Check back because new questions and answers are being added regularly
Question: What do you mean by the word “church?”
Answer: he word “church” comes from the Greek word “ekklesia” (ek-klay-see'-ah); which is a combination of two words, “ek” (ek), denoting origin (the point from where motion or action proceeds), and “kaleo” (kal-eh'-o) meaning “to call” or “to bid, or call forth.” Taken together, the word “ekklesia” literally means “to call out.” The word can be used to describe any assembly of people for any purpose. For example the mob that gather together in the theater at Ephesus (Acts 19) was called an “assembly” (Acts 19:41) -- taken from the same word “ekklesia.” In a religious sense, “ekklesia” can refer to a religious congregation such as a Jewish synagogue, or to an assembly of Christians in a specific geographical location who gather for the specific purpose of functioning as a cohesive body to worship God and Christ, to perform works of service (ministry) for one another, and to preach and teach the gospel of Christ to others. It can also refer to the assembly of saints in heaven. While it is true that Christians function as individuals, the “functioning unit” authorized by God is the church.
The New Testament speaks of the church in two ways. One way the word church is used is to refer to the local church, which is a group of Christians who are in fellowship with God and Christ as well as being in fellowship with one another in a specific geographical location, and who are organized to do the Lord’s work in that area (Acts 8:1; 13:1; Romans 16:1; 1 Corinthians 1:2; Philippians 4:15; Colossians 4:15-16; 1 Thessalonians 1:1; Philemon v.2; Revelation 2-3). Another way the word church is used is to speak of the church universal which is comprised of all persons both living and dead who have been redeemed by the blood of Christ and who are in fellowship with God and Christ, as well as being in fellowship with all other Christians (Acts 2:47; 1 Corinthians 10:32; Ephesians 1:22; 3:10, 21; 5:23-32; Philippians 3:6; Colossians 1:18, 24; 1 Timothy 3:5, 15; 5:16; Hebrews 12:23).
The New Testament is very specific about what comprises the church in the universal sense. The universal church is the spiritual “called out” body of Christ, which is comprised of every Christian throughout the whole world. It is comprised of the saved (Acts 2:47). We are added to that one body when we receive the remission of our sins through the blood of Christ. The very process that makes us a Christian is the same thing that makes us a member of the church (Acts 2:38, 41, 47; Colossians 2:12; Romans 6:4). It is a spiritual house (1 Peter 2:5). It is the spiritual kingdom into which all the redeemed have been translated (Colossians 1:12-14; Hebrews 12:28). It is the family of God (Ephesians 2:19; 3:15). There is only one such “called out” body which belongs to Jesus Christ (Ephesians 4:4-6). It is the church -- the “called out” body -- promised by the Lord (Matthew 16:18). It is the church which He purchased His own blood (Acts 20:28; Ephesians 5:25). Christ is the head of this one body (Ephesians 1:22-23; Colossians 1:18). And it has no other organization.
The New Testament is also very specific about what comprises a local church. First, it is to be organized within a specific geographical location. Second, it is to be organized with elders and deacons (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5; Philippians. 1:1). The only church in which elders and deacons were appointed was the local church, never the universal church. The elders mentioned in Philippians chapter 1 are the elders of the church at Philippi. We also read about elders in other cities, such as Ephesus, Jerusalem, and those in other cities in the province of Judea. Elders and deacons are to meet very specific qualifications (Titus 1:5-11; 1 Timothy 3:1-13).
The Scriptures are also very specific about the function and work of the local church. The local church functions to do the Lord’s work within a given community, such as preaching and teaching the gospel of Christ (1 Thessalonians 1:8; 1 Timothy 3:15), edification (1 Corinthians 14:26; 1 Thessalonians 5:11), as well as caring for widows within the local congregation who meet specific requirements (1 Timothy 5:3-16). In addition, when the opportunity arises, the local church may also assist preachers in other areas (2 Corinthians 11:8; Philippians 1:5; 4:14-16), or assist other congregations in need (Acts 11:27-30; 1 Corinthians 16:1-3; 2 Corinthians 8-9). Although Christians function as individuals, the local church is team effort. There is a pooling together of talents and abilities along with financial resources to do those things that benefit its members spiritually, to spread the gospel of Christ within the area of its geographical influence, and to glorify God and Jesus Christ. Local churches in New Testament times were never divinely instructed to become involved in politics, provide secular educations, or to provide entertainment and recreation. Nor did God instruct local churches to function as a relief agency for those who are not members of the Lord’s church.
Although there is only one body (Ephesians 4:4) which is the church in the universal sense, there are also many local churches. However, the universal church is not comprised of local churches. The universal church is made up of saved individuals. The local church is also made up of individuals, but only those within a given locality. When Paul and Barnabas “gathered the church together” (Acts 14:27), it was not the universal church, but rather the local church at Antioch. All local churches (congregations) were to follow the same rules of faith and practice (1 Corinthians 4:17). It was a pattern where God does not authorize men to change or alter at their own discretion. Local churches all follow the same patterns for worship. Their members assemble for worship for the purpose of considering and encouraging one another (Hebrews 10:25), and collectively observe the Lord's Supper on the first day of every week (1 Corinthians 11:17-34; Acts 20:7). Churches “in every place” were instructed with regards to prayer (1 Timothy 2:1-8). Members within a local congregation pool their resources together into a treasury that was made up of the offerings of individual members. This collection is made on the first day of every week (1 Corinthians 16:1). Although elders oversee the local church, their oversight is limited to the church of God which is among them (1 Peter 5:4).
Answer: The matter of which church we are a member of is of great importance, especially when we understand that being a member of the New Testament church that Jesus built is the only church to which to the Lord adds the saved (Acts 2:47). Asking if it makes a difference to which church we belong is much like asking if we must be a Christian, or if we needs the blood of Christ to be saved, especially since the save are added by the Lord to His church. We cannot be saved without also being in the Lord’s church. In addition to this, it’s important to understand that the Lord has only one body (Ephesians 4:4-6), just as it is crucial to our understanding that there is one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and one God and Father. This is the one body, or church, Jesus promised to build (Matthew 16:18). There is no other church than the Lord’s church.
Today, there are man-made religious organizations with their religious beliefs and practices that are likewise of human origin, just as there were man-made religious practices in the days of Jesus (Matthew 15:9). This kind of religion has never met with the Lord’s approval, nor can those who go beyond what is written expect to enter heaven (Matthew 7:21-27). We will not saved eternally on the basis of our own goodness, but on the basis of whether or not we have obeyed the Lord’s will and kept His word (John 12:48). Therefore, we cannot say that “good people of all churches are going to heaven.” We must obey the Lord’s commandments according to His way if we expect to go to heaven.
How can we know whether or not we are a member of the Lord’s church today? The answer is to simply follow the New Testament pattern and find a body or assembly of people who teach what saints in New Testament times taught, who worship as New Testament Christians worshipped, and who are organized in the same manner as a church as New Testament believers were. When any religious organization deviates from the New Testament pattern, they are not the Lord’s church. Investigate what these religious organizations teach about how one becomes a member of the church, or how one is saved. Find out what they teach about the work and worship of their church. Observe how they conduct their worship services, and see whether or not it conforms to the examples found in the New Testament.
Question: I heard that Alexander Campbell started the Church of Christ. Is that true?
Answer: The New Testament gives many warnings about a coming apostasy or a falling away from the faith. This apostasy would occur within various congregations of the Lord’s church that had been founded in the first century (Acts 20:28-30; 1 Timothy 4:1-3; 2 Timothy 4:2-4). History confirms that this apostasy did occur, which led to the birth of what we now know as Catholicism, which established itself by 606 A.D. with the appointment of the first universal Pope in Rome. Efforts by many to reform this corrupt brand of so-called “Christianity” failed. The result was religious dissent which led to the birth of the Protestant Reformation Movement. Although many reformers were still attempting to reform Catholicism, others embarked on a path that would taken them back to New Testament Christianity as it had been practiced in the first century. Eventually the efforts of these men gave birth to what has since become known as the Restoration Movement. The goal of these men was not to reform existing denominationalism, but rather to set aside all denominational doctrines and teachings, and go back to the Bible as the only basis of authority. They contended that believers in Christ should “speak where the Bible speaks, and be silent where the Bible is silent.” They also contended that believers should “call Bible things by Bible names, and do Bible things in Bible ways.” Their goal was to simply plant the same unadulterated seed (the pure Word of God) in the hearts of men and women in their day, knowing that it would produce the same “kind” of New Testament Christian as the Word produced in the first century.
There were many who advocated this need to return to New Testament Christianity, among whom were Thomas Campbell, Alexander Campbell, Barton W. Stone, “Raccoon” John Smith, and many others -- all of whom came out of various denominational backgrounds, but none of whom contended for anything except New Testament authority for every act of faith and practice. None of these men sought to establish a new denomination known as the “Church of Christ.” In their efforts to go back to New Testament Christianity, they were willing to set aside every religious denominational name that had been applied to churches up to that time, and go back to the one found in the Bible -- the “churches of Christ” (Romans 16:16). Nor would they wear any denominational name other than those found in the Bible, namely “disciples of Christ,” or simply “Christians.”
As these men understood the Bible, it would be contrary to the Scriptures to be a part of any church founded by a man or group of men-- whether founded by Campbell, Wesley (Methodist), Calvin (Presbyterian), Luther (Lutherans), etc. They understood there is salvation in no other name than Jesus Christ, and the saved are added exclusively by the Lord to His church (Acts 2:47). Today, those who comprises churches of Christ understand the same simple Biblical principles. Furthermore, there is no practice or teaching followed by members of the churches of Christ today that began with, or originated with, Alexander Campbell or any of the other men who contributed to the movement to restore New Testament Christianity. Baptism for the remission of sins did not originate with Campbell, it originated with the inspired apostle Peter (Acts 2:38). Observing the Lord’s Supper and giving of our means on the first day of every week didn’t originate with Alexander Campbell or any of the other men who contributed to the restoration movement. These practices originated with the church of the first century (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2). Referring to local churches as “churches of Christ” didn’t originate with Campbell or anyone else. It originated among churches in New Testament times (Romans 16:16). Nor did calling individual members exclusively by such names as “disciples,” “Christians” or “saints” originate with Campbell or others. These practices originated with New Testament Christians (Acts 11:26; Philippians 1:1; 1 Peter 4:11). Neither did Campbell originate the practice of having elders in every church -- men who met specific qualifications, and who were to oversee the local church under a limited jurisdiction. The practice of appointing elders, their qualifications, and the limits of their authority were all given by the inspired apostles of Jesus Christ (Acts 14:23; 1 Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-11; Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:2-3). In fact, Alexander Campbell eventually went beyond what the Bible teaches in some areas and failed to completely follow New Testament teaching himself -- especially with his support of The American Christian Missionary Society, and other unbiblical practices that gave rise to the present-day Christian Church and Disciples of Christ.
Answer: The New Testament predicted there would eventually be a major departure in doctrine and practice from the truth revealed through the apostles (Acts 20:30-31; 1 Timothy 4:1-3; 2 Timothy 4:3-4; 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4). A study of church history allows us to trace the beginnings of such departures to their modern-day descendants in the denominational world. A study of religious history can also help us avoid making the same mistakes that were committed in the past, because history does repeat itself (Ecclesiastes 1:9-10). Therefore, let’s notice some of the departures from New Testament Christianity that have given rise to religious denominationalism today.
First, there was a change in the eldership. Early in the second century, the title of “bishop” began to be used to make a distinction between one elder within a local congregation from all the others in the same congregation. Of course, this distinction is not found in the New Testament use of the terms elder and bishop. However, as the power of bishops began to grow they began exercising exclusive authority over other elders within the local congregation. According to the Scriptures, every elder was an overseer, or bishop (Acts 20:17, 28). There were also to be a plurality of “overseers” within any given congregation, never just one (Titus 1:5, 7). The authority given to elders (bishops, overseers, or shepherds) was never placed in the hands of just one man (Acts 14:23; 20:28; Philippians 1:1).
By the third and fourth centuries, additional titles were given to various “bishops.” Bishops over churches in capital cities were known as “metropolitans.” This practice allowed one man to be given the charge of all the congregations within that city or the surrounding district. This was the origin of the “diocese,” which is a term that came to mean the area that fell under the jurisdiction of a bishop. This was also an unscriptural concept, because the only jurisdiction ever given to elders of a local congregation was exclusively to the congregation among which they were members (1 Peter 5:2; Acts 20:28).
However, as the apostasy progressed, bishops were eventually appointed over several cities in the ancient world, including Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. In time, the bishop of Rome became the most powerful among the various bishops, and claimed for himself the exclusive authority and oversight over the universal church. The term “pope” (Greek for “father,” in violation of Matthew 23:9), was initially reserved for all bishops. But the term eventually became reserved only for the bishop of Rome. The Bible clearly teaches that Jesus is the sole head of the church, not some man (Ephesians 1:22). Neither did Jesus intend for any man to assume that role. The apostle Peter (whom Catholics say was the first pope), never claimed to be the head of the church. In fact, he saw himself as an elder among other elders (1 Peter 5:1), which also means that Peter was married, and had believing children (Titus 1:5-6).
The changes being advocated in the religious world today regarding the role of elder, such as those who advocate that women can serve in this capacity, should not surprise us. Attempts have been made to pervert the teaching of the New Testament regarding this office and work since shortly after the apostles died.
The second major departure that led to denominationalism is the distinction between the clergy and the laity. While elders in the New Testament had authority to oversee the work of the local church (Hebrews 13:17), and were viewed as the shepherds of the flock (Acts 20:28), they were never viewed as replacements for the apostles. However, in time, the false doctrine of “Apostolic Succession” began to make its way into the church. Apostolic Succession is the false belief that the apostles appointed elders and conferred upon them their place, position or authority. This authority was then allegedly passed on to the next bishop in that congregation. Eventually, it was believed that the bishops appointed by apostles were considered as infallible teachers of true doctrine. This error eventually led to the belief that authority for religious faith and practice rests in the church “fathers,” or in councils of church leaders rather than in Scripture.
However, the Scriptures show that elders (bishops) were never considered infallible teachers of religious doctrine, even if they were appointed by the apostles themselves. Ephesus was one of several congregation begun through the work of the apostle Paul. And yet, Paul warned these same elders that false doctrine could arise even from among them (Acts 20:28-30). It is also false to assume that elders appointed by apostles could ever become the successors of the apostles. Very specific and definite qualifications existed for the selection of one who would be appointed as an apostle (Acts 1:21-22; 22:14-15). And meeting one key qualification, that of being an eyewitness of the resurrected Christ, is no longer possible (1 Corinthians 15:8). Over the centuries, people have often depended on unreliable methods of determining whether or not someone was teaching the truth -- apart from examining their teaching in light of what God’s Word teaches. However, the Bible reveals that every Christian must study the Scriptures for themselves, that this is the only way to be sure that you have been and are being taught the truth (Acts 17:11; 2 Timothy 2:15). Another apostasy that developed around the change in the Biblical concept of elders was that bishops formed an elect class within the church. While the New Testament teaches that all Christians are priests (1 Peter 2:5), and every Christian has equal access to God through our High Priest Jesus Christ (Hebrews 4:14-16), the Bishop eventually came to be viewed as the priests in Old Testament times were viewed -- as mediators between man and God.
Eventually it was believed that officiating at the Lord's Supper was a “priestly function” which could only be performed by the clergy. However, congregations in New Testament times existed long before elders were appointed (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5). In other cases, elders aren’t even mentioned in the church at Corinth or Antioch (Acts 13:1; 15:2), which leads some to believe they functioned for a period of time without elders. No distinctions between elders and the members of the local church were ever made during New Testament times. While elders (bishops, overseers, or shepherds) were given the responsibility of providing spiritual oversight, they were not viewed as an exclusive body of men above all others within the congregation. That distinction was never held among first century Christians.
The third major apostasy to occur in the church of the first century was Asceticism. Asceticism is the belief that a person can gain spiritual superiority through the denial or avoidance of things created by God for our use and enjoyment. The belief was that one could draw closer to spiritual perfection by denying all desires of the flesh, including the eating of certain foods, and sexual desires lawfully fulfilled within the context of a scriptural marriage. Asceticism eventually gave birth to the idea of a spiritual elite body of Christians. Unfortunately, this erroneous doctrine has always plagued the people of God. In the first century the Pharisees were infected with it (Luke 18:12; Matthew 23:23). Those who practice asceticism eventually end up as those “who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!” (Matthew 23:24). They add man-made rules and regulations to the faith, and violate or neglect the commandments of God in the process (Mark 7:8-9).
When we consider all Jesus and the apostles taught about man-made rules, it’s difficult to understand how asceticism found followers among those who professed to follow the Scriptures. The apostle Paul clearly condemned ascetic thinking (Colossians 2:21-23). He condemned attempts to base a persons spirituality on what foods he ate (1 Timothy 4:1-4; 1 Corinthians 8:8). Jesus declared that spiritual uncleanness doesn’t come from what enters the mouth, but rather from what enters the heart (Mark 7:18-23).
Monasticism (withdrawing from society) a common practice among those who practice asceticism, is a direct contradiction to the Great Commission and of being a light of the world (Matthew 28:19-20; 5:14-16; Philippians 2:16). However, the practice of asceticism grew in prominence, giving rise to the building of monasteries and the appointment of monks. In time, certain monks themselves grew in popularity and began to attract followers -- such as Benedict, who was the most influential his day, and led the development of early western monasticism. Of course, no one thought to ask “where is the Scripture that gives us the right to form a congregation composed solely of men or women?” Monastic orders never existed in the New Testament. Rather, we find congregations composed of a mixture of men, women and various age groups (Titus 2:1-8).
Another major departure from the truth was the doctrine of Celibacy. By the third century, celibacy was beginning to be viewed as a mark of true holiness. Some theologians believed that original sin entered the soul of an infant through the act of conception, which eventually led others to believe that sexual intercourse even in marriage might be sinful. Therefore, celibacy among those who comprised the clergy was urged, although it was not legally enforced until the time of Hildebrand (1073-1085 A.D.). The reason why celibacy and the monastic life became so popular is attributed to the misplaced belief that the growing numbers of new members into churches meant that standards of holiness were lowering. Sex was closely associated with sin, according to Jerome (c. 345-419 A.D.). He taught that while, “marriage populates the earth; virginity populates heaven.”
Unfortunately, this concept is directly opposed to clear Biblical teaching (Genesis 1:28-31; Matthew 19:4-6; 1 Corinthians 7:1-5; 1 Timothy 4:1-4). Furthermore, if celibacy is a desirable practice for spiritually minded men, why were the majority of the apostles married (1 Corinthians 9:5)? And why would God require those who would shepherd His flock (elders) to be married men (1 Timothy 3:2)? Unfortunately, celibacy among the clergy introduced two great abuses. First, many so-called celibate clergy lived with women who were not their wives -- and the practice still continues today. Second, men who were dissatisfied with their marriages were allowed to desert their wives to follow the celibate life -- a practice which also continues today.
The denominational world, and those in it who professes to be Christians are certainly not pleasing God and are clearly not fulfilling Jesus’ prayer that His disciples all be “one” (John 17:20-21). Unfortunately, most seem content to remain divided. The answer is not to allow the Lord’s people to adopt denominational teachings and practices, but rather to encourage the denominational world to give up unscriptural and unbiblical teachings and practices and return to the inspired Word of God as the sole basis of authority for faith and practice. God has a plan for restoring His people -- repentance and a return to God’s Word.
The Bible is filled with one “restoration” after another. God’s people were restored during the days of Hezekiah (2 Chronicles 29:2-11; 30:1,14,16). They were restored during the reign of Josiah (2 Chronicles 34:2-8, 30-33). They were restored during the days of Ezra (Ezra 3:1-2; Nehemiah 8:1-8), and during the days of Nehemiah (Nehemiah 13:10-11,15-17, 23-26). They were also restored during the days of Jesus Christ (Matthew 5:27-28; 19:3ff; 15:3-6). The most simple formula for restoration among the people of God was stated by the prophet Jeremiah. “Thus says the LORD: ‘Stand in the ways and see, And ask for the old paths, where the good way is, And walk in it; Then you will find rest for your souls.’” (Jeremiah 6:16). Unfortunately, far too many people today have the same reaction as those in Jeremiah’s day: “But they said, ‘We will not walk in it.’” (Jeremiah 6:16b).
Answer: Perhaps another way to phrase the question is to ask “Is church membership necessary?” There are several important facts to consider when answering this question. First, we need to understand that the church is the body of the saved (Ephesians 1:21-23; 5:23). It is that body of people who have been purchased by the blood of Christ (Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 1:18) by having been baptized into Christ for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). Upon being baptized, the Lord immediately adds those who are saved to the church (Acts 2:38,41,47; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Colossians 1:12-14), and translates them into the “kingdom of God’s dear Son” (Colossians 1:13-14). This church is also called the “household of God” (1 Timothy 3:15); the “bride” of Christ (Ephesians 5:24); the “temple of God” (Ephesians 2:19-22). Therefore, those who believe it is not essential to be a member of the church misunderstand the whole point of what it means to be a Christian, and miss the importance of the church in the eternal plan of God.
Is attendance within a local church necessary? Or to phrase the question as it is most commonly asked, “Do I have to go to church to be a Christian?” This question also shows a complete misunderstanding about the true nature of the local church. The church is the spiritual body of Christ, and it is made up of men and women who have gladly accepted and obeyed the Gospel, and are continuing to faithfully follow it to the very best of their abilities. Christians in any given locality are exhorted by apostolic authority to work and worship together in the capacity of the local church. This is God's plan. In His wisdom, the Lord knows our need to be with one another, to encourage one another (Hebrews 10:23-24). The church also has an important task to perform -- namely, evangelism and edification. To be able to worship in spirit and in truth is a great privilege. While it is true there are things we can do individually and privately, this is certainly no substitute for coming together with fellow believers in Christ to worship, teach and edify one another. Although God certainly does not need our worship -- it doesn’t diminish His greatness if we fail to worship Him -- we need the experience of drawing close to God and to Jesus Christ, as well as drawing close to one another. The psalmist David said, “I was glad when they said to me, let us go into the house of the Lord.” (Psalm 122:1). Those who truly love the Lord also love being with the Lord. In reality, asking if we have to go to church to be a Christian is simply another way of asking “Do I have to do what God said to be a Christian?” The church will obviously survive without those who are not interested in attending worship services to do the Lord’s work, but we won’t. We need the association of fellow saints, and we need the fellowship with our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. He is the author of eternal salvation to all those who obey Him (Hebrews 5:8-9; cf. John. 12:48).
Answer: The writer of the letter to the Hebrews, who is believed by many to be the apostle Paul, gave an exhortation regarding attendance, although attendance, per se, is not specifically mentioned. It reads, “Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful. And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching. For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. Anyone who has rejected Moses' law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know Him who said, ‘Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,’ says the Lord. And again, ‘The LORD will judge His people.’ It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” (Hebrews 10:23-31).
Verse 25, which speaks of “not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some,” is often misunderstood. This verse is not referring to an occasional missing of worship services, but rather a complete abandonment of the assembly. The word “forsake,” is “egkataleipo” (en-kat-al-i'-po); which conveys the idea of “to desert, abandon, forsake, leave, or to separate oneself from.” This is the same word that would be used to describe a young bird that leaves its nest, never to return again. The Hebrew writer said “forsaking the assembling of ourselves together” has now become “the manner (habit or custom) of some.” They have deserted, abandoned, forsaken, left, and separated themselves from assembling with the saints. They have no plans of ever returning. It has now become a habit or custom for them.
However, abandoning the assembling of the saints didn’t happen overnight. The Hebrew writer is speaking of a gradual process of growing indifference toward spiritual things, and of a wavering from hope that is in Jesus Christ. The entire epistle was written to first century Christians whose hope had faded and whose love and faithfulness toward spiritual things had waned. Therefore, he admonishes these Christians to turn from their indifference and move toward spiritual maturity. The solution is simple. “Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful. And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching.” There are three simple guidelines to keep Christians from forsaking the assembling of the saints. First, “Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful.” There is a need for each individual Christian to “hold fast the confession” of their hope in Jesus Christ. Why? Because “He who promised is faithful.” We can be sure of the promises of Jesus Christ, because He never breaks promises. He doesn’t traffic in broken promises. But to “hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering,” there is something else we must do. We must “consider one another in order to stir up love and good works.” This is a specific command to “consider one another.” There is a tendency for some to look out simply for their own interests, and not care about the interests of others (cf. Philippians 2:4-5). We need to “stir up love and good works” in others, as they also “stir up love and good work” in us. However, to do this, there is one more thing we must do. We must be busy “exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching.” To exhort someone is to encourage and lift them up spiritually. This is also a “one another” command -- something we must do for others, as they likewise do the same for us. But how can any of this be accomplished if we are not assembling with the saints? Our responsibilities as Christians are not just to ourselves or to the Lord, they are to one another as well. There is simply no way we can “consider one another in order to stir up love and good works,” or be busy “exhorting one another” if we are missing from an assembly of the saints. Neither can others do these things for us if we’re absent. The end result is that we cannot consistently “hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering.” In time, our wavering will result in increasing unfaithfulness and non-attendance, resulting in our ultimately “forsaking the assembling of the saints as is the manner of some.”
There is never an assembly of the saints, which is being called for the purpose of stirring up and exhorting one another, that is not important. The faithful child of God needs to adopt the attitude of the psalmist David: “I was glad when they said to me, ‘Let us go into the house of the LORD.’” (Psalm 122:1). We should likewise be glad to assemble with the saints, and to worship and praise the name of God and His Son, Jesus Christ. If we don’t find worship a pleasurable experience now, we won’t enjoy heaven. John the Revelator wrote, “After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands, and crying out with a loud voice, saying, ‘Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!’ All the angels stood around the throne and the elders and the four living creatures, and fell on their faces before the throne and worshiped God, saying: ‘Amen! Blessing and glory and wisdom, Thanksgiving and honor and power and might, Be to our God forever and ever. Amen.’ Then one of the elders answered, saying to me, ‘Who are these arrayed in white robes, and where did they come from?’ And I said to him, ‘Sir, you know.’ So he said to me, ‘These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Therefore they are before the throne of God, and serve Him day and night in His temple. And He who sits on the throne will dwell among them. They shall neither hunger anymore nor thirst anymore; the sun shall not strike them, nor any heat; for the Lamb who is in the midst of the throne will shepherd them and lead them to living fountains of waters. And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes.’” (Revelation 7:9-17).
Question: Why don’t you have instrumental music in the church?
Answer: The Old Testament example of Nadab and Abihu should serve as an important example for us today regarding our worship to God (Leviticus 10:1-3). When they offered something in their worship which the Lord had not authorized or commanded, it was viewed by the Lord as a sign of disrespect for His Sovereignty and His Holiness. According to the apostle Paul, these things were written for our learning (1 Corinthians 10:11). As God’s children, we must be careful to never assume something is pleasing to God in worship if there is no authority or precedence for engaging in such a practice -- regardless of how harmless, or beautiful, or pleasing we may believe it to be.
The New Testament speaks of various types of kinds of worship, not all of which are pleasing to God. First, there is what we might classify as “True Worship” (John 4:20-24). This is obviously the type or kind of worship God expects of us today. Jesus said, “But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him.” (John 4:23). Another type or kind of worship is commonly called “Vain Worship” (Matthew 15:7-9). This kind of worship is the result of following the traditions of men in certain areas of doctrine or practice while ignoring the commands of God, or doing what we choose to do in worship or what we think is acceptable even then there is no Biblical authority for the practice. Vain Worship is also failing to worship God “in spirit” or “from the heart.” Finally, the Scriptures speak of what we may call “Ignorant Worship” (Acts 17:22-23). This type or kind of worship is offered in the absence of a knowledge of God's will concerning who He is, and how He is to be worshipped.
When it comes to worshipping God in music, the only type or kind of music that was ever commanded in the New Testament, or which was ever used among those who were the disciples of Christ was vocal music. Consider the following examples: (1) Jesus and His disciples (Matthew 26:30; Mark 14:26), (2) Paul and Silas (Acts 16:25), (3) The church at Rome (Romans 15:9), (4) The church at Corinth (1 Corinthians 14:15), (5) The church at Ephesus (Ephesians 5:19), (6) The church at Colossae (Colossians 3:16), (7) The Hebrew Christians (Hebrews 2:12), (8) James to first century Christians (James 5:13). There are simply no references in the New Testament to any form of music other than vocal music in the worship of the New Testament church. To add another type or kind of music to what has been specified in the New Testament is to make the same fatal mistake Nadab and Abihu made in adding to what God specified.
The apostle Paul commanded the Ephesian church to do the following when it came to music in the church: “singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord” (Ephesians 5:19,; Colossians 3:16). The phrase “making melody” is from the Greek “psallo.” The word “psallo” means “to cause to vibrate by touching, to twang, to touch or strike the chord, to twang the strings of a musical instrument, to play the harp, to play on a stringed instrument. In the New Testament to sing a hymn, to celebrate the praises of God in song, to sing praises in honor of God.” (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of New Testament Words). In the Old Testament, the Hebrew equivalent of this word often included the playing of musical instruments. However, there is a significant difference in how the apostle Paul uses the word in Ephesians 5:19. Here, the word “psallo” (“making melody”) is to be done “in the heart.” In other words, “the heart” of the worshipper is the instrument from which the “melody” originates, not from some kind of mechanical instrument of music. If the word “psallo” is to be taken to literally mean “to twang the strings of a musical instrument, to play the harp, to play on a stringed instrument,” as the Hebrew form of the word was commonly used in the Old Testament, then Ephesians 5:19 is a command for every Christian to “to twang the strings of a musical instrument, to play the harp, to play on a stringed instrument.” To be consistent, those who maintain that the word “psallo” includes the playing of a stringed instrument must also maintain that a Christian cannot “psallo” unless he is also playing a stringed instrument.
Similarly, in the Colossian letter, Paul said, “singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord” (Colossians 3:16). However, the apostle Paul said “singing” is to originate “in the hearts” of the worshippers, and this is the only kind of music mentioned by Paul that can be given “with grace... to the Lord.” Under the Old Law, music could be performed by a professional choir, or done with the accompaniment of various mechanical instruments (as was done with many of the Psalms). However, during New Testament times, music was performed by congregational singing (“speaking to one another in psalms, hymns and spiritual songs”), and was the melody originated in “the heart” (not “on the harp”). The heart is the only instrument authorized by God in Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16. Furthermore, emphasis was never placed on how well individuals sung, or on how beautiful their voices may have been, but rather on making genuine melody in the heart to the Lord.
History affirms that mechanical instruments of music were never used in the worship of the New Testament church. Various attempts have been made to explain why first century Christians didn’t use instruments of music. Most say the instruments in those days were loud, and if played while Christians were meeting secretly in the catacombs, would lead persecutors to their secret assemblies. Nothing could be further from the truth. Stringed instruments were available in New Testament times just as they were in the Old, and these instruments could be played as quietly then as stringed instruments could be played today. Furthermore, widespread persecution of Christians didn’t occur until the latter part of the first century A.D., and even then it wasn’t necessarily universal. Among the seven churches of Asia mentioned in Revelation chapters two and three (believed by many to have been written between 96-98 A.D.), only Smyrna and Pergamos faced any real threat of persecution from the hands of their enemies. Why weren’t instruments of music used among the other congregations where there was no threat of persecution? The reason is simply because first century Christians understood Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 to authorize only vocal music, and forbade all other types or kinds.
Consider the following historical references showing vocal music was the only kind of music used in the New Testament church. “All our sources deal amply with vocal music of the church, but they are chary (careful or cautious) with mention of any other manifestations of musical art... The development of Western music was decisively influenced by the exclusion of musical instruments from the early Christian Church.” (Paul Henry Lang, Music In Western Civilization, pp. 53,54). “Only singing, however, and no playing of instruments, was permitted in the early Christian Church.” (Hugo Leichtentritt, Music, History and Ideas, p. 34). “There can be no doubt that originally the music of the divine service was everywhere entirely of a vocal nature.” (Emil Nauman, The History of Music, Vol. 1, p. 177). “We have no real knowledge of the exact character of the music which formed a part of the religious devotion of the first Christian congregations. It was, however, purely vocal.” (Dr. Frederick Louis Ritter, History of Music from the Christian Era to the Present Time, p. 28). “Both the Jews in their temple service, and the Greeks in their idol worship, were accustomed to singing with the accompaniment of instrumental music. The converts to Christianity accordingly must have been familiar with this mode of singing ... But it is generally admitted, that the primitive Christians employed no instrumental music in their worship.” (Lyman Coleman [Presbyterian], The Apostolic and Primitive Church, pp. 368-369). “The first Christians were of too spiritual... to substitute lifeless instruments for or to use them to accompany the human voice.” (Catholic Encyclopedia). “The execution of Byzantine church music by instruments, or even the accompaniment of sacred chanting by instruments was ruled out by the Eastern Fathers as being incompatible with the pure, solemn, spiritual character of the religion of Christ.” (Constantine Cavarnos [Greek Orthodox Church], Byzantine Sacred Music).
More recent history affirms that many who were credited for beginning various religious denominations also opposed the use of instrumental music in worship. “Musical instruments in celebrating the praises of God would be no more suitable than the burning of incense, the lighting up of lamps, the restoration of the other shadows of the law. The Papists, therefore, have foolishly borrowed this, as well as many other things, from the Jews. Men who are fond of outward pomp may delight in that noise; but the simplicity which God recommends to us by the apostle is far more pleasing to Him.” (John Calvin, [Presbyterian], Commentary on the Book of Psalms, Vol. I, p. 539). “I have no objection to instruments of music, in our chapels, provided they are neither heard nor seen.” (John Wesley [Methodist]). “Music as a science, I esteem and admire: but instruments of music in the house of God I abominate and abhor. This is the abuse of music; and here I register my protest against all such corruptions in the worship of the Author of Christianity.” (Adam Clarke [Methodist Commentator]). “Martin Luther called the organ an ‘ensign of Baal.’” (McClintock & Strong’s Encyclopedia). “I would as soon attempt to pray to God with machinery as to sing to Him with machinery.” (Charles H. Spurgeon [Baptist]).
There are a number of arguments made to justify the use of instruments in worship today. Consider the following.
First: “I believe instrumental music is an aid to worship, just as a building, song books, and lights are an aid to worship.” There is a significant difference between what can properly be called an “aid” verses an “addition” to God’s Word. An aid assists the carrying out of a commandment of God without changing or altering the command in any way. For example, God commanded the ark of the covenant to be made with rings so that it could be carried by poles, and only the priests (the sons of Levi, Aaron’s son) were allowed to carry the ark (Exodus 25:12-15; 37:1-5; Numbers 4:5-6; Deuteronomy 10:8; 31:9; 31:25-26; Joshua 3:8-17; 4:9-10, 16-18). However, when David brought the ark of the covenant back to Jerusalem, the people apparently reasoned that transporting the ark on a cart would be an easier way of returning the ark to the City of David -- the cart would simply be an aid in transporting the ark (2 Samuel 6:1-5). But when the ark reached Nachon's threshing floor, “Uzzah put out his hand to the ark of God and took hold of it, for the oxen stumbled. Then the anger of the LORD was aroused against Uzzah, and God struck him there for his error; and he died there by the ark of God.” (2 Samuel 6:6-7). What was Uzzah’s “error?” He disobeyed God’s command by substituting another way of transporting the ark of the covenant from the way God specified. The cart was not an aid in transporting the ark, it was an addition. It changed and altered the commandment of God. When Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper on the night of His betrayal, He specified only two elements -- unleavened bread and fruit of the vine (Matthew 26:2629; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:14-23). When the apostle Paul later wrote the church at Corinth about the Lord’s Supper, he also mentioned these same two elements (1 Corinthians 11:17-34). However, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the Mormons) believe that it is perfectly Scriptural to substitute water for fruit of the vine because water is everywhere there is life, and fruit of the vine may not always be available. Beside, they reason, water is necessary for sustaining life, and is also fitting symbol of Jesus’ life-giving blood. However, the Scriptures allow no such substitution. Water is not an aid in observing the Lord’s Supper, it is an addition. It changes and alters the commandment of God. A church building, song books and lights do not change or alter the command of God to assemble or to sing praises to God. However, instrumental music would change the commandment of God concerning singing. There are only two kinds of music, vocal and instrumental. Which one did God authorize in Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16? Vocal music. That automatically eliminated any other type or kind of music, just as fruit of the vine eliminates any other kind or type of drink, and carrying the ark eliminates any other type or kind of transportation. Therefore, instrumental music cannot be an aid, it is an addition.
Second: “It’s always been a tradition in our church.” Actually, history reveals just the opposite. The use of instruments of music is an innovation introduced hundreds of years after the New Testament church began. In many cases, it has only been used during the last two centuries. However, even if instruments of music have been a “tradition” in their church, Jesus taught that “traditions of men” qualify as “vain” worship.
Third: “I don’t see anything wrong with it.” Our personal opinions have never been the basis of authority when it comes to worship, or to any other religious practice where God has specified a method or means by which that worship or religious practice is to be observed. If our failing to see anything wrong with an act of worship authorizes the practice, then why did Paul condemn this type of “Ignorant” worship (Acts 17:22-23)?
Fourth: “I happen to enjoy instrumental music in my worship to God.” Forcing a particular type of kind of worship simply because we happen to like it doesn’t authorize the practice. The question should not be whether it is pleasing to us, but whether it is pleasing to God.
Fifth: “Instrumental music was used in the Old Testament.” There were several things done in worship under the Old Testament that have no place in the worship of the New Testament church, such as animal sacrifices, the keeping of certain holy days, the burning of incense, worship in the Temple and the ordinances associated with it, etc. In fact, there were many acts of worship which were “imposed until a time of reformation” (Hebrew 9:10). However, the time has come when God demands that people worship Him differently (John 4:23-24). God has every right to change what He requires of those who serve Him. He did it in the case of Moses. In Exodus, God first told Moses to “strike” the rock in order to get water (Exodus 17:5-6). However, God later told Moses to “speak” to the rock (Numbers 20:7-8). But when Moses struck the rock instead of speaking to it, he sinned by violating the commandment of God, and lost his right to enter the promised land (Numbers 20:9-12). Although God had previously allowed striking the rock to get water, the Lord changed the commandment and now required speaking to the rock. Moses sinned by not doing exactly what God commanded at the present time. God may have allowed instruments of music in worship in the past (during Old Testament times), but now commands vocal music in worship in the present (in the New Testament church).
For more information about the use of Instrumental Music in worship see: Instrumental Music In Worship and Instrumental Music In History
Question: Is it necessary to observe the Lord’s Supper every Sunday?
Answer: The Lord’s Supper was instituted by Jesus on the night of His betrayal (Matthew 26:2629; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:14-23). The partaking of the unleavened bread and fruit of the vine were to be done “in remembrance of Me,” Jesus said. Later, when the apostle Paul wrote to the church at Corinth to correct their mishandling of the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 11:17-34), he reminded them of how Jesus had instituted the Lord’s Supper on the night He was betrayed. Then Paul added, “for as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes” (1 Corinthians 11:26). Every time the first century Christian partook of the elements of the Lord’s Supper, he was proclaiming to the Lord, to his fellow Christians, and to the world, how significant the Lord’s death is to him. Therefore, the Lord’s Supper was celebrated by the disciples of Jesus for two specific purposes: (1) as a “remembrance” of the life, death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and (2) as a way to “proclaim” the importance and of the Lord’s death to others. Clearly, there was a great solemnity associated with the observance of this all-important act of New Testament worship. Those who partook of the Lord’s Supper in New Testament times did it with the greatest amount of love and devotion as they “remembered” and “proclaimed” the Lord’s life and death.
This act of worship is something New Testament Christians continually or regularly practiced. Following the establishment of the church at Pentecost, the disciples of Christ “continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine, fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers” (Acts 2:42). The term “breaking of bread” is used two ways in the New Testament: (1) to refer to the observance of the Lord’s Supper, and (2) to refer to the common meal. The only way to determine which way the phrase is being used in any passage of Scripture is to consider the context of the verse where the phrase is found. For example, the term “breaking of bread” is used both ways (referring to the Lord’s Supper and the common meal) in Acts chapter two. The first way the term is used is in reference to the Lord’s Supper. “And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers” (Acts 2:42). The term “breaking of bread” is in the context of “apostles’ doctrine, fellowship and prayers” in this verse -- all done in the context of worship. The second way the term is used in Acts 2 is in reference to the common meal. “So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart” (Acts 2:46). The term “breaking of bread” in this verse is in the context of eating “their food with gladness and simplicity of heart” which was also done “from house to house.” The context clearly suggests the eating of a common meal rather than the observance of the Lord’s Supper. The term “break bread” or “broke bread” is also used two ways in the twentieth chapter of Acts. The first way the term is used in Acts 20 is in reference to the Lord’s Supper. “Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight” (Acts 20:7).
Some have argued that the reference to the disciples coming together “to beak bread” in this passage means Paul and the saints at Troas held a “love feast” (similar to a potluck dinner). However, the context doesn’t allow that interpretation. The context suggests worship, since Paul “spoke to them and continued his message until midnight.” Paul didn’t simply engage these saints in conversation, he delivered a “message.” Therefore, the context of the phrase “break bread” is the Lord’s Supper -- something for which all the saints came together “on the first day of the week.” The second way the term is used in Acts 20 is in reference to the common meal. After Paul restored the life of Eutychus, who had just fallen out of a third story window, the Scriptures say of Paul, “now when he had come up, had broken bread and eaten, and talked a long while, even till daybreak, he departed” (Acts 20:11). The phrase “broken bread” as used in this verse is in the context of Paul having “eaten,” and in the context of Paul talking “a long while, even till daybreak.” Although all the saints at Troas came together “upon the first day of the week... to break bread” (observe the Lord’s Supper), only Paul is said to have “broken bread and eaten” (eat a common meal). Furthermore, his “message” of verse 7, is different from his having “talked a long while” of verse 11. The “message” continued till midnight, while Paul “talked” with some of these brethren until daybreak.
When was the Lord’s Supper observed in the New Testament church? From what we have already seen, the Lord’s Supper was always observed in the context of worship. New Testament Christians came together for worship on the first day of the week (Sunday), and it would be on this day that they would also observe the Lord’s Supper (Acts 20:7). The first day of the week was important to New Testament Christians for two primary reasons. First, it was the day Jesus was resurrected from the dead (Matthew 28:1-7; Mark 16:1-10; Luke 24:1-8; John 20:1-20). Second, it was the day on which the church was established -- Pentecost -- which always fell on the day after the Sabbath, or on the first day of the week (Acts 2). It was also “on the first day of the week” that the apostle Paul commanded the Corinthians, “let each one of you lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper, that there be no collections when I come” (1 Corinthians 16:2). There is no record of New Testament Christians ever observing the Lord’s Supper on any day other than the first day of the week.
How often was the Lord’s Supper observed? Returning to Acts 2:42, notice that the disciples of the Lord “continued steadfastly” in the “breaking of bread” -- in the observance of the Lord’s Supper. The words “continued steadfastly” is from “proskartereo” (pros-kar-ter-eh'-o), which means “to be constantly diligent toward, or to attend assiduously to all the exercises thereof.” This suggests the Lord’s Supper was a regular occurrence, and not some isolated event. It was something that was attended to on a regular basis. Consider also, Acts 20:7. It reads, “Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight” (Acts 20:7). It’s easy to see that “the first day of the week” was the time “when the disciples came together to break bread.” Does this imply every first day of every week? Yes. Consider 1 Corinthians 16:2: “On the first day of the week let each one of you lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper, that there be no collections when I come.” What does the phrase “on the first day of the week” mean in 1 Corinthians 16:2? Obviously, this is the passage everyone understands to authorize a weekly collection “on the first day of the week.” Why? Because every week has a first day. Therefore, if the phrase “on the first day of the week” in 1 Corinthians 16:2 means every first day of every week, why doesn’t the phrase “on the first day of the week” in Acts 20:7 also mean every first day of every week? The Jews understood the command to “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy” (Exodus 20:8) meant every Sabbath day. Why? Because the Lord went on to explain: “Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.” (Exodus 20:9-11). Furthermore, the priests ate the showbread every Sabbath during the weekly worship in the Tabernacle and later in the Temple (1 Chronicles 9:32). Today, Christians (who are also priests of God) eat the unleavened bread in place of the showbread on the first day of every week.
Answer: While the Bible exalts women more than any other book ever been written, the Scriptures distinguish between the roles of men and women. For example, the New Testament shows that the man is to assume the leadership role in the family. He is the head of his wife, and is to love her as Christ also loved the church, and she is to be submissive to his loving and godly leadership (Ephesians 5:22-33). But in the home, the woman has a vitally important role to play as well. Christian women were admonished to “love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed” (Titus 2:4-5).
But what about the role of women in the worship services of the church. Did women pray, prophecy and preach (or teach) during New Testament times? The most simple answer to that question is “yes.” However, the manner in which women prayed, prophecies, and taught should be carefully studied. The apostle Paul gave one simple guideline for women everywhere to follow. He said, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence” (1 Timothy 2:12). Some have interpreted this passage to mean a woman can never teach, or is to never teach a man. But we have New Testament examples of both. Women would almost certainly be included in the disciples who “went everywhere preaching the word” (Acts 8:4). Older women are to teach younger women (Titus 2:3-5). Priscilla helped her husband Aquilla teach Apollos (Acts 18:26). Philip had four virgin daughters who prophesied (Acts 21:9). And it seems that women prayed and prophesied in the church at Corinth (1 Corinthians 11:3-16). Apparently some women at Corinth were given spiritual gifts that were to be exercised in the same setting as the men -- public worship. However, in all examples in the New Testament where women were involved in praying, prophesying, and teaching, it was done in such a manner so as to insure that the woman did not “teach or have authority over a man.” The words “teach” and “have authority” are both modified by the phrase “over a man.” Therefore, the passage is understood to say a woman cannot “teach over a man,” or “have authority over a man.” In other words, she can teach, she can have authority, and she can even teach a man, but she cannot teach over a man, or have authority over a man in the context of the New Testament church and its worship. Men can teach over a man, and have authority over a man, but when it comes to doing these things, women are to be “in silence.” The word “silence” here is from “hesuchia” (hay-soo-khee'-ah) which means “stillness, i.e. desistance from bustle or language:--quietness.” When the women at Corinth prayed and prophesied, they were veiled whereas men were not. Women were commanded to be veiled to show their subjection to the man, and not to bring shame to the man by teaching over him, or having authority over him. Obviously, Priscilla was careful to exercise this same spirit of humility and subjection in her role of teaching Apollos.
Women are forbidden to preach publicly, serve as elders or take the lead in the work of the church. No woman can preach or teach publicly without teaching over a man or having authority over a man. Since this shows disrespect for man and for God, the practice was forbidden. What does the Bible say about women pastors, preachers, evangelists, teachers? The word “pastor” (Ephesians 4:11) is from “poimen” (poy-mane'), and is literally translated “a shepherd.” A form of the same word is used in the Scriptures in connection with the work elders (or bishops) are to perform in overseeing, or shepherding the local congregation. In his meeting with the elders from Ephesus, the apostle Paul said, “Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood” (Acts 20:7). The apostle Peter also used the word “shepherd” (or pastor) in connection with elders. He wrote, “The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed: Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly; nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock; and when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that does not fade away.” (1 Peter 5:1-4). Therefore, in New Testament times, the term “pastor” (shepherd) was used synonymously with the term “elder.” When we consider the qualifications of elders (pastors) or bishops, it’s easy to see why a woman cannot qualify to hold the position. Elders (pastors) or bishops must be married men with children who are faithful Christians (1 Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9). Regarding women preachers or evangelists, the term “preacher” comes from “kerusso” (kay-roos'-so), as in Romans 10:14, and means “to herald, as a public crier, especially of divine truth (the gospel), to proclaim, or publish.” Another form of the word is “kerux” (kay'-roox), as in 1 Timothy 2:7; 2 Timothy 1:11; and 2 Peter 2:5, meaning “a herald, i.e. of divine truth, especially of the gospel.” Likewise, the term “evangelist” is a verb form of the Greek word “euaggelizo” (yoo-ang-ghel-id'-zo), as found in Acts 8:12 (also see Acts 21:8; 2 Timothy 4:5; and Ephesians 4:11), and means “to announce good news, to evangelize, especially the gospel, to declare, bring, or show glad (good) tidings, to preach.” Another word used to suggest the same concept is “preaching” from the Greek “kerugma” (kay'-roog-mah), as in 1 Corinthians 2:4, and means “a proclamation, especially of the gospel.” The Scriptures indicate that those who preached and evangelized -- those who made a public proclamation of the Word of God (the gospel) were men. While a woman can certainly “proclaim divine truths,” or “announce good news, and declare glad tidings,” she is to do so within certain guidelines. Those guidelines are established by divine inspiration in 1 Timothy 2:1 where Paul told Timothy, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.” Women can teach or preach to other women, but women cannot “teach over” or “have authority over” a man without God’s divine commandment being ignored. As we have already seen, women in New Testament times who prophesied were governed by very strict rules (1 Corinthians 11:3-16).
Finally, questions are often raised about whether a woman has the right to ask a question or make a comment in a Bible class. Some quote 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 to show that women must “keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak.” Does this passage mean that women are never permitted to participate in a Bible class. The answer to that question lies in understanding who Paul was addressing in this passage. The fourteenth chapter of 1st Corinthians is dealing with the proper handling of spiritual gifts. The Corinthians had apparently not been worshipping “decently and in order” (1 Corinthians 14:40). Those who had the ability to speak in tongues or prophesy would speak when no one was there to interpret, and they were constantly interrupting each other so that confusion seemed to be the order of the day. The church certainly could not be edified under those circumstances. Therefore, Paul addressed each group -- the tongue speakers and those who prophecies -- and gave specific instructions how to conduct themselves in the assembly, “for God is not the author of confusion but of peace.” (1 Corinthians 14:33). Immediately on the heels of that comment, Paul adds, “Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.” (1 Corinthians 14:34-35). Notice several important facts about these verses. First, Paul was not addressing all women at Corinth when he said, “Let your women keep silent in the churches.” How do we know? The women Paul addressed were women who had “husbands” (v. 35), and husbands from whom these women could “learn something” (v. 35). This means Paul was addressing a specific group of married women within the church at Corinth who had believing husbands. That would eliminate all women who were single, or whose husbands were not believers. Second, notice that Paul calls these women “your women” (v. 34). Although there has been much debate over whether the phrase meant “the church at Corinth’s women,” that appears not have been the case. If Paul was addressing the women of the church at Corinth (all of them), then why would he have added, “And if they (the women at Corinth) want to learn something, let them (the women at Corinth) ask their own husbands at home?” To hold to this position, we would have to concede that all the women at Corinth were married with believing husbands. That would be too great an assumption, especially since Paul already addressed the problem of virgin women, and those married to unbelievers in 1 Corinthians 7.
Therefore, Paul’s remarks concerning letting “your women keep silent in the churches” must have been addressed to a specific group of women. Which group would Paul have been referring to? Most believe he was speaking to the wives of the prophets. They were apparently the ones who were causing problems within the church at Corinth by speaking out of turn in some manner. However, Paul does add this final comment: “for it is shameful for women to speak in church.” This is clearly a statement made to all women, not just those at Corinth, or to the wives of the prophets. But what did Paul mean when he said, “it is shameful for women to speak in church?” Obviously, this does not mean women are not permitted to say anything, otherwise how could they fulfill these commands: “Speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord” (Ephesians 5:19), and “teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord” (Colossians 3:16)? When Paul said “it is shameful for women to speak in church,” he used the Greek word “laleo” (lal-eh'-o) for “speak,” which is a verb meaning, “to talk, to utter words, to preach, or to tell.” Paul also used this same word throughout the fourteenth chapter of 1st Corinthians when referring to the “speaking” done by tongue speakers and prophets -- the public proclamation of the Word of God in the assembly of the church. Paul says, “it is shameful for women to speak (in the same public manner as the tongue speakers and prophets) in the church.” Apparently, the wives of the prophets (perhaps the wives of the tongue speakers and prophets) were abusing this practice, and were speaking out publicly in the same manner as their husbands were speaking -- publicly proclaiming the Word of God. Paul condemned the practice. Why? They were teaching over men, and exercising authority over men. Does this apply to women who wish to publicly ask a question, or make a comment? Not if she does so in such a way as to avoid speaking in the same manner as men are permitted to speak in the church, that is, as long as she avoids making a public proclamation of the gospel, and doing so in an authoritative, assertive manner. Women are not permitted to speak in that manner in the church.