imparted the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit by the laying on of their hands (Acts 8:14-19; 19:1-7).
DO ALL IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS
Author Unknown
“And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus…” (Colossians 3:17). To do something “in the name of the Lord Jesus” means to do it by His authority. Christ has ALL authority (Matthew 28:18), and so whatever we do, we must have His authority behind it.
Suppose I took my vehicle to the shop and told the mechanic to change my spark plugs. To put it another way, I authorized him to change my spark plugs. If he did that, he would be acting by my authority. He would be doing that in my name. But let’s suppose he decided on his own that I needed a new transmission, installed it, and then presented me a bill for $1500. I would be very upset about that, because I did not give him the authority to replace my transmission. In replacing my transmission, he acted on his own.
That’s what we’re talking about in relation to the authority of Christ. We cannot act on our own. We must do only that which Christ has told us to do. And it’s not enough to say* that we’re doing it in His name. Jesus addressed that problem in Matthew 7:21-23: "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. "Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'
Here were some people who said they were doing things in Jesus’ name when in fact they were practicing lawlessness. They were acting without authority. They called Jesus “Lord,” but they did not treat Him as Lord.
Colossians 1:18 reminds us that “Christ is the head of the body, the church.” The human body does not act until it gets a signal from the head. Likewise, God’s spiritual body, the church, should not act until it gets a signal from its Head, Jesus Christ. If Christ tells us to do something, then we do it. If He does not tell us to do something, then we do not do it. Read again the words of Colossians 3:17: “And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus.”
*How arrogant does a false teacher have to be to assert that the mere strength of his own words are sufficient to make something "in Jesus name" when there is no Biblical support for it?
BACK TO BASICS
by Bryan Gibson
Please consider some basic facts about the Bible, and the New Testament in particular. These should provide a good foundation for our study of New Testament authority, and at the same time, keep us from some of the errors most commonly made.
God has spoken to us through His Son, Jesus Christ. “God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son...” (Hebrews 1:1-2). What is revealed through His Son must now take precedence over what was revealed “in time past.” We can still learn a great deal from the Law of Moses and from the prophets, but the message for us today is what God has spoken through His Son. The New Testament makes it extremely clear that we are no longer subject to the Law of Moses (Galatians 3:23-25; Ephesians 2:14-16; Colossians 2:13-17; Hebrews 9:15-17).
Jesus has been given all authority—not me, or you, or the church, or any other individual or body. Jesus said, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth ...” (Matthew 28:18). So Jesus is the source of authority for all that we do and say (Colossians 3:17), which excludes any other source—the Old Testament, what we think will get great results, what the majority think, what I feel in my heart is right, the way we’ve always done it, the way my family has always believed, and even what the preacher might say (preachers, including this writer, can be wrong). The only thing that matters—what does Jesus say? Does He authorize it?
How do we know what God has spoken through His Son? The Holy Spirit revealed these words to apostles and prophets, who then wrote down what the Holy Spirit revealed to them (Ephesians 3:1-5). Jesus promised His apostles that after He went back to heaven, He would send the Holy Spirit to bring to their remembrance what He had already taught, and then further guide them into all truth (John 14:25-26; 16:12-15). The Holy Spirit did come as Jesus promised (Acts 1:5-8; 2:1-4), and what He revealed to these men has now been written down for us to read and understand (please read carefully Ephesians 3:1-5). These words have been preserved for us in the New Testament.
Jesus has finished speaking. All truth has been revealed, just as He promised. The gospel, according to Jude 1:3, was “once for all delivered to the saints”. It contains “all things that pertain to life and godliness” (2 Peter 1:3), everything we need to make us “complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:17). Cursed is the man who either adds to or takes from this perfect revelation (Revelation 22:18-19).
Let’s be very careful, then, to make sure that what we teach and practice comes from Jesus, and not from man. “And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men” (Matthew 15:9). “Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son” (2 John 1:9).
COMMAND, EXAMPLE AND NECESSARY INFERENCE
by Dave Brown
Conflict Resolution — Doctrinal Matters
Doctrinal conflict is not a subject foreign to the New Testament. The first question that should be asked is: should we even be concerned about doctrinal matters? Why not just live and let live? Let us take a lesson from Paul as recorded in Acts 15:1-2: “And some men came down from Judea and {began} teaching the brethren, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.’ And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, {the brethren} determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue.”
Paul and Barnabas could have said, “Well, this is just your opinion and we do not agree. So you go your way and we will go ours, and we will pretend that there are no differences among us.” But that is not what they did. They immediately went about resolving the issue so that they could preserve the unity for which our Savior prayed (Jn. 17:23).
It is often stated that Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem to find out the truth on this matter. Not so. Then already knew the truth, and they taught that truth on the way to Jerusalem (Acts 15:3). Thus, their goal was more to determine if, in fact, these men had been sent from the apostles as they apparently claimed, and to notify the apostles in Jerusalem of what these troublemakers were all about.
This issue had previously been raised in Jerusalem and it had been resolved there as recorded in Acts 11.
When Paul and Barnabas arrived, they found that the source of the problem were some Christian Pharisees who were teaching the keeping of Moses’ law (Acts 15:4), probably motivated by their desire to have the same power in the churches that they had in the synagogues.
The Issue Resolved
Acts 15 serves not only as a history of the early church, but also an example to us for following the pattern established by the apostles who were being guided by the Holy Spirit. We might ask, “Why didn’t the Holy Spirit just give them the answer and let it go at that?” Answer: He did — read Acts 10 and 11. So, there was no reason to reveal it again. In fact, this seems to be a principle throughout the Bible: do you know of any situation in which God, having revealed something, reveals it again? Note Isaiah 10:23 which is paraphrased by Paul in Rom 9:27-28: "And Isaiah cries concerning Israel, If the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, it is the remnant that shall be saved: for the Lord will execute (his) word upon the earth, finishing it and cutting it short.
The elders and apostles of the church who gathered together were facing the exact same problem that we face today: how to resolve doctrinal conflict using existing revelation. There were three ways that this was accomplished:
1. Recognition of direct command (Acts 15:7-11). Peter told them about the direct command that he had received (again, review Acts 10-11).
2. Respecting the approved apostolic example. (Acts 15:12) Paul and Barnabas related what God had done through them, in accepting Gentiles without circumcision. This was confirmed by miracles. It was also verified as truth when they accomplished these things (Acts 13-14), so it was confirmed to be God’s will.
3. Accepting a necessary inference from the scriptures. James then gave a quotation from the Old Testament (Amos 9:11-12): “After these things I will return, and I will rebuild the tabernacle of David which has fallen, and I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, In order that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by My name, ...” There is nothing in this passage about circumcision. Yet, James is applying it to that. Why? Because the necessary implication of the passage is that the Gentiles would be acceptable to God directly and not through becoming proselyted into the Jewish nation, which had been the custom before the cross. Thus, circumcision was absolutely not to be a requirement of their salvation. To impose it was to bind where God had not bound and to impose an unnecessary and terrible barrier to the Gentiles becoming Christians without the authority of Christ.
So we have examples of the three methods that we are to apply today in resolving doctrinal matters: direct command, approved apostolic example and necessary inference. When these were applied in the first century, the doctrinal issue was conclusively resolved! Does that mean that everyone went along with it? No. For we see this to be a continuing problem that many of the early Jewish Christians who would not let go of it. People do irrational things when overcome by envy and jealousy in their quest for power.
Expect controversy to linger; it did in the first century. But that does not mean that we cannot apply the same principles that were applied in Acts 15 today to resolve doctrinal issues. Those who were faithful conformed to the resolution that was made based on a total review of the truth, the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27). So should we.
Please see the articles on Examples and Necessary Inferences that follow below, where we discuss these two methods of establishing biblical authority in more detail.
EXAMPLES THAT ESTABLISH BIBLICAL AUTHORITY
by Dave Brown
God’s Authority — Examples
There are three ways that we obtain authority and direction from the bible: Command, Example and Necessary Inference (see the article with this title). This article will consider the second of these, approved apostolic example, and the subject of Necessary Inference is considered in a separate article. There is no direct statement in the bible that prescribes these three methods, so we must be careful to establish that, in making this claim, we are not going beyond (as in 2 John 9) . Let’s take it one step at a time.
Most people agree that God’s direct commands that are recorded in the New Testament are binding on us today. The writings of Paul (and by extension, the other New Testament writers as well) were to be viewed as the commandments of God (1 Cor 14:37): “If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment.”
Approved apostolic examples are binding, and they are only binding, because God commanded us to follow them. First, the examples of Christ (1 Pet 2:21): “For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps...” Then, the examples of the apostles:
- 1 Cor 11:1: “Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.”
- Phil 3:17: “Brethren, join in following my example, and observe those who walk according to the pattern you have in us.”
- Phil 4:9: “The things you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, practice these things; and the God of peace shall be with you.”
How Do Examples Apply?
Obviously all examples are not binding. Consider the example of Job’s wife: “Then his wife said to him, ‘Do you still hold fast your integrity? Curse God and die!’” (Job 2:9). Obviously, this is not an example for us to follow today. This is why we qualify the word by talking of “approved apostolic examples.” This limits consideration to only practices that were approved by the apostles in the first century.
Whenever we get into a discussion of such examples, it seems that some want to deride the whole process by saying things like: “We do a lot of things without example. What about song books and church buildings?” And, “We don’t follow all the examples. What about meeting in upper rooms?”
Those who make such remarks show little regard for moving the discussion ahead and answering the question posed above: “How do examples apply.” Nor do they seem to have any interest in resolving the issues that they are raising. But in fact, these are legitimate questions, and they should be answered. But first, we must ask: what are you promoting? Are you saying that we should ignore all examples? If so, you are in direct contradiction to the clear scriptural evidence presented above. What is the alternative? We believe it to be nothing short of anarchy, which gives false teacher leaders the chance to grab all power. I am sure that you have experienced many such examples.
We might do some things without example, but we should never do anything in religion without authority. Examples are just one of the three ways for establishing authority. We are not at all stating that examples are the only means of establishing authority, and the fact that some things are approved in other ways does not negate the value of examples. In short, those things that are authorized by direct command or necessary inference do not need a confirming example (although quite often such do exist).
Then there is the fact that many details mentioned in the New Testament are incidental and not intended to be made into doctrine. In such cases there are usually counterexamples which demonstrate that the example detail is not there to be bound. The meeting in upper rooms is a good example of this principle, since there are many examples of churches meeting in other types of places. God expects us to use our brains to reason through the various questions that we have and to do our very best to apply his word to doing His will today.
All approved apostolic examples apply to us today. However, some apply only in principle (e.g., Acts 3:1; 4:32), while others contain important details (Acts 20:7). It is up to each one of us to study our bibles and to rightfully divide God’s word in this regard (2 Tim. 2:15). The vast majority of issues are easy to resolve, and on these we can and should stand firm. On those which provide a greater challenge, we should continue to study and apply ourselves to doing our best to resolve them in a way that will not offend anyone’s conscience needlessly.
While some might attack this as a subjective process, we respond that nothing is more subjective than disregarding the biblical examples altogether. They are essential to our knowledge of God’s will. Let us apply the good common sense that God gave us to do our best to apply them properly.
GENERIC AND SPECIFIC AUTHORITY
by Dave Brown
[The major motivator for this article is a statement heard from many Christians: "We do many things without authority." This, of course, would not make such practices right. But for now, let us attempt to determine the validity of this statement as it applies to those churches which are totally Bible-based.]
Consider the following statement:
We should never do anything in religion without authority.
This statement is true as taught by 1 Cor. 4:6, 2 John 9, and many other passages. Our other articles that deal with the silence of the scriptures are also relevant. We are not to speak where God has not spoken; we are not to bind our fellow Christians to things that God has not bound.
Some do not want to accept this principle, and so they make the argument: “We do a lot of tings without authority.” When questioned, the most common example that we have heard over and over again are songbooks.
We will consider this example below, but first let’s ask the question: “What if this is true? What if there is no authority for songbooks? Would this negate the validity of the statement that we should never do anything in religion without authority? Of course not. It would merely mean that we have been wrong in using songbooks and so should discontinue their use. The fact that we err in one area does not justify error in all areas, or the disregard for clear biblical principles, i.e., anarchy.
What is the biblical principle here? It has to do with generic and specific authority. This is not a difficult subject to understand. Consider the command that God gave to Noah: Build an ark. At that point Noah had the discretion as to size, shape, materials, tools, etc. to accomplish this command. However, God did not stop there. He gave Noah some specifics. He told Noah to make it of gopher wood, he gave dimensions and several other specifications. Noah was not at all authorized to go against these specifications and arbitrarily do things the way he wanted to (as though he thought God was making a mistake).
On the other hand, God did not specify the tools. Now, Noah could not just use any tools. It was still contingent upon Noah to use the best possible tools at his disposal. This is an important concept. Nothing that we do is without law. There are general laws for everything we do. One of them is to not be wasteful of the resources that God has given us, and the most precious of these resources is our time. Thus, Noah should choose tools that would get the job done in a most effective and efficient manner. But this was Noah’s decision and judgment, since God had given not specifications in this regard.
So now to the example at hand: songbooks. True, we do not have specific authority for songbooks, but does that mean we have no authority? No, we have the generic authority to sing (Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16). Further, we are commanded to “let all things be done decently and in order” (1 Cor. 14:40). But we do not have any specification as to how this is to be accomplished. Let us consider the alternatives:
- Commit all songs to memory (we feel that this is probably what was done in the first century, but that cannot be proven, and it is not specified as a biblical requirement; but it is certainly an alternative);
- Have some common way that the worshipers can view the words and/or the music – there are probably dozens of ways this could be accomplished: charts, overhead projection, power point, large charts, etc.
- Provide individuals with the words and music – this could be done by giving them individual handouts or providing a songbook, or both.
Recognize, it is not that we have no constraints here – we still have to use our judgment as to which is the best way in this day and age to do things decently and in order. Most churches have decided that songbooks are the most practical of all of the methods considered, although I am sure that many exceptions are made, especially to accommodate songs that are not in the books. We have worshiped where they use an overhead projector to show the words and the music. No problem with that; in fact, if any one of these were given as a command, it would tie our hands as to the use of a better method.
The point of this example has nothing to do with songbooks. It has to do with the fact that they are authorized. They are authorized as an expedient to the generic command to sing. This very same thought process should be applied to all of the judgments that we are forced to make when carrying out God’s commands.
The following might sound strange, but it is a truism: all God’s positive commands require some human judgment in their accomplishment. Try to think of an exception. Noah had to choose the tools, the time, perhaps his helpers, and on and on and on. Songbooks are just one of the judgments we have to make with regard to singing. There is also the particular songbook (we currently have two), the specific song, which verses to sing, how to pitch it, how fast to sing it, and on and on and on. Indeed, if we insisted upon an example or specific authority for ever detail we could never sing. But then, we could never do anything else either. (Is that the objective of the critics?)
Sometimes we wonder about the necessity for articles like these. Whatever happened to common sense? But sometimes it is the truisms that we have the hardest time in accepting as reality. The fact that we have to make these judgments does not mean that they are not authorized; else nothing that we do would be authorized. On the other hand, the making of the judgments is not always simple, and it should not be trivialized. Rather, we should work through each of God’s commands, consider the alternatives for its accomplishment, and pick the ones that we see to be most expedient and to God’s glory. God made us capable of making these decisions, and when we make them right, we glorify God.
NECESSARY INFERENCE
by Dave Brown
God’s Authority — Necessary Inference
In another article within the Bible Study Methods topic we show that we obtain authority and direction from the bible by Command, Example and Necessary Inference. We saw that approved apostolic examples are binding because God commanded us to follow them. This applies to both the examples of Christ (1 Pet 2:21) and the approved examples of the apostles (1 Cor 11:1, Phil 3:17; 4:9). In this article we will show, by example, that both Jesus and the apostles used necessary inference (NI) to resolve key issues of biblical interpretation.
But first, what is it? Some call it necessary implication, some obvious conclusions, and still others just “plain old common sense.” We use it every day in communication. When Dad tosses a $5 bill at Junior and and says: “Please go down to the store and get us some milk,” there are a large number of necessary inferences involved. Some examples:
(1) That Junior will choose some expedient means of getting to the store,
(2) That he will purchase just what Dad told him to — at least with Dad’s money, and
(3) That he will choose the quantity/type of milk that is appropriate, etc., etc.
Now Dad could have specified much more (like whether to take the family car or Junior’s bicycle), and if he did then these things would no longer be within Junior’s realm of judgment. However, no matter how much Dad does specify, Junior will always have to make some judgments on his own.
When Dad does not specify a detail, Junior is still authorized (by the inference of the command) to do his best in making these decisions. However, to be a necessary inference the conclusion must be inescapable. It is not enough for it to be a possibility, or even a likely possibility. It must be the definitive result of the commands and examples given by scripture.
For example, the fact that Dad gave Junior $5 and that the milk would not cost quite that much does not within itself authorize Junior to spend it on anything that he wants. Junior might want to infer such a thing, but Dad might take issue with that conclusion. That conclusion is not consistent with Dad’s command, while the means of getting there and his choice of milk brand are essential to accomplishing Dad’s command. There is nothing difficult about this – it is the same type of reasoning that we use every day in our family, business and social relationships
An example of Jesus’ use of necessary inference can be found in (Mt. 22:31-32): “But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” Jesus was quoting from Exodus 3:6, which says nothing specifically about the resurrection from the dead. However, Jesus chastises them for not drawing the obvious conclusion, one that is necessarily inferred from the tense of a verb (I am, not I was).
If Jesus used this method, can it be wrong? In Mt. 22 (and many other places), Jesus draws conclusions that must follow from the scriptures even though they are not explicitly stated. This is exactly what we mean when we talk about necessary inference. To draw such conclusions, however, one must know the premises. Knowing only what other people state about the bible is not sufficient. Thus, the necessity to study (2 Tim. 2:15) and to become as those “who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil” (Heb. 5:14).
Let us apply this to a simple example today. Most religious people recognize that God has commanded them to meet each first day of the week (Hebrews 10:25). Meeting requires a place. So, the command to meet necessarily infers that we will establish a place to meet. There is no other alternative. A place to meet can be borrowed, rented or owned by the local church – those are the only three alternatives, but none of them are uniquely specified in the New Testament. It is therefore up to the local church to make the determination of the best possible way that it can arrange a place to meet. When it does this, it is acting on the authority that God has given it. We are to do nothing without such authority.
BY WHAT AUTHORITY DOES THE CHURCH TAKE CARE OF ITS NEEDY?
by Dave Brown
As with all of the other “authority” subjects, we look to biblical commands, approved apostolic examples and necessary inferences to assure ourselves that this is a function that the local church should be involved in. We know that it is a good work, so that is not the question. Many good works, such as training your children, are not the responsibility of the church. So, how do we know that this type of benevolence is the work of the church? and in what way, if any, is it limited?
Authorization
Let’s start with the basics. The early church had many who were truly in need, and there are clear apostolic approved examples of the church taking on the responsibility of caring for them. These passages speak for themselves:
· Acts 2:44-45: “And all that believed were together, and had all things common; and they sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all, according as any man had need.” This shows the spirit of the first century Christians in this regard; we will see that the selling of possessions is not a general requirement and was not the general practice even in the first century. This is true of the following passage as well.
· Acts 4:32: “And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and soul: and not one (of them) said that aught of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.”
· Acts 6:1-4 “Now in these days, when the number of the disciples was multiplying, there arose a murmuring of the Grecian Jews against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. And the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not fit that we should forsake the word of God, and serve tables. Look ye out therefore, brethren, from among you seven men of good report, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. But we will continue stedfastly in prayer, and in the ministry of the word.” Now, while this records one of the very first problems that occurred within the first century church, the question was not at all about whether their needy should be taken care of or not. We would guess that this is because that this was the common practice in the synagogues, and at this point the church was still made up exclusively of Jews.
Extension to Help Between and Among the Churches
The following passages establish authority for local churches to help other local churches when a need arises that is local to a given area:
- Acts 11:27-30: “Now in these days there came down prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch. And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be a great famine over all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius. And the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren that dwelt in Judea: which also they did, sending it to the elders by the hand of Barnabas and Saul.” It should be noted that this was not commanded or in any way directed by “Jerusalem.” It was an initiative of Antioch in response to a reported need. The following verse follows up on this action.
- Acts 12:25: “And Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem, when they had fulfilled their ministration, taking with them John whose surname was Mark.”
- Rom. 15:25-27: “ … but now, I (say), I go unto Jerusalem, ministering unto the saints. For it hath been the good pleasure of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor among the saints that are at Jerusalem. Yea, it hath been their good pleasure; and their debtors they are. For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, they owe it (to them) also to minister unto them in carnal things.”
- 1 Cor. 16:1-4: “Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I gave order to the churches of Galatia, so also do ye. Upon the first day of the week let each one of you lay by him in store, as he may prosper, that no collections be made when I come. And when I arrive, whomsoever ye shall approve, them will I send with letters to carry your bounty unto Jerusalem: and if it be meet for me to go also, they shall go with me.” This shows the other local churches that were involved, but also further demonstrates that all of this was at the initiative of the contributing churches.
- 2 Cor. 8-9. These two chapters provide even more detail both with regard to the attitude of the early Christians and the method by which this work was accomplished.
Restrictions and Limitations
The passages given above clearly demonstrate that the church has a responsibility to take care of the needy. In the first section we saw that this was limited to those who were members of the local church. In the section above it was extended to needy Christians in other places. This is not an arbitrary limitation that we have concocted. Please note that very definitive specifics are given (see the article on Generic and Specific Authority). In the passages above, for example:
- Acts 11:27-30: “… And the disciples, …, determined to send relief unto the brethren …
- Rom. 15:25-27: “ … but now, I (say), I go unto Jerusalem, ministering unto the saints.”
- 1 Cor. 16:1-4: “Now concerning the collection for the saints, …”
- 2 Cor. 9:1: “For as touching the ministering to the saints, …”
The examples that we have are quite clear on this. It should be added that this limitation is only to the work of the local church, it is not a restriction to individuals. Individuals have a responsibility to help all as the opportunity arises: “So then, as we have opportunity, let us work that which is good toward all men, and especially toward them that are of the household of the faith” (Gal. 6:10). Christians may do this individually or through other charitable institutions that are established for that purpose. There is nothing to prevent an individual Christian from participating in such an organization or even in starting one. However, this must remain the work of the individual; it is extremely problematic and divisive when such organizations attempt to be supported by local churches, since clearly there are literally thousands of such organizations that could seek to be supported. However, this is not the reason that local churches are not to support secular institutions; the reason is that there is no authority for that.
There are two other limitations to the support that the church is to provide even to its own members. In brief, the local church is not to provide help when:
- The individual in "need" refuses to work. Apparently there were some in the first century that were taking advantage of the good attitude on the part of their fellow Christians. With regard to these, the apostle Paul stated: “For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, If any will not work, neither let him eat. For we hear of some that walk among you disorderly, that work not at all, but are busybodies. Now them that are such we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread” (2 Thess. 3:10-12).
- The individual who has other family members that are in a position to take care of them, as clearly indicated in 1 Tim. 5:16: “If any woman who is a believer has widows in her family, she should help them and not let the church be burdened with them, so that the church can help those widows who are really in need.”
BY WHAT AUTHORITY DO WE SING?
by Dave Brown
Almost all religious groups have some form of singing, and possibly other music, as part of their worship. Our goal in this article will be to establish the music which is authorized by God’s word.
Two verses stand out in this regard: please read Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16. Both clearly specify “singing.” In addition, “speaking one to another” and “teaching and admonishing” can only be done by singing.
While these are sufficient to make our singing an act of faith, there are many other references to singing in the New Testament (e. g., Matthew 26:30, Acts 16:25, Romans 15:9, 1 Corinthians 14:15, Hebrews 2:12, James 5:13). However, search though we might, we cannot find any authorization for any other type of music or instrumental accompaniment.
I know of no one who believes that it is wrong to sing in worship to God without instruments. Why not just do what we know is right? However, since most denominations use some form of instrumental music, the question arises: “is it acceptable to do this without the same authority that we have for singing?” (See 2 John 9.)
Let us answer this question by looking to a man of faith in the Old Testament (Hebrews 11:7). When God told Noah to build an ark (Genesis 6:14), he was free to build it of any materials that he chose with any tools that he chose, and still be obedient to God. However, when God said to use gopher wood, this removed all other types of wood from being authorized. So, while he could still use any available tools, he was not at liberty to use any other wood (even a little bit of it), since this would no longer have been “of faith.” It would have been Noah’s judgment over God’s.
God has specified singing. While many see no reasons that instruments were not authorized, the fact that God specified singing and not instruments should be enough. While there are many things (like Noah’s tools) that we can do to assist our singing, we cannot augment the worship of God with a type of music which He has not authorized (even a little bit of it).
The issue of instrumental music is not a matter of personal preference or church tradition. Those who insist upon scriptural authority for EVERYTHING that they do will not worship God in any way that He has not authorized, for to do so is not “in truth” (John 4:24). If we can take this step without God’s authority, then what rationale prevents us from taking any other steps?
ARE WE BEING TOO STRICT?
by Bryan Gibson
[This question arises from criticism that has some basis in Matthew 23:23-24: "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye tithe mint and anise and cummin, and have left undone the weightier matters of the law, justice, and mercy, and faith: but these ye ought to have done, and not to have left the other undone." There is no doubt that we can give undue emphasis to technicalities and neglect justice, mercy, faith and even love. That is not the question. But this is NOT an either-or issue. Jesus said that both were necessary: "these ye ought to have done, ..." There is absolutely no reason that Christians and their respetive churches can and should do both to the best of their abilities. To those who make the claim "we do this but you do that," is your goal to get out of obeying God to the letter by minimizing its importance? Please consider the following article.]
In our worship, are we being too strict when we do only that which the Lord has commanded, nothing more and nothing less? When we organize ourselves under elders and deacons (Philippians 1:1), are we being too inflexible? Could we do it some other way and still be pleasing to the Lord? When it comes to the work of the church, it is being too narrow-minded to insist on doing only that which the Lord has authorized? Wouldn’t it be okay to do something else, as long as the Lord did not expressly forbid it? Please consider the words of our Almighty God to answer these questions.
To the Israelites under the law of Moses, God made it clear that he wanted them to do all His will, nothing short of it, and nothing beyond it. He told them plainly not to turn aside to the right hand or to the left (please read Deuteronomy 5:32; 17:20; 28:14; Joshua 1:7; 23:6).
This same emphasis is found in the New Testament, the perfect law of faith (Romans 3:27; 1 Corinthians 9:21; James 1:25; 2:12) that we are under today. Different words are used, but the principle is the same. Jesus said, “If you abide in My word, you are my disciples indeed” (John 8:31). When we practice something that Jesus did not teach, when we go beyond His commandments, clearly we are no longer abiding in His word. Here is how it is expressed in 2 John 9: “Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son” (NASV). Further support is provided by 1 Timothy 6:3 : “If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ…he is puffed up, knowing nothing...” Everything we teach and practice must be examined in light of this question: Did Jesus Christ teach it in the New Testament either directly or through the apostles? Realizing that the Lord authorizes practices in various ways, we should ask these questions: Did He command it? Did He give us an example of it? Did He clearly imply it? If the answer to these questions is no, then we must put it aside.
The path we should follow is laid out in the New Testament; we must not turn aside to the left hand or to the right. It is never wrong to do what God commands of us today.
What are the conditions of salvation given by Jesus?
Return to Bible Subjects Articles page