Salvation by Correct Doctrine, Hermeneutics & Fellowship, Pt 1

The following is part of a brotherly on again and off again discussion I allowed myself to get drawn into with another preacher. I felt it would be valuable to develop a Christian bond with this brother. As for the actual initial initiation of the discussion regarding music and fellowship I did not make. In what follows I will leave my own replies in normal type and his in italic. I think this exchange illustrates - in my view - the disease of sectarianism and the dangers of hop-scotch hermeneutics rather than dealing with context. I have not edited either him or myself except to take names out. Blessings.

September 15

Hello brother,

I really enjoyed our visit together. However, I have a serious question to ask you all now. This is in regards to the discussion you had with me in the vehicle.

I have a question, and it is very straight forward. A simple yes, or no will suffice. A straight forward answer would be much appreciated. My purpose in asking at this point is merely for knowledge sake. I hope to meet and visit with you all in the future regardless of your answer. So, I ask in love...

Can the church of our Lord have fellowship with those who worship God with instrumental music?

If you don't feel comfortable anwering this question via computer, just give me a call ...



My Reply

Brother ... it is good to hear from you once again. Sorry to be slow in my reply to you but I have been sort of busy (well no sort about it!!).

I have read your question. Put it down. Then read it again yesterday, and today. I have debated with myself about replying. I truly enjoyed visiting together the other day and pray for more in the future.

As I recall we never discussed the issue of IM per se. As you will recall you had mistaken some congregations in the Midwest that say "Church of Christ" for acappella and I simply pointed out that they had never been "ours." They had not "introduced" the instrument. You will also recall that you said you did not know anything about that history. So we discussed the independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ ... here is a brief wikipedia article ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Churches_and_Churches_of_Christ

We did talk about whether "we" have to be doctrinally perfect in order to be saved. You will recall I pointed to the example of the Corinthians. I suggest that it is empirically demonstrable that Paul went the extra extra mile on this matter and I suggest we should do that too ... The problems of Corinth include ...

1) They had division and partyism (baptism played a key role in this schism)
2) They had "issues" with Paul's authority and apostleship
3) They not only had sexual perversion but openly approved of it as a sign of
superior wisdom
4) They had lawsuits in public court destroying the unity and witness of the Body
5) They had problems regarding sexuality, marriage and asceticism
6) They had folks who still had not accepted the doctrine of monotheism (cf. 8.7)
7) They had doctrinal issues regarding worship: problems with the Lord's Supper
8) They had huge issues over spiritual gifts and the worship assembly
9) They even had folks who denied the resurrection!
10) They seem to have had a great lack of love for one another

Did Paul fellowship error?? Yes he did! That does not mean he approved it, or endorsed it, but there is no way to get around the historical fact that he was in fellowship with the Corinthians. If we could only follow the apostolic teaching and example.

Listen to Paul’s language regarding this messed up church: “To the church of God . . . to those SANCTIFIED in Christ Jesus . . ." Paul then says "I ALWAYS thank God for you because of his grace given you in Jesus . . ." Those are remarkable words from Paul in light of what we know about Corinth and in light of our own historic non-practice of this example. Paul does not give thanks because the Corinthians got everything right or anything right. He thanks God for the grace that has been given them.

Brother ... I would like to recommend that when we get together that you lead a study on this matter. I for one am open to learning more ... just like Apollos.

Blessings,
Bobby V


His Reply

Hey Bobby,

I appreciate you taking the time and effort out of your busy schedule (and I believe you, its busy for all of us heh). Now I want something to be clear Bobby, I believe we did talk about instrumental music, because that is how our discussion about independant churches and so forth arose. Nevertheless, I don't want you to feel that I'm accusing you of anything. In fact, that is the whole purpose I asked this question. I want to see where some of the fellow preachers of the Lord's church are standing on an issue such as fellowshipping instrumental music. Specifically yourself.

Now, concerning your answer Bobby, though I appreciate your long and thoughtful answer. I would have much more appreciated a simple yes or no. The answer that you gave me would perhaps be acceptable if someone ever asked me if there be a time that God endures with a congegation before completely removing the lampstand. I would certainly use 1 Co. along with Rev. 2, in order to show that God does endure with impurities in the church (for a season). But now, that wasn't my question. I already know the complexities and details that go on before we have disfellowship with a church or Christian for that matter. However, My question is simple and straightforward, and I think a room full of preachers can understand what I'm ultimately asking. My question is this beloved brethren...

Can the church of our Lord have fellowship with those who worship God with instrumental music?

I would love to lead a study on this question at some point Bobby. Concerning this message though, I'm not going to go into any detail. I simply would like to know where you stand.

In Christ,

P.S.

One last comment brethren, before I leave this page.

I did notice Bobby, that your response brings up a broader issue. "Does the church have to be doctrinally perfect to be saved?" I want to reply to that quickly, because I don't want there to be any impressions that I agree with even your answer to that.

Your answer is obviously no. Yet, I fully disagree with that. The Bible makes it clear that a church must be doctrinally perfect (2 Jn. 9-10; Rev. 2; and yes even the book of 1 Co. testifies to that). I believe the church of Christ is doctrinally perfect, but made up of imperfect people. Of course, there is a season of the Lord's longsuffering, and that is what I believe many denominations and sometimes brethren confuse.

But, I don't wish to get into that and just end up broadening the issue. I just want to know if the church of Christ can have fellowship with independant churches and the like. Those who vainly practice instrumental music!



My Reply
Brother ...,

I will not be around much today for any further discussion ... I will be hanging out with my wife today and she takes precedence even over stimulating brotherly discussions such as this. I want to emphasize the word BROTHERLY. Before I leave I want to add one or two caveats to this discussion. And I apologize if it is too long brother but I have learned through both many years of study and several years of getting beat up by life that most of life never boils down to a simple yes or no. There are some things that do but most do not. Especially if they are actually of importance.

First. I reject as completely unbiblical that a person or congregation has to be "doctrinally perfect" to experience salvation. From the start such a position makes salvation hinge upon doctrinal perfectionism rather than God's grace in Christ Jesus. If a people were doctrinally perfect that negates the NEED (yes NEED!) for Grace. Second I deny - indeed reject outright - that the texts you proof text support the position you apply them too. Simple citation does not demonstrate they MEAN what you claim they do.

Second I will not let you simply brush off the Corinthians (and they are just simply the most obvious example in the NT for our purposes). This is clearly a doctrinally aberrant congregation and Paul is in complete fellowship with them. Their imperfection did not keep him from thanking God for Grace (not doctrinal perfection) given to them. He even says unambiguously that they ARE the church (not were or will be). He says that they ARE (present tense) sanctified ... and Paul wrote that with the full knowledge of the state of that congregation. The apostle also testifies to his faith in God who will "strengthen you to the end so that you may be blameless on the day of the Lord Jesus" (1 Cor 1.8-9). That is how Paul prefaces all of his discussion with Corinth. Wouldn't it do our brethren a world of good if they began all their discussions about the error they see in one another with such language?? I think it would!!

Third, and this is from memory bc I have no resources at home with me, but Paul's problems with the Corinthians was no fly by night, here today, and gone tomorrow phenomena. Here in brief is a general outline his relationship with them that is his apostolic example of going the extra mile for the sake of unity:

1) initial 18 month ministry recorded Acts 18 we know this dates to AD 51 because of the Gallio inscription at Delphi

2) After he leaves Corinth, Paul exchanges letters we no longer have. He refers to this in 1 Cor 5.9 in which he dealt with sexual immorality. This is Corinthians A

3) The Corinthians appear to benefit from the teaching of both Apollos and Peter. Paul learns that the church then sectarianizes on these great teachers thru Chloe household AND in a letter. So our 1 Corinthians deals with the substantive issues in that congregations. This is second corinthians ... again after a period of teaching - orally and written.

4) Paul sends Timothy to the Corinthian church to see that his directives in our 1 Cor are followed. This was, apparently, an unsuccessful visit.

5) Paul returns to Corinth himself and calls this a "painful" visit (2 Cor 2.1)

6) Paul follows up his painful visit with what he calls the "tearful letter" (2 Cor 2.2f; 7.8) Titus, rather than Timothy, brought this letter to the Corinthians who reported a good reception to that letter (2 C 7.5ff)

7) Paul writes our 2 Corinthians after the communication from Titus

All of this took place over a period of several years. There is no evidence in the surviving letters from this exchange that Paul ever severed fellowship with any of the Corinthians EXCEPT the man in open sexual sin. Most scholars date 1 C to AD 55 and 2 C to late 56 or 57. So the relationship from Acts 18 to the end of 2 Corinthians is around 6 or 7 years.

I ask you, where in any of the literature we have regarding the Corinthians, does Paul disfellowship or even threaten to do so - anyone except the man in blatant immorality? And again look over that list in my previous note ... this is not a list of insignificant stuff. If we claim that apostolic example is a mode of authority then I ask brother why is this example NOT BINDING??

Finally regarding in the car and IM. My recollection is that you indicated that several of the churches in ... had "introduced" IM (at least that is what I understood you to be saying). I simply and as kindly as I know how, objected and pointed out they were never non-IM churches in the first place but part of the independents, to which you confessed you were not aware of that group of people.

I will, until I learn otherwise, strongly disagree that we are saved by doctrinal perfection. We already have a discussion on the docket for our next meeting but I am more than willing to have you lead me in a discussion of salvation by doctrinal perfection. I may be totally wrong and if so I am willing to learn and hopefully God will do for me what he does what Paul claims in 1 Cor 1.8-9 or what Jude says in vv. 24-25. Either way I know I am not perfect ... Sorry for being so long but I think this is a discussion that deserves actual depth.

I look forward to more in person. And once again we are brethren and we need to do for one another what Paul does the Corinthians. Thank God for one another and the grace given to all of us.

Shalom,
Bobby V.



His Reply
Late Night
Brother,

I want to clarify this once again, before I reply to the following messages again. My question is asked in the name of love, peace, without accusation, implication, and for the endeavorment for unity of the faith in which our Lord and Savior desires among His children:

Can the church of our Lord have fellowship with churches that practice instrumental worship to God?

Now, I understand the complexities of studying this issue. I also understand the complexities of the process in which we must go through before disfellowshipping anyone or any church. But the ultimate conclusion can only be a yes or no. There is no in between. When a church puts instrumental music in the church for purposes of worshipping God, and they are warned, rebuked, exhorted, and yet continue in their sinful ways, the churches of Christ must decide to either fellowship or disfellowship. Therefore, this question does come down to a simple yes or no.

I don't believe there is any other way for me to be more brotherly in approaching this situation. I'm not putting anyone in a catch 22, as the Pharisees and Saducees liked to do with our Lord at times. My endeavor to know your answer to this is pure, and should we disagree I hope to study on this issue so that either you or I may be lead in the more perfect way.

Perhaps your unwillingness to answer this question Bobby is for that reason. But, I strongly persuade you brother that my intention is not to put you down in any way.

All and all at this point though, I feel like you've already given me a "yes, churches of Christ can fellowship churches that practice instrumental music." So I'm not gona ask you any further, lest I feel like I'm beginning to harass in some way, ha. If you wish to correct me on this though, please do. I'm simply trying to understand, not debate.

God Bless,



My Reply
Hey Brother I have had a busy weekend, as I am sure you have had as well. I enjoyed the company of Tifani for the weekend, dropped her off at the airport and then rushed to northern AZ to preach for a small congregation there. Got back yesterday afternoon exhausted. Sunday was a blessed day at PV and I was delighted to be Gathered around the throne of God in worship with my brothers in this correspondence.

Brother. I don't think you are harassing me and hope I have not given that impression. We ARE brothers and talking to my beloved brothers is a blessing regardless of the subject.

Yet beloved brother there is a danger in putting words into my mouth. I have answered your question by going underneath it. By examining the example of unity rather than division. I do not use IM or desires to see it introduced. It is a mute point. I have no dog in the fight as they say. What I have an interest in is what I think Paul had an interest in ... unity. Your first questions to me, without even knowing me, are about division. I am not in that orbit and I dont think Paul was either.

Rather Paul SOUGHT reasons to maintain fellowship, he did not look for excuses to sever it. That is what I want to do with you. Why find a reason to sever fellowship when I have a million reasons to keep it?

I appealed Paul's teaching and his example with the Corinthians. It is as relevant as anything to our discussion ... which has been salvation by perfect knowledge of doctrine and its corollary unity/fellowship by perfect knowledge of doctrine. I laid out Paul's relationship with that congregation in a previous contribution and asked a pointed question: WHERE and WHEN in the writings of Paul do we have him severing fellowship with any of the Corinthians except the man in sexual sin? I ask again where is it. You have been as silent on the actual biblical text regarding the Corinthians as the grave. It is as if this material does not even exist.

I stress, once again, this congregation had the benefit of teaching from not one but TWO apostles (Paul and Peter). They had the luxury of instruction from two apostolic delegates (Timothy and Titus). They had the providence of being fed by one famous non-apostle (Apollos) who was "mighty in the scriptures." And they had at least four letters and repeated visits by Paul over that span of 6 or 7 years. That is a lot of teaching, a lot of words, a lot of time ... (see the chronology I laid out previously)

Why, brother, is Paul's example here not relevant?? Tell me straight up.

But what also of his teaching? Paul destroys the false "soteriology of knowledge" held by some of the Corinthians. Some apparently believed that salvation was merely by correct knowledge of doctrine and thus treated their brothers in a cavalier manner. Chapter 8 is quite enlightening on this point and shows Paul's teaching in practice. What, my beloved brother, was the real issue about meat sacrificed to idols??

Paul begins his discussion by contrasting "gnosis" (knowledge) with agape (love). Knowledge "puffs up" but agape builds up, it serves, it ... love does what 13.4ff says. BTW I think Paul is anticipating chapter 13 here in chapter 8.

There is a correct knowledge, a correct position, on idols and the meat sacrificed to them. There is also a false knowledge, an incorrect position, on meat sacrificed to idols. My question dear brother is WHY didnt Paul simply say to those who were wrong ... "get over it!?" Rather it is the ones that were doctrinally "correct" ... had knowledge ... that Paul calls on the carpet. There are those who are so imperfect in their knowledge/doctrine that Paul says quite explicitly that some "do not know THIS" (v.7).

Carefully study the context brother. Context. Context. Context. What is the "this" that is not fully known and grasped by certain members of the Dysfunctional Church of Christ in Corinth? it is those that think an idol is REAL! They believe, incorrectly, that a spiritual reality does in fact stand behind the image! (if they didnt the whole discussion makes NO SENSE at all). Paul even says in vv 4-6 that he knows there is only one God (he paraphrases the Shema, Dt 6.4 here) then he says ...

"But not everyone knows this" (NIV)
"Howbeit there is not in all men that knowledge" (ASV, KJV)
"However, not all posses this knowledge" (ESV)
"However, everyone does not know this" (Hugo McCord's version)
"But not everyone knows this truth" (Good News Translation)

Eugene Peterson's paraphrase The Message renders the verse thus

"We need to be sensitive to the fact that we're not all at the same level of understanding in this"

Now my question is why didnt Paul side with those who are correct but rather called for agape rather than gnosis?? Why didnt Paul suddenly give a lecture on monotheism rather than love? I dont need to speculate or infer on this matter because the apostle says quite clearly why ...

"So this weak brother [i.e. doctrinally wrong/incorrect brother], FOR WHOM CHRIST DIED, is destroyed by your knowledge" (i.e. CORRECT doctrine, correct knowledge, etc) ... 8.11.

Salvation is not by correct knowledge or doctrine. Fellowship is not based on correct knowledge or 1 Cor 8 makes no sense at all. What we see is that even the incorrect brother was a brother, he was in Christ and it was that and the love that flows from our hearts by the power of Christ keeps fellowship. The incorrect brother is among those we read about in 1 Cor 1.8-9.

Paul is not accusing these brethren of SERVING idols but that for some in fact idols are real. Their incorrect belief even impacts their behavior ...

If I am misreading 1 Corinthians 8 let me know. But there are good discussions of this text in its historical setting in standard scholarly commentaries like C. K. Barrett's and Richard Oster and in the article on "Idolatry" in the Dictionary of Paul and His Letters.

It seems to me that 1 Cor 8 is a sort of lab experiment for the rest of the Corinthian correspondence and experience over that 6 or 7 year period. Paul does for these doctrinally incorrect brothers what he does for the entire congregation. He loves them. He fellowships them. All I ask is that we do what Paul did. Not one of us has had the benefit that the Corinthians have had (2 apostles, 2 apostolic delegates, several personal visits from Paul himself, at least 1 visit from Apollos, etc) ... should we not be patient, loving, long suffering with one another when we do not see eye to eye. And the standard is not what any one of us believes. The standard is the Word. Any one of us or even all of us may be wrong. But I believe you love the Lord, you love his word, you love his people ... if that is the case then doing for one another what Paul did for Corinth should not be an issue at all. And if it is we need to be prepared to explain to Paul why his example was not good enough for us.

Now brother ... Once again my issue is not IM and never has been. I have no use for it all. Salvation by perfect knowledge and/or doctrine is and the desire to sever fellowship is. I would love for you, and I hope you will, bless us with leading us in a study of the issue. I hope I get to know you and your lovely wife personally and intimately. I for one want to do "exactly" as the Lord wills. And I even want to be "right." That is my desire.

Blessings on you.

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine



His Reply

Hey Bobby,

Again, I appreciate your time in discussing these things. First, I just wanted to note something quickly. And I'm really really really not trying to be argumentative here, but Bobby... You have not answered my question brother!

You said you do not use IM, nor desire to see it. Yes, I understand that and I'm glad to know that seriously. Yet, the question is, would you fellowship a church that has been warned, exhorted, and shown the word of God about unauthorized use of IM? Could you answer this Bobby, or do you feel uncomfortable at this point to give a yes or no in your studies? I think this will be the last time I ask you whether you do or not. I appreciate the fact that your open to discussion... And, for your sake I'll ask one last time! lol...

Secondly, I want to know what you mean by this statement? "And the standard is not what any one of us believes. The standard is the Word. Any one of us or even all of us may be wrong."

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth (just like I wasn't trying to before). This is simply the WAY I'm understanding you. So please be patient with me. I try to judge righteously, and furthermore as I did before, I will leave it to you to correct...

Is what your saying is that the doctrine of accapella singing could possibly be wrong?



My Reply
... my beloved brother. And that is what you are, in the words of our Restoration forefather Alexander Campbell, even though we may disagree on a point here and there. I will follow the example of the Apostle Paul to the best of my ability. Beloved I have in fact answered your question. I just did not answer in the manner in which you wanted.

Brother when I read over your reply I cannot help the feeling that you continue (to put it tongue in cheek) to observe the Passover on Paul and the Corinthians. You have not so much as written a line to even acknowledge the biblical data that I have shared. I have not asked you a "yes" or "no" question but I have asked a direct one: Where in that literature that has Paul's name on it is there a severing or even the THREAT of severing of fellowship. I want book, chapter and verse. Why is 1 Corinthians 8 simply ignored? If, brother, we respect the authority of the Scripture as we all say we do then it is the Scripture that sets the agenda for what we do. So again show me how I misinterpret chapter 8 or how my overview of the entire Corinthian correspondence is wrong. I want to talk about the Bible. The Bible in context. From that material does Paul give me the authority to with hold that which he granted?? Love and fellowship?

As I stated:

"Paul SOUGHT reasons to maintain fellowship, he did not look for reasons to sever it."

... I do not SEEK reasons to argue with you. I do not SEEK reasons to be disfellowshipped or to disfellowship anyone else. First Corinthians 8 is explicit teaching by Paul, it is not inference, that Paul SOUGHT reasons to maintain love and fellowship with people were not only wrong but they were VERY wrong about something very important.

Now beloved brother the statement you quoted:

"And the standard is not what any one of us believes. The standard is the Word. Any one of us or even all of us may be wrong."

How this could cause anything but pure joy in you is hard for me to grasp. This is the heart and core of the restoration plea itself. All restorationists supposedly give supreme allegiance to Jesus the Messiah and the revelation of his Word. Everything I believe is open to correction by deeper and further understanding of the Word of God. That is the Berean spirit is it not?? Unless we claim the doctrine of Vatican I on papal infallibility for ourselves we always admit the possibility that we are in need of reform, change, growth in truth and righteousness. This attitude permeates the writings of the restoration fathers whether Barton Stone, Alexander Campbell, David Lipscomb or (pick a name) ... We continue to study. We continue to grow. We move closer to the will of God. We test to see if these things are so. We can always be mistaken through blindness or some other factor that we are not even aware of. To me that is the Grand Adventure of discipleship ... every time I open the book I tremble at the Word ... I believe I even sent you a blog about that very notion ... (see the link I have attached). It is an adventure because we are saved by God's amazing loving grace and not correctness. And grace is needed precisely because I have not ... and I submit you have not either ... "arrived."

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine


His Reply
Yes I agree to lead you in a study. However, I'm not even sure about the direction to take on this. What I mean is, I think I've encountered some deeper issues than what I even began to be concerned about.

You are right, I have somewhat passed over your comments about 1 Co. 8, and all of 1 Co. for that matter. I do believe that you are misinterpreting much of whats going on in 1 Co. Yet, a larger concern for me at this point is the following comment:

"And the standard is not what any one of us believes. The standard is the Word. Any one of us or even all of us may be wrong."

I believe it violates in every way what the church stands for and what Jesus proclaimed in John 8:32. This statement Bobby reflects the new age denominational thinking of our time, does it not? The idea that we can't come to a full knowledge of the truth, and therefore, you and I will have to "agree to disagree" and go our separate ways. All the while, neither you or I can say "we are THE church." So unless I'm misunderstanding you, I have a deep concern with that comment.

I would be happy to lead a study, but like I said, I don't even know where to start ha. All I know, is that I love to study God's word together. It's not my hope to find fault with anyone, but instead fulfill Christ's prayer that we all be of one mind and come to the unity of the faith.

I'm not sure how everyone feels about the study, and the question I asked that initiated all of this. One thing I do believe strongly, is that we can know the truth, and we must know the truth. To those who have come to a knowledge of the truth, but fallen back or have stubbornly gone in the ways of instrumental music in the church, should be disfellowshipped (2 Jn. 1:9-10).

A good commentary on 1 Co. would be Rev. 2. There is a transitioning time period between sin and disfellowship. What you see in 1 Co. is simply witness to that transitioning time period. Does the Bible not plainly command disfellowship?? To stubbornly ignore Rev. 2 only reveals the bias of a Bible student. 1 Co. 8:8 is simply a good example of that which has no necessity of disfellowship. Why? It in no way leads to sin. How would you ever compare that to false worship, which is blatanly sinful? (Mrk. 7:7).

I hope you don't find my works to harsh. I speak plainly to one who is in the position of teaching and will receive a stricter judgment (Jam. 3).



My Reply
.....,

I am sorry for the delay in my reply to your email several days ago. I am very tired and practically worn out. It has been a very long weekend and very stressful. I ask your indulgence with anything I say that may not be seasoned with the aroma of Christ.

I am simply dismayed that you are in disagreement with the quoted statement ...

"And the standard is not what any one of us believes. The standard is the Word. Any one of us or even all of us may be wrong."

You amazingly claim: "This statement Bobby reflects the new age denominational thinking of our time, does it not?"

How? Where? Why? To keep this on a lighter note as best I can, I want to paraphrase Jesus with tongue in my cheek and a twinkle in my eye so you know I am not being mean: You know neither your heritage nor the New Age Movement!! Here are some initial thoughts flowing from your reply and the thoughts in the paragraph below my quotation of you:

1) the CHURCH is not the authority. this is the bedrock of Roman Catholicism. The "church" does not establish nor dictate what is truth or what is sound doctrine. The "church" SUBMITS to an authority beyond, outside, and over itself.

2) Though the truth has been fully revealed in Jesus of Nazareth there is not one single human being since the Lord Jesus returned to heaven that has fully grasped that entire truth. Did the Apostles? I ask this in sincerity?? I just read through the Gospels and how often does Jesus lament and wail at their dense understanding, their failure to SEE or HEAR or to grasp ... the answer is frequently.

Now Jesus himself was doing the teaching and I do not believe he was inadequate to the task ... but James, Peter, John, etc all are presented as men who follow Jesus but in need of great growth. Is that not how it is with you and me? Can you honestly say ....., at this moment, that you know ALL there is to now? that you {.....} have grasped ALL truth PERFECTLY? Do you claim to be infallible in your interpretation of the Word of God? Are you superior to those who slept with Jesus, walked with Jesus, witnessed the miracles of Jesus, heard his sermons and parables ... THOSE men Jesus would wail "how long must I be with with you before you understand?" I tell you the truth ...., and I mean no disrespect in fact I say this in great love, I do not believe you have arrived!! I do Not believe you have perfect understanding. I dare not make such a claim for myself.

3) The statement that causes you alarm is the heart and soul of the Restoration Movement. If Alexander Campbell was not willing to submit his beliefs to fresh examination there would be no restoration movement. If David Lipscomb was not willing to go back and reexamine things in light of the real authority, Jesus Christ and his Word, where would we be ....? How you have decided this is new age denominational doctrine is beyond my tired mind to grasp.

Moving away from the quoted statement to other matters:

1) I look forward to your study. In fact I invite you to expand the study and show me at the table just where and how I have misinterpreted 1 Corinthians as a whole and chapter 8 in particular. I am not afraid for you to examine it and present it. But beloved brother it will not do for you to simply observe the Passover and then basically offer an opinon that I have misinterpreted that text. I will not accept that. The Word does not exist to confirm our prejudice but to call us to the truth. That is what restoration is all about. So where did I misinterpret 1 Cor? Show me.

2) You say there is a "transition" period. Ok. I will grant you that for the sake of argument. Is that transition period a period of forty years? Please answer the question. You did not find a text anywhere in the Corinthian Correspondence to show that Paul himself disfellowshipped anyone in that congregation ... if you found it you would have supplied it.

I say forty years because you keep appealing to Rev 2 and 2 John 9. The Apostle Paul was beheaded, obviously dead, and buried for almost forty years before either of those two texts were even written!!! Both of those texts are part of the REMOTE context but they do not over rule the IMMEDIATE historical and literary context of Paul and his writings to the Corinthians.

And brother I have not "stubbornly" ignored Revelation 2 or 2 John. I will be happy to have a discussion about either one ... anytime. What has happened beloved brother is you have "stubbornly" ignored 1 Corinthians and Paul's rather explicit teaching and example regarding those folks. I hope I am not impolite here but you yourself stated ...

"You are right, I have somewhat passed over your comments about 1 Co. 8, and all of 1 Co. for that matter"

You have not passed over them ... you have ignored them. You have not offered even a sentence to exegetically refute what I stated about Corinthians. Not one iota. I love you enough to not let you do that. I do not believe I have misinterpreted 1 Corinthians, nor do I think I misconstrued the nature of Paul's rocky relationship with them over that 6 to 7 year period. But beloved brother I am 100% open to being taught by you on this matter. But I reserve the right to question you. ;-)

For you to say that 1 Cor 8 is not about leading someone to sin is most interesting. Paul did not agree apparently ...

"when you thus SIN against the members of the family ..."

isnt that what v. 12 says?? And dear brother WHO is Paul addressing in that verse?? Again look at the "who" in the text from v. 1 to v.13. What did the strong KNOW? What did the weak NOT know? Who was actually sinning? and how? Once again what did those folks not know??

3) Finally. As I stated before Paul SOUGHT reasons to keep and maintain unity and fellowship. I may be misreading you and I pray to God that I am but you seem awfully eager to SEEK reasons to sever it. How this is in accord with Paul's example at Corinth I have no idea. Are we not supposed to make EVERY EFFORT ... I see Paul doing that at Corinth. You want or seem like you want to draw lines over something that not one person at PV wants ... IM.

So I bring this to a close ... I am literally worn out.

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine


Read Salvation by Correct Doctrine, Pt 2 HERE
Read Worship Acts & Fellowship - which is Pt 3 HERE

Read More

The Aryan Jesus: Reflections Part 2: Give Me Jesus the Jew

Read The Aryan Jesus Part 1 HERE

As I continue to reflect on Susannah Heschel's important work, The Aryan Jesus, I begin with some ...

Quotable Quotes

"Judaism and Jesus are at completely opposite poles to each other" (Wilhelm Boussett)

"Why can a lovely flower not grow on a heap of dung?" (Friedrich Anderson on why the "Old Testament count not possibly have been the heritage of Jesus")

"There is hardly any fact as certain as the fact that the religion of Jesus could not fasten to any roots within Jewish and Semitic ground. There must have been something in this religion that is related to the free Greek spirit. In a certain sense, Christianity has remained Greek until the present day" (Adolf von Harnack)

The above quotations could be multiplied by hundreds. Though these come from German Protestants the ideology is easily followed throughout the shameful history of Christian antisemitism. What is truly shocking here is that scholars of such caliber as Harnack could hold such a view. Such disparaging views on the Hebrew Scriptures and Jews are not difficult to document even among Restoration Christians.

De-Jew-ing Jesus

De-Jew-ing Jesus has been been a "Christian" pastime for almost as long as there has been Christianity. Among the first were Gentile converts who embraced Docetic Christology by denying the actual enfleshment (Incarnation) in space and time of the Son of God. John inveighs against these misguided disciples in 1-2 John. These were followed by the Gnostics who majored, it seems, in denying the Jewish heritage of Jesus. The infamous "Gospel" of Judas is but just one example. It is ironic that a Jewish scholar feels it necessary to teach Christians about their own faith. A. J. Levine writing about those who have fallen in love with Judas and other Gnostic texts writes "Those who prefer the Gospel of Judas over the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John because they see it as eliminating anti-Jewish views from Christian origins would do well, instead, to see how Jesus fits into his Jewish context, and that includes the notice that Judas does not, in the Gospels, represent 'the Jews.'" [1]

Though Jews have frequently been scapegoats for nearly every ill under the sun throughout the history of European Christianity it has only been in recent centuries that some one actually denied Jesus was a "Jew." The root of the problem, however, is the rich soil of historic antisemitism. In order to de-Jew Jesus however one must first separate him from his Semitic heritage most clearly, but not exclusively, seen in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament.

The modern assault upon the Jewishness of Jesus may be found in Friedrich Delitzsch's famous series of lectures "Babel und Bibel" begun in 1902. For Delitzsch the sabbath had its origin in Babylonian ethics, the Lord's name (YHWH) appeared first in Babylonian texts and biblical monotheism was an expression of a more noble Babylonian ideal. Later Delitzsch, a world renown "Old Testament" scholar, would recommend the first testament being excised from the Christian Bible [2] Writing in The Great Deception (Grosse Tauschung) he opines,

"The so-called "Old Testament" is entirely dispensable for the Christian Church, and thereby also for the Christian family. It would be a great deal better for us to immerse ourselves from time to time in the deep thoughts, which our German intellectual heroes have thought concerning God, eternity, and immortality."

As an aside many modern Evangelicals, and Restorationists, that have never heard of Delitzsch actually are one with him in practice. How many Restorationists carry around only a New Testament? How many go the the Gathering with only the NT? The NT is what "matters." Beloved think about the implications of caring around a "pocket" NT (and possibly the ubiquitous Psalms). This is the practical implementation of Delitzsch point of view ... I counsel against such anemic Marcionite theological practice.

The religion and ethics of the Old Testament are inherently inferior and Jesus could never have been rooted in them. It was obvious to Delitzsch that Jesus was probably of Babylonian (i.e. Aryan) descent because the Assyrians had settled the area of Northern Israel.

Susannah Heschel does not review the scholarship of Delitzsch in The Aryan Jesus but she could have. What she does do in a troubling chapter titled "Inventing the Aryan Jesus" is show how this degraded view of the nature of the Hebrew scriptures, and the Jews of Jesus day, set up the idea that Jesus was basically antisemitic himself! Jesus' theology, spirituality, nor his ethics could be rooted in the Jewish people. The Semitic race was inferior to the Indo-Aryan races in every way. Jesus did not have inferior blood flowing in his veins. Predating Delitzsch slightly, Ernest Renan declared "I am the first to recognize that the Semitic race compared to the Indo-European race represents in reality an inferior composition of human nature" (Heschel, p. 35). Jesus was truly great because he overcame Judaism! So Jesus became a Buddhist, Aryan, a German ... one could say white or American ... anything but Semitic. The German Christian catechism probably says it best

"Who is the enemy of the German essence? The enemy of the German essence is the eternal Jew ... Was Christ a Jew? It is the greatest lie that the Jews have brought into the world, that Jesus is a Jew ... Jesus's life and teaching is a great challenge against the Jewish spirit ... What do we think of the Old Testament?" (Heschel, p. 127).

As I close this section of this blog let me say I believe that much of the so called historical Jesus research is inherently antisemitic. The Criteria of Dissimilarity demands, almost a priori, that Jesus was a freak. Neither making sense in his social context and no connection with the church afterwards. N. T. Wright has commented on the troublesome relationship between the Jesus Seminar style scholarship and German portrayals of Jesus. "Have the New Questers, and the advocates of the Cynic Jesus, come to terms with the politically problematic analogy between themselves and those German scholars who, in the 1920s and 1930s, reduced almost to nil the specific Jewishness of Jesus and his message?" [3]

Jesus' message seems only valid in this line of thought if he is removed from his historical heritage and setting of Judaism, its prophets, its rabbis and its traditions. Jesus can only have a message if he is seen in opposition to the "Old Testament" and Jewish heritage. He certainly could never actually agree with the Jews! But the rejection of the Hebrew Bible and the Jewishness of Jesus leads to horrific results.

Why Does It Matter if Jesus is Jewish?

The God of the Bible has chosen to reveal himself through the history of Israel and in Jesus of Nazareth. The God Jesus reveals is the God that spoke to Abraham, wrestled with Jacob, destroyed Pharaoh, pronounced his Name in the hearing of Moses, heard David's cries, shed tears over the faithlessness of his bride Israel, and was with the people in exilic dark days. The One Jesus called Abba is that God and no other. The connection between Jesus of Nazareth and the history of Israel is inseparable and to attempt to sever them results in heresy. So why does it really matter that Jesus was born a Jew, that he was raised by Jewish parents, that he lived as a Jew, that he worshipped-prayed-studied the Bible as a Jew, that he died as a Jew ... and I submit that he was raised as a Jew.

First it matters because the Incarnation matters. Let's call it the "scandal of particularity." In the NT one of those early heresies was that Christ only seemed to be "human." All of the Gospel accounts torpedo this in their own way but it is the Epistles we call 1-2 John and Hebrews that destroy this notion. Jesus was, and is, a particular human rooted in a particular time and a particular place. To deny his concrete literal human nature is to be an anti-Christ. For the Hebrew Preacher it is not a "divine" Jesus that is the focus at all. Rather only a truly human being could be "our MAN in heaven" ... that is a Priest on our behalf. A non-Jewish Jesus is a non-human Jesus.

Second to separate Jesus from his heritage is to introduce both conflict and categories of thought that simply do not exist for him - thus we distort the message we pretend to honor. Jesus at a most fundamental level is part of a long biblical line of prophets. His teaching no more repudiates previous biblical teaching than Moses, Elijah, Amos, Hosea, Isaiah or Jeremiah did. More familiarity with, not simply the words of those prophets but the patterns of thought in those prophets sheds tremendous light on the words and actions of Jesus. Like all prophets before him he engaged in more than simply preaching but in prophetic "drama" or action. When Jesus opened his mouth and spoke the thoughts he expressed were shaped by the words of Scripture, the Jewish rituals he had participated in, and other writings of his heritage like the Apocrypha. He sounded Jewish to his contemporaries. This is so critically important for when Jesus spoke on such things as kingdom or resurrection or faith ... he did not invent words that had no meaning. Without keeping Jesus rooted in his Jewish heritage Gentiles have not infrequently tended to define not only Jesus' teaching but also Paul's in pagan terms!!!

Thirdly it matters because the message of salvation that Jesus embodies is the message that was promised to and through Israel. Luke and Paul stress this repeatedly in various ways but note two examples. At the birth of Jesus Luke has Mary and Zechariah speaking in incredibly rich and very traditional Jewish language. Mary sings, regarding the promised birth of Jesus, that God has finally acted to "help his servant Israel ... according to the promise to our ancestors" (1.53f) and Zechariah uses virtually identical language (1.69-72). The coming of Jesus is not only God helping/saving Israel but of God showing that he is truly a faithful God. He has not abandoned his servant. Paul speaks in almost the same language in Romans 1. Connecting Jesus to David and the "gospel promised previously through the prophets" Paul refuses to separate the Christ from his Jewish roots. And it is that prophetic witness that infuses the Gospel with meaning. That there are new dimensions to the message is a truism but the new dimensions are shaped and rooted in the same Jewish soil.

If one would like to see a radical difference between a Jewish Jesus and a pagan Gnostic view of Jesus and the difference it makes I simply ask my blog readers to take the time to read through the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Judas. Most of our non-Jewish readings are not as blatant but they are nevertheless insidious.

Conclusion

My blog has grown but I could add many many more reasons why it matters that the Son of Man is Jewish. It is often said that Jesus is a man belongs to the world. Perhaps we should say rather that Jesus is the Man who is for the world. One of the most interesting books around is by Jaroslav Pelikan called Jesus Through the Centuries, His Place in the History of Culture. I bring this blog to a close by quoting his words on these lines.

"And the central figure does indeed belong to the people of Israel, but he belongs no less to the church and to the whole world -- precisely because he belongs to the people of Israel.

For the question is easier to ask than to answer, and it is easier to avoid than it is to ask in the first place. But ask it we must:: Would there have been such anti-Semitism, would there have been so many pogroms, would there have been an Auschwitz, if every Christian church and every Christian home had focused its devotion on icons of Mary not only as Mother of God and Queen of Heaven but as the Jewish maiden and the new Miriam, and on icons of Christ not only as Pantocrator but as Rabbi Jeshua bar-Joseph, Rabbi Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of David, in the context of the history of a suffering Israel and a suffering humanity." [4]

Do not miss the point because of unfamiliar language. That Jesus is Jewish matters if Christianity is going to be ... Christian!

+++++

A note about the picture. This picture is a CGI creation for a BBC program on the "historical" Jesus in the early 2000s. It is based upon forensic and anthropological studies of Galilean Jews from the first century AD. This is far more likely what Jesus "sort of" looked like than anything present in Western art.

NOTES

[1] Amy-Jill Levine, The Misunderstood Jew: The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus (HarperOne, 2006), 7-8.

[2] For an insightful overview and critique of Delitzsch's legacy from both a Christian and Jewish perspective see, Bill T. Arnold and David Weisberg, "A Centennial Review of Friedrich Delitzsch's 'Babel und Bibel' Lectures," Journal of Biblical Literature 121 (2002):441-457

[3] N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Fortress, 1996), 79, note 233.

[4] Jaroslav Pelikan, Jesus Through the Centuries: His Place in the History of Culture (Yale University Press, 1985), 20.

Read More

The Aryan Jesus: Reflections Part 1: Give Me the HEBREW Bible

I recently read Susannah Heschel's The Aryan Jesus: Christian Theologians and the Bible in Nazi Germany. In fact when I finished reading the book I read it again in its entirety and have marked it up pretty well.

Susannah, the daughter of the late Jewish rabbi Abraham J. Heschel, has written a very important volume that American Christians need to read and wrestle with. As I was reading, over and over I found myself distressed by the familiarity of the rhetoric employed by Nazi Christians. The attitudes toward the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible, Judaism as a whole and the merging of nationalism/patriotism with "Christianity" are disturbingly common themes in my experience. I plan on doing at least two posts in response to Heschel's Aryan Jesus: one on the OT/Judaism and the other on nationalism.

Early on in Heschel's study of the German Christian sponsored "Institute for the Study and Eradication of Jewish Influence on German Religious Life" she made this, to me, shocking statement. "In the writings of the Institute's theologians, Nazism became a symbol for Christianity, specifically for the pure and pristine original Christianity that they claimed they were recovering from the distortions of history" (p. 16). It was a "restoration" movement!! In order to restore pure Christianity as these theologians understood it, the eradication of the influence of the Old Testament with its Jewish worldview had to be curtailed. Indeed in order to separate Jesus from the Jewish people it was necessary to to separate him first from the Hebrew Bible. Nazism is, my friends, the end result of rejecting the Old Testament.

The last statement is true. When the church looses the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible it looses its most basic teaching concerning God's relationship to the world and opens the door to the naturalistic understanding of god in Nazi pantheism and much American piety. It is not unusual to hear of people, even conservative Christians, seeking God in the world of nature and supposedly finding him in the beauty of the trees and mountains and to "feel closer to God" in that rustic setting. But it follows, my friends, that if the American countryside "reveals" deity to us in a superior way then it follows that the same is true for the ancient Canaanites or the Nazi's.

If God is accessible through the depths of such experiences to all who have such experiences then there really is no need for the work of God in Jesus Christ. There is no gulf of sin, separating humans from deity that needs to be bridged by the death and resurrection of the Jewish Messiah. The loss of the theological (i.e. doctrinal) content of the Hebrew Scriptures is deadly poison. The New Testament connects (as does the Hebrew Bible) the Redeeming God to the Creator God! Paganism and Gnosticism have gutted that truth upon which every other truth in the Bible is erected upon. The Old Testament is in fact our inoculation against paganism!

Corresponding to the Hebraic doctrine of God in the Old Testament is the doctrine of humanity ... which is essential to biblical faith. When human life is cut loose from its moorings in history and humanity is no longer understood to be a creature WHOLLY dependent on the Creator God then the inevitable temptation is to see ourselves almost as semi-divine. We have an "immortal soul" with a "divine spark" one who claims permanence and absolute rights. Practically speaking this leads to a loss of the New Testament faith itself. Many conservative Christians hold the belief that every person has an immortal soul and after death the soul lives on in communion with deity. Therefore the proclamation of the resurrection of the body is "spiritualized" (paganized) into an affirmation of the immortal nature of humanity. In short the very heart of the New Testament proclamation is simply ... unnecessary! The very nature of "salvation" is redefined.

I am convinced that we need the Hebrew Bible. It is not background to the Christian faith but the very marrow of the faith. I am not suggesting that we do more character studies on a few select people (Joseph and David the good guys and Ruth and Esther the good girls! None of these are presented in Scripture as "examples" btw!). What I mean is sustained engagement from the pulpit in Genesis, the Exodus, the Prophets. What does it mean to speak of "creation" ... and that is not simply a denial of Darwinism. How does Gen 12.1-3 function as a sort of thesis statement for the whole mission of Israel, Jesus and the church? What is the Exodus and how is it a paradigmatic moment of the Gospel of Grace? We need to see in the Story of Israel our own story with God. Thus when I say we need to embrace the OT I do not mean simply making a pious confession that it is inspired rather we need to embrace the OT to understand what it means to be the People of God!We need it to understand GOD

As I pointed out earlier the removal of the Hebrew Scriptures lead to the separating of Jesus from Judaism and seriously distorts what we mean by the word "Christianity." The Institute wanted to "dejudiaze" Christianity ... how do we unknowingly join such an unholy project? Here are some brief reasons that we can work on in our own lives and our congregations.

1) The old canard that the God of the Old Testament is a god of wrath and the god of the New Testament is a god of love. It is not only incorrect but also heretical for Christians to distinguish between the God of Israel and the God of Jesus. There is no personality shift in deity from Malachi to Matthew. Such a belief betrays a serious lack of reading ... and understanding ... of both Testaments.

2) Closely related to the first heresy is the one that is frequently asserted that the Old Testament, or Old Covenant, was a covenant of LAW and the New Testament or New Covenant is of grace. In this scenario the word "law" is basically equivalent to the word "legalism." This one is nearly as hard to grasp as the first heresy. The old covenant contained law but it is not law. Here "law" means what it does in the Hebrew Scriptures: torah. Yet how anyone can read Genesis and think Abraham's relationship with Yahweh is a matter of "law" is difficult to see. Or how Israel's relationship with Yahweh is a matter of "law keeping." The Ten Words/Commandments are not soteric in nature. The Bible calls the Old Covenant a "Covenant of Love" (Deut 7.9, 12, NIV) not law or legalism. There are no legalists in the Hebrew Bible ...

3) Again closely related to the first two heresies is the caricature of the Old Testament as "fleshy" and the New Testament as "spiritual." Of the Old Testament as a matter of externals and the New Testament a matter of the heart. The word "heart" occurs in the "heart of the torah" ... the book of Deuteronomy at least 25x. "And now O Israel what does the LORD your God ask of you ..." the answer is "love him with all your heart." To "serve him with all your heart." In fact Moses calls upon the Israelites, in view of God's incredible grace, to "circumcise your hearts" (Deut 10.16, see 30.6). May these heresies DIE never to be resurrected again.

4) Let me offer a note of observation on the origin of the above three heresies. They arise in most of our churches from a faulty hermeneutical approach. Christians tend to the read the Hebrew Scriptures in the bad manner they read the New Testament Scriptures ... piecemeal!! Reading bits and pieces does an injustice to both. "The Torah" is a nothing less than the STORY of the Creator God becoming the Redeeming God ... of that God bringing his "Adams" back into fellowship with him. Yes, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy can be spliced apart to be individual books. But only in the same sense that the Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, and Return of the King are individual books. None are complete without the others because they are all part of the same story. The Torah tells a single unified STORY. A story of intimacy with God in his Temple Garden, to violation of the sanctity of that temple, to the deity in the Temple reaching out to live with his created "Adams" once again. This is the story of Genesis to Deuteronomy! Leviticus is not an end to itself. It functions in the context of the Story. Leviticus is given both chronologically and theologically AFTER the Creator God has become the Redeemer God in the Exodus event.

Jews around the world read the Torah from Genesis to Deuteronomy over and over ... I have never met a Jew that imagined Yahweh was a God of wrath and the covenant was anything but the love of God Exodus comes before Sinai ... just as Calvary comes before Pentecost.

5) My post has grown long so let me wrap this up. The loss of the Old Testament means a loss of what the New Testament actually teaches. The loss of the Old Testament results in gross anti-Semitic characterizations of Jesus own teaching, the Judaism of his day, and even of early Christian history. Elders need to demand, yes DEMAND, solid (and faithful) instruction from the pulpit and other means to protect the church from the kind of paganism, masked in the garb of Christian faith, that results, honestly, in Nazism. Susannah Heschel has published a great book. We in the church who claim to follow the Nazarene need to take the lesson of history to heart and ask just how it all happened. The answers may be a bit disturbing to those of us who were taught all our lives some of the grossest of errors in the name of restoring first century Christianity. But the Bible of the first century church was none other than what became called the Old Testament.

Jesus of Nazareth and his work have meaning, according to the New Testament documents, only in relation to Israel, and unless the modern teacher makes that relation clear, I suggest he cannot preach Jesus Christ as the New Testament writers knew him and understood him.

Shalom,
Bobby V

Read More

A Moment for Thought: A Voice from 43 Years Ago

Yesterday I read a short article by David Reagan in the October 1968 issue of Mission Messenger. It is called "A Moment for Thought" and I would like to share this brief article with you.

"A Moment For Thought" by David R. Reagan

"I recently read about a poll conducted among American Catholics. The most startling revelation of this poll was the fact that more than 60% of American Catholics feel that abstinence from meat on Friday is more important than Jesus' admonition to 'love our neighbor as ourself." [sic].

Rather shocking isn't it? In fact, I would go so far as to say it is downright appalling and pitiful that so many "Christians" could have such a warped concept of what Christianity is all about.

Yet, before we get on our self-righteous high horse and start condemning the 'pagan' Catholics, let's pause for a moment and ask ourselves how members of the Church of Christ - the "New Testament church" - would respond to a similar question. Suppose, for example, that the same pollster were to ask the stalwart members of our brotherhood the question, 'Which is more important, abstention from the use of musical instruments in the worship service or the command of Jesus to 'love your neighbor as yourself"?

I have no doubt our response would be so overwhelmingly in favor of abstinence from musical instruments that we would make the Catholics look wishy washy in their preference for abstinence from meat.

Similarly, I think I know what the response of our brethren would be if the same question were worded differently - "which is more important, regular church attendance, or love of neighbor?" or, "which is of greater importance, the systematic observance of the Lord's Supper upon the first day of the week, or the love of one's fellowman?" Again, I have no doubt that the love of man would finish a poor second among our brethren.

Our explanation of the Catholic response would be the classic one, 'What can you expect from people who never study the Bible, but simply do what the Pope tells them?" How would you explain the fact that we who pride ourselves on our Bible study would agree with the Catholic response?" (Mission Messenger, October 1968, p.158 in volume 9 of the Works of Carl Ketherside).

End of Quote

I am not so sure where we might come down 43 years after this short piece was written. Will we repeat the mantra "but Jesus still told us not to neglect counting the pepper seeds and salt crystals!" But the question is an important one and it will not go away . . . and how we respond says volumes about who we are as the People of God.

One day a scholar in the torah came to Jesus and asked, "which is the greatest commandment of the Law? Jesus replied, 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your mind. And the second is like it: love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

What if Jesus really meant it?

Read More

The Didache: The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles

Introduction to the Didache

The early Christian work known as The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles was widely recognized in the early church. It was known to Eusebius, the early historian, who felt it necessary to comment that it was not genuine (Church History 3.25). The Didache, as this work is often referred to today, was lost for centuries to Christians. It was recovered in 1873 by Philotheos Bryennios and published in 1883 [1]. The Didache has provoked an enormous amount of scholarly interest, not only with reference to it the text but to its preservation of traditions from the first century on Christian faith and practice.

The document was not written by the apostles themselves. Rather it seems that the author(s) intention was to give a brief summary of Christian doctrine for new converts and to provide instruction in life. Quasten believes the Didache is the oldest source of ecclesiastical law which we posses [2]. The argument for the Didache being quite early is summarized well by J. B. Lightfoot. He offers four lines of evidence:

1) itinerant prophecy has not yet been totally supplanted by permanent localized ministry
2) the episcopacy is not yet on the horizon [3]
3) the Agape feast appears to be part of the Eucharist
4) the archaic simplicity of its practical suggestions is consistent with the infancy of the church [4]

Schaff believes the document can be dated as early as AD 70 but prefers 90 to 100 [5]. Mitchell has argued that the Didache reflects stages of growth or development. Stage One, chapters 1-6, are the earliest dating as early as AD 50 but no later than AD 70. Stage Two, chapters 7-15, the liturgical section dates from AD 80 to 100. Stage Three, chapter 16, does not receive a date as near as I can tell. The final form for the document, however, is no later that AD 100 [6]. The date proposed by Schaff over a hundred years ago seems to be a near consensus though some scholars, as we noted, argue for a slightly earlier date [7]. Thus apostolic in authorship or not the Didache is a witness to first century Christianity.

Along with the date, the make up of the community that produced the Didache has been of particular interest down through the years. What kind of church or congregation produced and used the Didache? What kind of theological ideas found a home in that congregation? If it is possible to answer these questions then that will help us toward establishing a context from which to understand such important texts as chapter 7 about baptism.

I tend to agree with those that see the Didache as preserving the witness of a congregation that has Jewish roots or perhaps a congregation though non-Jewish has not shunned its Jewish roots yet. To me even a casual reading of Didache 1-5 reveals a group consciousness that has strong Jewish grounding and connections with Judaism. This congregation adheres to the validity of the Torah as interpreted by Jesus - the Law has not been cast off (6.2) [8]. There is abundant evidence even in the New Testament itself of Jews embracing Jesus as the Messiah yet remained culturally Jewish.

The Structure of the Didache

Because the Didache is so ancient, and at the very least preserves first century ideas and practices, it is important to understand the document and its teaching. The document is divided into sixteen short chapters that seem to be divided between preparing a candidate for baptism (ch's 1-10) and then church order material (ch's 11-15)[9]. Chapters 1-6 are dominated by the figure of the "Two Ways." For instance we read,

"Two ways there are, one of Life and one of Death, and there is a great difference between the Two Ways. Now the Way of Life is this: first, love the God who made you; secondly your neighbor as yourself" (1.1-2)

The description of the Way of Death begins the fifth chapter,

"But the Way of Death is this: first of all it is wicked and altogether accursed: murderers, adulteries, lustful desires, fornications, thefts, idolatries, magical arts, sorceries, robberies, false testimonies, hypocrisy, duplicity, fraud, pride, malice, surliness, covetousness, foul talk, jealousy, rashness, haughtiness, false pretension, the lack of the fear of God" (5.1)[10]

The Two Ways section of the Didache contains little explicit Christian teaching. By that we mean little on the person, work, mission of Jesus the Messiah. Rather it is material that is common moral teaching of both Judaism and Christianity. The Two Ways motif was common in the ancient world being used by Jews, Greeks and Jewish Christians [11]. The Epistle of Barnabas also constructs his understanding of discipleship as "the Way of Light" and the "Way of Darkness" (18.1). In the Didache the Two Ways becomes the basic way of confronting the candidate for baptism with a fundamental choice: which path will he or she follow, baptism is the Way of Life and refusing is the Way of Darkness.

In the "plot" of the Didache, after the candidate is instructed in the Two Ways he or she is presented with baptism as if to say "choose life" (cf. Deut 30.19). Within the pages of the Didache there are only two sacraments attested to, baptism and the Lord's Supper. As Schaff noted a century or so ago the document knows nothing of infant baptism. Indeed the Two Ways militates against it [12]. The "normal" mode of baptism was that of adult believers by immersion in water. However, the Didache did allow for effusion in emergency situations such as water simply not being available [13].

Christology and Baptism in the Didache

Christianity, in the Didache, is a moral and holy life rooted in the teaching of Jesus summed up in the law to love God and our neighbor. The picture is more that of Epistle of James than the book of Romans. Because of its emphasis on holiness and a lack of Christological reflection the Didache has been said to be theologically anemic. Schaff writes "compared with the New Testament, the Didache is very poor and meagre"[14]. Such a judgment seems unfair, however, when individual writings of the NT can be compared with our document itself. At any rate some feel the author does not develop or stress a doctrine of Christ like Paul's then the community did not stress faith IN Jesus. Hartman for example characterizes the community of the Didache as "believers who think of themselves first as Jews, and who perhaps did not yet believe IN Jesus" [15]. George Buchman uses the term "apostolic christology" to describe such a position,

"Jews, like Samaritans, both before and after the time of Christ, believed that Moses was an apostle who mediated between Israelites and their heavenly Father. According to the rabbis, a man's apostle or agent was like himself, not physically but legally. The apostle had the power of attorney and could act in behalf of the one who sent him just as authoritatively as the sender himself. With this understanding, the author of Hebrews called Jesus the high priest and apostle of God (Heb 3.1) ... Apostolic identity which belongs to the sphere of prophets and courts, adequately explains Jesus' identity with God in the NT, and it is quite likely that Jewish-Christians held the same belief. The belief in God as Father who had a human agent, and was manifest through the Holy Spirit, was characteristic of Jewish concepts in pre-Christian times" [16]

The christology of the Didache may be rooted in this perspective on the relationship between Jesus' activity and God's reign. These believers saw in Jesus a signal that God's reign was in fact arriving in both word and deed. In the struggle of Jesus with the evil powers, God fights them and makes the divine power known. Thus Jesus' act of preaching and healing, with the associated demand of repentance, announce the advent of the kingdom. The appropriate response is conversion or faith. That is recognition that in Jesus' ministry God exercised victory over evil. Jesus' way of bring sinners into the kingdom is to pronounce forgiveness. But this forgiveness is understood in eschatological categories: the past reign of Satan was taken away and the arrival of God's presence among his people takes its place [17]. The christology of the community of the Didache might be summarized as a community that sees itself as continuing the preaching ministry of Jesus [18].

But we must be careful of not reading too much in the lack of Christological reflection of the Didache. As Schaff noted silence neither implies opposition nor ignorance [19]. Even Buchanan's "apostolic christology" does not necessarily mean that Jesus was not believed to be more. It seems hard to imagine a mere apostle being put on equal footing with his Sender and being baptized into "the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (5.1) and "those who have been baptized into the name of the Lord" (9.5). Jesus is called the "Son" and "Lord" several times throughout our text implying that this community saw Jesus as something more than just another Moses. In reflecting on the Eucharistic prayers one scholar writes insightfully that the Didache community could have a "demonstrably Christian prayer reenacting the ministry of Jesus ... without any explicit Christological references" [20].

Whatever the actual content of the christological beliefs of the Didache community it is what is omitted about baptism that draws the attention of most scholars. The Pauline doctrine of the sinners immersion into death and burial with Christ (Romans 6.1-11) is never mentioned, just as Didache 9-10 never links the Eucharist to the proclamation of Jesus death (1 Corinthians 11.26). Nothing is said about renouncing Satan and adhering to Christ (though this is surely implied in the teaching on the Two Ways). Nor are any of baptism's theological effects mentioned: forgiveness of sins, membership into one body, bestowal of the Spirit [21]. In short none of the "classic" themes from the New Testamant are explicit in Didache 7.

The Baptismal Liturgy of Didache

"As for baptism baptise this way. Having said all this before hand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in running water. If you do not have running water, however, baptize in another kind of water; if you cannot do so in cold water, then do so in warm water. But if you have neither, pour water on the head thrice in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit. Before baptism, let the person baptizing and the person being baptized -- and others who are able -- fast; tell the one being bapitized to fast one or two days before" (Didache 7).

There can be little doubt, in the opinion of most contemporary scholars, that the material in chapters 1-6 is aimed at catechumens [22]. The Two Ways invite decision: the hearer must decided whether to become a disciple or not. The choice to become a disciple is exercised through baptism in the "name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" and seems to mean to an eschatological way of life. The Way of Life means to live as Jesus lived and the Way of Death means judgment and ultimate destruction [23].

In the liturgy of baptism the candidate is required to fast prior to immersion (7.4). It is stated that the baptizer must fast and suggested that the community join the fast. The catechumen seeks to be cleansed from past sins while the community gives support [24]. The "living water" which is the preferred location for baptism in the Didache 7.1 is a Hebraism for fresh, flowing water, from a spring. This seems to reflect traditional Jewish concerns for ritual purity (Lev 14.5ff; 14.50ff also envisions "living water" for ritual purification). The movement in 7.2-3 is from good water for baptism to less suitable water for baptism.

When insufficient water was available for immersion the community allowed pouring over the head three times in the name of the Triune God, apparently with little or no second thoughts. Schaff states that threefold aspersion on the head was the nearest substitute since the head is the chief part of man. "There can be no Baptism without baptizing the head; but there may be valid Baptism without baptizing the rest of the body" [25]. Here in the Didache, at the end of the first century, we have the oldest extent testimony for the validity of baptism by pouring. Schaff, always the ecumenist, states that Christians have a right to infer that at the end of the first century there was no rigid uniformity in regard to the mode of baptism though immersion was the norm. What Schaff does is infer that is this freedom (in exceptional cases) existed in the apostolic period as well. He says, "It cannot be supposed that the Twelve Apostles were less liberal than the writer of the Didache, who wrote as it were in their name" [26]. It remains true, however, that pouring was seen as less desirable than immersion.

The most critical part of the liturgy of baptism in the Didache must be the baptismal formula. Willy Rordorf has argued that the formula actually has three variants with the Didache

7.1c into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit
7.3 into the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit
9.5 in the name of the Lord

Rordorf believes that 9.5 preserves the most ancient of the formulas reflecting usage in such places as Acts 2.38. The formulas all point to the same reality however, and one should not makes razor sharp distinctions between them.

The formula that is given in 7.1 is is a nearly verbatim reproduction of Matthew 28.19. The wording is identical except the spelling of baptism. Schaff beleived that the author was quoting the Gospel of Matthew [28] and the evidence is, in my opinion, convincing. The question rather is does the formulae tell us anything about the Christology or trinitarian beliefs about the community of believers? Hartman has argued that "into the name (of Jesus, or of the Lord)" may have been "a definition, a phrase which mentioned the fundamental reference of Christian baptism which distinguished it from other rites," a formula which "delimited Christian baptism from that of John" [29]. The formula was not primarily negative however or lacking Christological content. Rather as soon as baptism was performed "into the name of Jesus," it must have been combined with a message, and this message not only continued Jesus own preaching ... but ... was also preached with 'reference to Jesus,' which implies some sort of Christology too" [30]. Though Mitchell rejects this reasoning arguing that such reasoning is not demanded by the Didache, however it fits quite well in my view even if it is not "demanded" [31]. With the added weight of the uses of "Son of God" (9.2-3; 10.1, 3) it seems likely that this body of believers invested baptism with Christological significance: Jesus is God's Son. This theme just did not find development in the Didache.

Baptism and Table Fellowship in the Didache

James D. G. Dunn has argued that Jewish practice regarding table fellowship with gentiles was not uniform during the first century [32]. He makes the case that there were ongoing debates between Sadducees, Pharisees and Essenes with regard to the acceptable limits of table fellowship. Pharisaic influence put pressure on devout Jews to observe strict limits in the matter of who ate with whom, since the Pharisees believed that even outside the temple the laws governing ritual purity were obligatory. The Sadducees, on the other hand, held that the laws were not applicable beyond the temple precincts. The Essenes out did even the Pharisees. But for our purposes it is more important to note that the Pharisees believed in degrees of ritual purity in the practice of temple holiness. In practice one with a more strict view could not eat with one with a less strict discipline [33].

For early Jewish Christians from a Pharisaic persuasion would have been concerned about the acceptable limits of table fellowship. In large Diaspora communities like Antioch, Jews and Gentiles would have considerable social contact, especially those who were attracted to the Jewish faith as "God-fearers" [34]. As Dunn writes specifically in regard to table fellowship:

[T]here was a broad range of attachments to Judaism and Jewish ways wherever Diaspora settlements had made any impact on the surrounding community -- from occasional visits to the synagogue, to total commitment apart from circumcision, with such matters as the sabbath and dietary laws being observed in varying degrees in between. Pari passu there would be a broad range of social intercourse between faithful Jew and God-fearing Gentile, with strict Jews avoiding table fellowship as far as possible, and those less scrupulous in matters of tithing and purity willingly extending and accepting invitations to meals where such Gentiles would be present [35].

Willi Rodorf, among others, sees some significance to the fact that it is precisely these concerns about ritual purity with respect to foods (6.3) that surface immediately before the Didache's description of baptism. The significance is heightened because 6.3-7.1 are thought to be a literary unit [36]. In effect what the Didache would be outlining is the minimum conditions and limits of acceptable table fellowship between these Jewish disciples and Gentiles disciples. Mitchell argues that both 6.2 ("the whole yoke of the Lord, you will be perfect, but if you cannot, do what you can") and 6.3 ("bear what you can, but be on guard against food offered to idols") shows the influence of the Pharisaic belief in degrees of ritual purity. The implication for community of the Didache would be that torah observant Jewish Christians should associate only with God-fearing Gentile converts who are willing to maintain at least a minimum of the ritual law. As Mitchell notes this obliterates Paul's egalitarian emphasis that all barriers have been removed by baptism [37]. Not only is the Table fenced but the baptismal pool as well.

Conclusion

Baptism int he Didache is a rite of eschatological import though not devoid of Christological meaning. The theology of being immersed with Christ in death is not explicit. Baptism brings one into the community of faith where God's holy Presence is enjoyed. The community is, seemingly, committed to minimum levels of ritual purity which focuses upon the Table and Baptism. Some scholars argue that the Didache is actually trying to take a middle road between extremes as they were perceived at the time: Refusing to follow the libertine Paul and also the hardliners who have gone back to the synagogue.

NOTES:

[1] Philip Schaff, The Oldest Church Manuel Called the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1885), 9-10.

[2] Johannes Quasten, Patrology, vol 1: The Beginnings of Patristic Literature (Westminster, Maryland: Newman Press, MCMLXII), 30.

[3] Clayton N. Jefford, "Presbyters in the Community of the Didache," Studia Patristica (1987), p. 126. Jefford's points out that the Didache is a "witness to a ministry in transition" from prophecy to local elders that would later develop into the monarchical bishop.

[4] J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986), 121-122.

[5] Schaff, The Oldest Church Manuel, 119-122.

[6] Nathan Mitchell, "Baptism in the Didache," in The Didache in Context: Essays on its Text, History, and Transmission, ed. Clayton N. Jefford (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1995), 227-230.

[7] Robert A. Kraft, "Didache," in Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 2: 197.

[8] Mitchell, "Baptism in the Didache," p. 232.

[9] Quasten, Patrology, 30

[10] Aelred Cody, "The Didache: An English Translation, " The Didache in Context, ed. Clayton N. Jefford, pp. 3-14.

[11] Kurt Niederwimmer, The Didache: A Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998), pp. 59-63 for an extended discussion of the adoption of the Two Ways by our author.

[12] Schaff, Church Manual, 22. See also Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 201-206.

[13] Schaff, 31-32, Quasten, Patrology, 31, statest "This is the sole reference from the first or second centuries regarding baptism by effusion."

[14] Schaff, Church Manual, 22.

[15] L. Hartman, "Baptism 'Into the Name of Jesus' and Early Christology," Studia theologica 28 (1974), 44.

[16] G. W. Buchanan, "Worship, Feasts and Ceremonies in the Early Jewish-Christian Church," New Testament Studies 26 (1979-80), 280-281.

[17] Hartman, "Baptism," 34.

[18] Mitchell, "Baptism in the Didache," 233.

[19] Schaff, Church Manual, 23.

[20] J. W. Riggs, "From Gracious Table to Sacramental Elements: The Tradition History of Didache 9-10," Second Century 4 (1984), 95.

[21] Willy Rodorf, "Baptism According to the Didache," in The Didache in Modern Research, ed. Jonathan A. Draper (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1996), 212-222.

[22] Niederwimmer, Didache: A Commentary, 88.

[23] Mitchell, "Baptism in the Didache," 251.

[24] Niederwimmer, Didache: A Commentary, 127.

[25] Schaff, Church Manual, 33.

[26] ibid., 34.

[28] Schaff, Church Manual, 184. There are good reasons to believe the author and community knew the Gospel of Matthew. The Lord's Prayer in ch. 8 is virtually the same as in Matthew 6.9-13 and the logion in 9.5 is verbatim Matthew 7.6. However in each of these cases Niederwimmer consistently has an allergy to allowing the Didache to have knowledge of the canonical Gospel, Didache: A Commentary, pp. 127-127; 135-137; 153.

[29] L. Hartman, "Into the Name of Jesus," New Testament Studies 20 (1974), 440.

[30] Hartman, "Baptism 'Into the Name of Jesus and Early Christology," 36.

[31] Mitchell, "Baptism in the Didache," 253.

[32] James D. G. Dunn, "The Incident at Antioch (Gal 2.11-18)," Journal for the Study of the New Testament 18 (1983), 12-25.

[33] ibid., 17.

[34] ibid., 21f.

[35] ibid., 23.

[36] Rordorf, "Baptism according to the Didache," 215f.

[37] Mitchell, "Baptism in the Didache," 239-240.

Read More

Communion and Prayer: The Fellowship of the Saints

Many people in the last decade and a half have felt their lives lacking something of a "spiritual" nature. We went to "church" on a routine basis but that did not seem to fill the void. I was one of those people. My religious background had prepared me quite well for defending some doctrinal propositions and equipped me for fairly good "bible study." Coming from my background, though, I rarely thought of my journey with God in terms of "relationship" but more in ritualistic terms such as "being a member of the Church" (as I used to put it).

One day, it was 1997, a lady in my congregation came to me and asked me to teach her how to pray. This was a most unusual question for me - isn't that a great irony! Up to this point in my journey prayer was simply something I did . . . a command to fulfill. As a result I can testify that my own prayer life was quite superficial. To be honest I was of no help to this dear sister . . . however she caused me some serious angst. I read in Scriptures of God's People having dynamic "relationships" with God. They were quite conscious of his Presence in their lives.

In my own journey I discovered that the doctrine of the Holy Spirit that I had inherited (based on a certain school of philosophy known as Lockean) made "experiencing" the divine Presence a virtual impossibility. But the more I read the scripture the more I realized that something was not right . . . God did want me to experience his gracious Presence.

Through great passages like Exodus 24.1-11 and Ephesians 1 and 3 I came to see that "communion" is one of the central organizing themes of Scripture. God created us for communion (i.e. relationship and intimacy) and God redeemed us to restore the communion (i.e. relationship and intimacy) that had been lost. The Cross was not and is not an "end" but a "means" to the goal . . . that is intimate, rich, deep, restored communion with the Almighty.

Communion though implies "community." Indeed it demands it! Again, through Bible study I have come to a much more dynamic view of God's Family, the church. In fact God's Church/Family is the greatest "thing" on planet Earth. Paul in Eph. 1.18-19 tells us of God's "riches" concentrated among the saints and in 3.14ff he tells us of a family that is in "heaven and on earth." In the past I had pretty much limited God's church (drastically) to a few "sound" Churches of Christ but this passage (others helped) rewrote my entire ecclesiology. God's family was hardly limited to my "local" fellowship but was cosmic in dimension and transcends not only cultural barriers but also the barriers of history. We have fellowship with God's Family, even those who have gone on before. Paul makes it quite clear that it is together (i.e. in communion!) with "all" the saints we experience, know, God's amazing love and Presence. Of course Hebrews 11 and Revelation reflect this deeper and more "mysterious" notion of communion.

Because of my new found respect and appreciation for God's Family, I have determined that they can be a blessing to my life. How? Through prayer. Perhaps one of the biggest changes in my theology is that I now believe in joining the saints in worship . . . especially prayer!

There is an unbelievably rich heritage of prayer among the saints. I began to pray the Psalms in the mid-1990s but now I also incorporate the prayers that many saints have written down through the ages. I join them, I appropriate their words and make them mine. I did not know how to pray on many occasions (through the dark days of my divorce is but one example) and many of these saints . . . nameless ones . . . have providentially given me a treasure of which I can never repay. Now I feel as if I have plugged into the rhythm of grace and flow with the river of the Spirit.

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine

Read More

Voices on Female Deacons in the Stone-Campbell Movement

Possibly the most surprising discovery for contemporary members of Churches of Christ is that many early "restoration" writers took the work of female deacons nearly for granted. They simply assumed that a restoration church true to the New Testament "pattern" would have deaconesses or a female deacons. What follows is simply an anthology of "voices" from the past on the matter of female deacons.

These voices largely focus on the interpretation of two texts, Romans 16.1-2 and 1 Timothy 3.11. This anthology helps raise some thorny questions: How did the current consensus come about? Is the current consensus biblical or traditional? I will provide the name of the writer, the date of the writing and a location so you can read it for yourself should you be so inclined to do so.

Strange Voices ... to Our Ears

Alexander Campbell argued that the NT church had an "office" of deaconess. His understanding is reflected in his translation of Romans 16.1 and 1 Timothy 3.11 in the Living Oracles.

"I commend to you Phebe, our sister, who is a deaconess of the congregation at Cenchrea, that you receive her in the Lord ..." (Rom 16.1, Living Oracles)

"The women [not wives! BV] in like manner, must be grave, not slanderers ..." (1 Tim 3.11 Living Oracles).

In 1835 Campbell wrote, "From Rom 16:1 as well as from 1 Tm 3:11 it appears that females were constituted deaconesses in the primitive church. Duties to females as well as to males demand this" ("Order", MH 1835, p. 507). He would write 18 years later, "The primitive church had also deacons. Such was Phoebe, of Cenchrea" ("Church Organization #2" MH 1853, p. 185). Two more morsels from Campbell,

"Amongst the Greeks who paid so much regard to differences of sex, female deacons or deaconesses, were appointed to visit the sisters" (Restoration of the Ancient Order XIX, Christian Baptist, 1826, p. 4)

"I say it [the church] is an organized body. Its organs are pastors or teachers, deacons and deaconesses; and for foreign missions and influence, evangelists or missionaries" (Organization #3, MH 1853, p. 247)

Robert Richardson, a leading scholar of the movement and biographer of Alexander Campbell, wrote in 1836, "Doubtless showers of mercy and the distributors were deacons, while the deaconesses had for her peculiar department the care of the sick and indigent females and those duties which can be better and more appropriately performed by females" ("Order - No.3," MH [1836], 519).

Walter Scott the great evangelist and inventor of the Five Finger Plan of Salvation wrote in his journal The Evangelist.

"We could name a church in which the sisterhood is in the habit of assembling once a week at the house of the deaconesses to sew and make garments for the poor and needy; but to name the church is wholly unnecessary and it might be improper, as I mention it merely to recommend the charitable custom to the sisters of other churches, that they also may be fruitful in good works and adorn their holy profession by deeds of love and benevolence" ("Letters," Evangelist [1840], 72).

W. K. Pendleton was AC's son in law and professor at Bethany College as well as an editor of the Millennial Harbinger. He was very prominent among "us" in his day. In the following quote note his comments on how the "brethren" regard this ministry of female deacons. Here are two enlightening passages.

"In the discharge of this duty [care of the poor], there would be necessarily arise cases in which men could not with propriety act, especially in a country like the East where the social intercourse between the sexes was restricted by so many forms; and therefore, we find that into this order females introduced evidently by apostolic sanction. Paul ... speaks of Phoebe as a deaconess of the church in Cenchrea; ... and in the Epistle to Timothy 3:11,12, we interpret him as describing their qualifications for office ... It is generally regarded, among our brethren, as an essential element in the restoration of the primitive order, to ordain, in every church, both deacons and deaconesses" ("Discipline, No 5," MH [1848], 292).

"Besides deacons, every church should have deaconesses, whose duty it is to perform such offices as cannot be so well performed by deacons, and especially such to females, as could not with delicacy and propriety be laid upon the deacons" ("Deacons-Should the Church Have Them?" MH [1870], 54).

Robert Milligan was ordained by Thomas Campbell in 1842. He became a professor at Bethany in 1854 and would later become President of Kentucky University. Milligan is remembered for his classic The Scheme of Redemption and his Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. He was renowned as a scholar in his day. His voice on female deacons sounds like this

"The Diaconate of the primitive church was not confined to male members. Deaconesses were also appointed to attend to the wants of the sick and the needy, especially to their own sex ... The order was continued, in the Greek church, until the beginning of the thirteenth century, and it is to be regretted that it was ever discontinued in any church. The poor and the needy will always be with us, and will require the attention of both Deacons and Deaconesses just as much did the Churches of Jerusalem, Cenchrea and Ephesus" (Scheme of Redemption, p. 343. The mention of Ephesus indicates Milligan's understanding of 1 Tim 3.11f)

Tolbert Fanning was founding editor of the Gospel Advocate. His stance against the Missionary Society and the introduction of instrumental music played a key role in shaping attitudes throughout Churches of Christ in the 19th century. This giant of the Stone-Campbell Movement addressed the subject of female deacons several times.

"In the primitive churches there were also deaconesses, as Phoebe-the servant-deaconess in Cenchreae" ("Church Officers, No.3: Deacons," GA [1859], 83)

"The Sisters, beyond all question, were as legitimately deacons as the brethren. Paul said, "I commend to you Phoebe, our sister, who is a deacon/servant of the church at Cenchrea.' The Apostle, not only recommended the brethren at Rome to receive her as a deacon of her church as becomes saints, but to "assist her in whatsoever business she had need of them" ... The ministering to the Savior by these Galilean women (Mt 27:55) evinced the strongest faith and an earnestness of life seldom witnessed. They were deacons, or ministers, to Jesus Christ in the most expressive way" ("The Church of Christ in History, No. 8," Religious Historian [December 1873], 357)

Isaac Errett was the inheritor of the mantle of Alexander Campbell and editor of the Christian Standard. In 1873 he had opportunity to address texts in 1 Timothy (5:9ff) in this manner,

"The qualifications evidently point to a ministry involving the exercise of hospitatlity, the are of the afflicted, the training of children, and the instruction of younger women in the duties of life. Taking this as referring to deaconesses - and this seems to us the most reasonable interpretation - the text throws more light ont he duties of their ministry than any other in the New Testament. It does not follow that all deaconesses were necessarily widows but that among the widow supported by the church those possessing qualifications could be profitably employed in this office" ("Deaconesses," CS [7 June 1873], 188)

Moses Lard needs no introduction to those semi-familiar with our history. Lard is the one Campbell picked to defend the Movement against the attacks of Jeremiah Jeter, became editor of Lard's Quarterly, Apostolic Times and his learned Commentary on Romans as well as President of the College of the Bible. In his Commentary, published in 1875, he voices the following exegesis.

"Phoebe was a servant of the church in Cenchrea. This much is actually asserted. Was she appointed to the service by the church, or did she assume it of herself? The question is not material. For whether she assumed the service of her own accord or was appointed to it, she performed it with the Apostle's sanction. This stamps it right ... I am therefore of the opinion that Phoebe was a deaconess in the official sense of that word.

What special duties were of this order of women, it would seem not difficult to conjecture. There work consisted in serving the sisterhood ... In all churches there would be among the females, the poor, the sick, the untaught, the erring, the unfortunate. These would need attentions which no other persons could so delicately and successfully as the deaconesses ... Even in the present day, the deaconess should be re-established. They are often of as much importance to a church as the deacons, if not more." (Commentary on Romans, p. 451)

B. W. Johnson was a professor and author among latter 19th century Stone-Campbell Movement. He taught at Bethany for some time and later moved to Iowa. He was editor of the influential The Evangelist for 45 years. He authored commentaries on the Gospel of John and the Revelation. However, Johnson is best known for his popular The People's New Testament with Notes, vol 1 (1889) and vol 2 (1891). His voice on the lovely lady Phoebe carried this tune,

"I commend unto you Phoebe. Evidently the bearer of the letter [i.e Romans], a sister in Christ. In this list of persons greeted, a number are women, and the greetings show how highly Paul esteemed woman's work in the church. A servant. The word is deacon in the Greek. The world also means "servant" as rendered, but we know that there were deaconesses in the church of the first century, and Paul, in giving her a recommendation, no doubt mentions her office ... She hath been a succourer of many. This would result from her office as a deaconess. Among those ministered two was the apostle himself." (People's New Testament, Vol 2, p. 71)

J. M. Barnes writing in the Gospel Advocate in 1893 reports the findings of his study of 1 Timothy 3:8ff. Please note his comments about elders and deacons wives. In the 20th century many have suggested that Paul really is giving qualifications for both elders and deacons wives. Not so Barnes and most earlier interpreters.

"Was she not a diakonos different from the rank and file? It is obvious ... In this [the Diaconate] there were men and women. Does this surprise you? ... If this does not mean the women were among the deacons what is the apostles' doctrine on the subject? Why does the Holy Spirit give such specific instructions about the wives of deacons and not a word about the wives of elders? Why are the women put in here when wives of deacons are spoken of in the next verse?" ("Deacons," Gospel Advocate [19 January 1893], 43).

I. B. Grubbs, long time Professor at the College of the Bible, published his Commentary on Romans in 1913 (posthumously). The Commentary was noted for its grasp of Paul's doctrine of justification by faith and not by works. He has this to say on Romans 16.1-2 and Phoebe, "She was a deaconess in the church at Cenchrea. Her work seemed to have been that of ministering to the saints whenever they needed help" (Commentary on Romans, p. 174).

C. R. Nichol needs no introduction. A legendary debater, evangelist, and editor were among his many talents. He was a close associate of Foy Wallace, Jr and R. L. Whiteside (co-authoring Sound Doctrine with RLW). His name is synonymous with conservative, even legalistic, Christianity. Nichol, however, undertook the most extensive investigation of anyone, up to that time, in our brotherhood of women and their roles in the Bible. His study resulted in a remarkable and groundbreaking book for 20th century Churches of Christ published in 1938 entitled God's Woman. This book reveals Nichol as one who wrestles with the material and willingly embraces positions that are far from the norm by this time in the 20th century. Based upon his own study of God's word he came to the conclusion that women not only could but DID, pray in the presence of men, that women served as deacons, and that neither 1 Corinthians 14 or 1 Timothy 2 were "unlimited" proscriptions against women but were in context aimed at unruly wives. This book deserves to be digested.

Concluding Thoughts

This brief survey of voices shows that those very names that are so often referred to as "faithful and representative men" not only believed in female deacons but actively called for their restoration. This survey, by its very nature, is by no means exhaustive but it raises a number of questions. And it should generate questions, numerous questions, hard questions ... both about the restoration fathers and about ourselves.

Perhaps the first item we learn from this exercise is that the current "traditional" position is a relatively new comer on the block, and it is a current tradition! Perhaps the next, and most difficult, question has do with the culture issue that is so often thrown around. Why is it that these men, with no pressure from the ERA or the Women's Liberation Movement or Feminism or .. read these texts as they did? The opposite question also comes to mind, why have we so often arrived at a diametrically opposed reading of these texts ... and then we say only those who wish to sell out to culture come do a different conclusion than the now traditional interpretation. However, nearly the entire 19th century restoration tradition at least places a question mark by the now commonly assumed understanding. Perhaps we need to ask the question, "How has our own understanding of these texts been a reaction against certain emphases around us and not from exegesis itself?? Perhaps our "church culture" shifted under the wider world culture ... these questions are fair and worth reflecting upon. It is further worth reflecting upon this strange, and ironic, truth: the only deacon in the entire Bible that we know by name is a woman name Phoebe!

Read More