Questions, Answers, and Comments http://thegospelfortoday.com/questions Wed, 09 Jan 2008 03:34:21 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.2 en A question about singing http://thegospelfortoday.com/questions/2008/01/08/a-question-about-singing/ http://thegospelfortoday.com/questions/2008/01/08/a-question-about-singing/#comments Wed, 09 Jan 2008 03:29:54 +0000 Administrator Questions http://thegospelfortoday.com/questions/2008/01/08/a-question-about-singing/ Larry from Ullin Illinois asks:

I have a question? Is there an example of an audience listening to a duet in The New Testament.

Simple answer.  Yes.
Acts 16:25 - But at midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the prisoners were listening to them.

If you are looking into the scriptures for the authority to perform a solo or duet in a church assembly, there is no such scripture.  Paul and Silas were in prison, not in a church service of any type.  The only type of music the New Testament authorizes is ’singing and making melody in our hearts’ as per Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16.  An act of worship that God expects from every believer, not just one or two while the rest are entertained.  I enjoy listening to all types of music outside of worship, but in worship services, we can only provide what God finds pleasing… simple music made by our voices blended together in praise to His name.

Hope this helps!

Justin Murdock, for thegospelfortoday.com and the Garrett’s Creek Church of Christ

]]> http://thegospelfortoday.com/questions/2008/01/08/a-question-about-singing/feed/ A question about conflicting scriptures http://thegospelfortoday.com/questions/2008/01/06/a-question-about-conflicting-scriptures/ http://thegospelfortoday.com/questions/2008/01/06/a-question-about-conflicting-scriptures/#comments Mon, 07 Jan 2008 04:37:03 +0000 Administrator Questions http://thegospelfortoday.com/questions/2008/01/06/a-question-about-conflicting-scriptures/ John from Memphis, TN asks,

I’m confused with the passages of John 3:22 and 26 and John 4:2. John 3 says Jesus baptized yet John 4 says he did not, can you explain this difference?

No problem John!

Thanks for your sincere interest in bible study.  The measure of any good and sincere bible student is that you do not ignore tough or confusing passages like these but seek out a logical answer, understanding that if the bible is truly God’s word, then there will be a logical answer. 

For the convenience of readers on our website I will now post the text of the verses you ask about.

John 3:22

After these things Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea, and there He remained with them and baptized.

John 3:26

And they came to John and said to him, “Rabbi, He who was with you beyond the Jordan, to whom you have testified — behold, He is baptizing, and all are coming to Him!”

and John 4:2 (with verse one as well, for context)

Therefore, when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John (though Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples),  

A seeming contradiction indeed.  In fact, if these verses came from different books and different authors, a person could make a very good case for contradiction, which would in effect, destroy our faith in the inspiration of the scriptures.  As it stands though, these are all statements from the same author and in fact, all three of these statements are part of one unbroken chain of thought from the author beginning at John 3:22 and not ending until John 4:3. 

Let me tell you a story of my own, in todays language, without any spiritual subject matter to show how this is a common way for someone to talk… Here goes:

Joe took a crew down to New Orleans where he had a contract to rebuild some houses.  When Jack, a competing contractor, saw that Joe was building houses under a government contract, he decided he should get a piece of the action as well.  By the time Jack arrived in New Orleans, he was already well behind his competitor, as Joe had already built 20 homes! (although he didn’t actually build them himself, his crew had supplied all the labor).

I think, perhaps, that this is a fitting parallel and hopefully clears things up.  You see, John 3:22 tells us that Jesus and his disciples came into Judea [emphasis mine].  Jesus most likely busied himself teaching those present while his disciples (which at this point would have at least included the author himself, James, Andrew, Peter, Philip and Nathanael) did the actual work of baptizing.  There is no contradiction here.  John simply names Jesus and says he was baptizing, then immediately adds that, while He was certainly the authority and overseer of the work, He didn’t actually do the baptizing with His own hands.

Hope this helps you out John! Please contact us again ANY time you want,

Justin, for thegospelfortoday.com and the Garrett’s Creek Church of Christ

 

 

 

 

]]> http://thegospelfortoday.com/questions/2008/01/06/a-question-about-conflicting-scriptures/feed/ A comment from a reader in Africa http://thegospelfortoday.com/questions/2007/02/07/a-comment-from-a-reader-in-africa/ http://thegospelfortoday.com/questions/2007/02/07/a-comment-from-a-reader-in-africa/#comments Thu, 08 Feb 2007 01:49:37 +0000 Administrator Comments http://thegospelfortoday.com/questions/2007/02/07/a-comment-from-a-reader-in-africa/ I am very happy for all that you are doing for the Lord by providing all these relevant informations on the internet.
 May the Lord Jesus Christ our Savior provide you with all the necessary meams to do more for the Church Amen.
I am a brother from Takoradi,Ghana, West Africa.
]]> http://thegospelfortoday.com/questions/2007/02/07/a-comment-from-a-reader-in-africa/feed/ A question about expediency and authority http://thegospelfortoday.com/questions/2006/11/16/a-question-about-expediency-and-authority/ http://thegospelfortoday.com/questions/2006/11/16/a-question-about-expediency-and-authority/#comments Fri, 17 Nov 2006 01:01:10 +0000 Administrator Questions http://thegospelfortoday.com/questions/2007/03/05/a-question-about-expediency-and-authority/
An emailer wrote: 

I noticed in your video clip titled “good congregational singing” that there was a song leader, song books, and that
someone started with a short do,me,so,do solo before the congregation sang, also during the singing there were
times when women only sang and there were times when men sang only.. how is this “congregional” when not all are
singing all the time??… then I noticed at the conclusion of your video clip there was a quartet singing while other
members of the congregation were visiting/listening/being entertained etc.  Just curious where the Bible instructs
these items take place?? Please do not post my name or e-mail address just respond back to me with specific book
chapter and verse instructions authorizing the above.


IN REPLY: 

I appreciate your desire to follow so closely to the scriptures, as this is a desire that I and my fellow brethren at
Garrett’s Creek share.  I will attempt to answer your questions in the order they were asked.  If I miss anything,
please let me know.

I will lump together the book, chapter and verse for the use of a songleader, songbooks, and pitching the song (do,
me ,so).  Here it is:  

Ephesians 5:19 speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making
melody in your heart to the Lord,          And here:

Colossians 3:16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one
another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.          Now, you are probably thinking that I am just a little off at this point, because those verses mention none of the
things that you asked me about.  Please stick with me for just a little longer.  We have a command in these verses to
do a certain thing,  that is to sing and make melody in our hearts.  Now in this command, there are certain things
that we can infer.  To help make clear what I mean by this, I want to use another verse here as an example:

1 Corinthians 16:1 Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given orders to the churches
of Galatia, so you must do also:   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.          Now in following the command in these verses, we infer certain things and understand that there are some things we
can use in order to carry out this command without violating the scriptures.  For instance, the use of a treasury, or at
least a common place where these offerings will be collected on the first day of the week is a necessity that can be
justly inferred by this command.  We have the liberty to use a basket or box or bag, etc for the collection of these
offerings.  We must infer that someone must be in charge of collecting these offerings into a common place and
keeping track of such funds.  These are necessary and expedient to carrying out Paul’s command.  Now it would not
be necessary and expedient to take up a collection, say EVERY night or only on certain sundays, because this
would violate the command to do this ‘On the first day of the week’.  It would also be a violation of this command to
collect funds in any other way than the freely given contribution from the saints on the first day of the week… this
would exclude making money via bake sales, church bazaars, apple butter sales, quilt raffles, compulsory tithing
determined by W-2s (and yes, some churches actually do this) etc.  because these are not a necessity or a help in
carrying out the command.

I say all that to say this.  In the command to sing, there are certain things we can infer as necessary.  In order for us
to sing together, we must all start at the same time, stay together, and all be singing the same song.  In order to do
this, a songleader and a  songbook of some sort is necessary in order to also follow the command of 1 Corinthians
14:40 to let all things be done decently and in order.  Paul also looks at a cymbal or a trumpet that makes an
uncertain sound as being wholly unprofitable.  (1 Cor. 13:1, 14:8)  Any group of people attempting to sing together
must start on the same (or in the ballpark anyway :) pitch, otherwise, I would say they wouldn’t sound much better
than clanging brass, or an uncertainly sounded trumpet.  Therefore, pitching a song, is also necessary and
expedient for a congregation to sing together.  Some things that are NOT necessary, would be a piano… while you
could argue that a piano will keep everyone on the same pitch, this can also be done by a songleader, and a piano
most definitely cannot, “sing with understanding” so this would fall outside of the command to sing.  I have spent a
lot of time trying to explain this, and hopefully I have managed to relate the idea that I wanted to get across… if not,
please let me know, and I will stive to find a better way to explain my meaning.

You also mentioned that there were times when only the women sang and times when only the men sang… In this
particular clip, that is incorrect.  It is true that at some points in this song, the men and women sing different parts at
the same time.  There are some songs that we sing that do have times where men only or women only sing.  This is
still congregational, as far as my sense of the meaning goes.  It is congregational in as much as it is not a solo
performance, and it is not being sung by a choir, a quartet, etc.  All in the congregation are contributing to the
singing of the song.  I will use the example of communion.  In participating in the Lord’s supper, all participate as a
congregation, but not all are actually eating/drinking at exactly the same moment… this is still a congregational
participation.

You then state:   I noticed at the conclusion of your video clip there was a quartet singing while other members of
the congregation were visiting/listening/being entertained etc.This is true, and if this was happening as part of a church service, it would most definitely be unscriptural.  However
this took place after the assembly had been dismissed and not as part of any services of the church.  (this is
explained in the caption under the video found on THIS page of our website.)

We often do things today as a church that were not explicitly mentioned in the New Testament.  One glaring example
of this is the very fact that you ask for ‘book, chapter, and verse” for authority regarding these practices.  I often ask
for the same, yet we never see anyone in the early church asking for such, because the Bible didn’t exist then!  Yet
we can both see that using a written copy of God’s word divided into books, chapters, and verses is necessary and
expedient to teaching, sharing, and studying God’s will.

I hope this helps, please contact us again at anytime!

Justin Murdock, for thegospelfortoday.com and the Garrett’s Creek Church of Christ

    ]]> http://thegospelfortoday.com/questions/2006/11/16/a-question-about-expediency-and-authority/feed/ Another question on remarriage http://thegospelfortoday.com/questions/2006/10/10/another-question-on-remarriage/ http://thegospelfortoday.com/questions/2006/10/10/another-question-on-remarriage/#comments Wed, 11 Oct 2006 00:55:53 +0000 Administrator Questions http://thegospelfortoday.com/questions/2007/03/05/another-question-on-remarriage/ Tee, you asked:  

In matthew 19:9 where Jesus speaks of fornication, It seems to me that the church of Christ translates that into adultery.  How
can a married person commit fornication?  Was he not speaking of people who have sex before they are married therefore a man
may think he’s getting a virgin when he’s not? Thank you for your answer.


Mathew 19:9 from a few different translations:  

KJV:

And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another,
committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.NKJV:“And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery;
and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”TEV:

I tell you, then, that any man who divorces his wife for any cause other than her unfaithfulness, commits adultery if
he marries some other woman.”The word translated to ‘fornication’ in the KJV comes from the greek word, “porneia.”  In Strong’s Concordance the word is
defined this way:4202. porneia por-ni’-ah from 4203; harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively, idolatry:–fornication.Thayer and Smith’s Lexicon gives this definition:1.illicit sexual intercourse

    a.adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.
    b.sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18
    c.sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,

2.metaph. the worship of idols

    a.of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols

As you can see, the original Greek word translated to ‘fornication’ was actually a word that could be used for several different
types of sexually immoral actions.  Judging by the context, the mostly likely intention of the inspired writer in Matthew 19:9
would have been to refer to adultery.  I hope this helps, if not, or if you have any other questions, we’d be happy to study with you further.

Sincerely,
Justin Murdock for the Garrett’s Creek Church of Christ and thegospelfortoday.com

]]> http://thegospelfortoday.com/questions/2006/10/10/another-question-on-remarriage/feed/ A question about remarriage http://thegospelfortoday.com/questions/2006/10/05/20/ http://thegospelfortoday.com/questions/2006/10/05/20/#comments Fri, 06 Oct 2006 00:39:05 +0000 Administrator Questions http://thegospelfortoday.com/questions/2007/03/05/20/ Rubbie,  

You asked:

“where in the new testament gives a person the right to re-marry? i find it nowhere in the new testament scriptures.”

  

Thank you for your question.  I see only two instances in the scriptures where a Christian is free to remarry.  There
are, unfortunately those who would find other exceptions as suits their present needs and circumstances, but I
would attest that those who use the scriptures so liberally do not possess the heart of a true Christian.

Perhaps the most obvious circumstance in which a Christian is free to remarry is in the case of the death of one
spouse.  In 1 Corinthians 7:8,9 the apostle Paul tells the Corinthians:


8 But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am;   9 but if
they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn [with passion.] This command includes widows, showing that it is allowed for someone who has lost a spouse to death is free to
remarry, in fact Paul later says that this is preferable, especially in the case of younger widows (1 Timothy 5:14):
Therefore I desire that the younger widows marry, bear children, manage the house, give no
opportunity to the adversary to speak reproachfully. The second instance where a Christian is free to remarry is in the case of adultery.  In a marriage where one spouse
is sexually unfaithful, and the marriage cannot be reconciled (reconciliation would always be preferable to divorce,
although this is allowed in such a case) then the innocent spouse is free to remarry.  This can be seen in the words
of Jesus in Matthew 19:9:

“And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits
adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.” Jesus uses a key word here:  EXCEPT.  Jesus sees no cause for divorce except for the case of sexual immorality.  In
such a case, the innocent party may ‘put away’, or divorce, the sinning party.  The innocent would then be free to
remarry.  There are those who do not view this as a valid exception.  I certainly respect those who see NO valid
cause for divorce, but I do disagree with them from a scriptural standpoint, as Jesus’ words are quite straightforward
in this verse.  I hope these scriptures answer your question.  If not, or if you have other questions, please feel free to contact us
again.Justin Murdock,
for the Garrett’s Creek Church of Christ and thegospelfortoday.com

REPLY from ‘Rubbie’:   (sent 10:27 PM 10/5/06):justin explain to me please ro7:1-3 i know that we are not new testament christian(for the convenience of our readers, here is the text of Romans 7:1-3:Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long
as he lives?   2 For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to [her] husband as long as he lives. But if
the husband dies, she is released from the law of [her] husband.   3 So then if, while [her] husband lives, she
marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she
is no adulteress, though she has married another man.

another reply from ‘Rubbie’:   (sent 10:14 PM  10/6/06)hello justin i am waiting on your answer on romans7:1-3 thank youthegospelfortoday.com’s response:  (posted 11:25 PM 10/6/06)

First.Patience is a virtue Mr. Pittman :) …  I have a business and a family to attend to and don’t sit by my computer 24
hours a day to immediately answer each and every question.Second.

Thank you for your continued interest in this subject.  

I believe that the Bible is free of contradiction.  James 1:25 refers to the New Testament when James writes of ‘the
perfect law of liberty’.  Something that contradicts itself is in no means perfect.  Paul does not contradict Jesus in 1
Corinthians 7.  Paul states what the ‘rule’ is.  The rule is that marriage is forever and divorce is a sin.  What Jesus
gives us is an exception to this rule.  When one spouse disrespects the institution of marriage enough to commit
sexual immorality, then Jesus allows an exception to free the innocent party from being bound to such a one.  This
exception need not be stated each and every time that marriage is spoken of.  One instance in the inspired record
should be enough for us to believe.  

Hope this helps,

Justin Murdock,
for the Garrett’s Creek Church of Christ and thegospelfortoday.com

]]> http://thegospelfortoday.com/questions/2006/10/05/20/feed/ A question on ‘lifting holy hands’ http://thegospelfortoday.com/questions/2006/03/20/a-question-on-lifting-holy-hands/ http://thegospelfortoday.com/questions/2006/03/20/a-question-on-lifting-holy-hands/#comments Tue, 21 Mar 2006 00:34:39 +0000 Administrator Questions http://thegospelfortoday.com/questions/2007/03/05/a-question-on-lifting-holy-hands/
Chris, 

You asked:

“What does the Bible say about raising your hands during worship?”


Firstly, let me thank you for your question and your desire to find the truth of God’s word on this matter.  I’ll begin by
saying that the phenomenon of raising hands in worship is a relatively new one that has been made popular through
the charismatic and ‘modern worship’ movements that focus largely on appealing to the emotions of their crowds.  It
is also important to note that these groups do not stop with the raising of hands but encourage all sorts of body
movement, dancing, jumping up and down, shouting, etc. 

The groups that use this practice, if pressed, will hang their hats on a single new testament scripture.  (some will
attempt to use some Old Testament scriptures as well, but it is important to remember that the way we worship in the
New Testament church  must be dictated by New Testament scripture)  The scripture used by the “holy hands”
crowd, as you may already expect, is this one:

1 Timothy 2:8  I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and
doubting; There are several problems for using this as an authoritative verse for the use of raising our hands in worship.  
First, lets look at the problems that common sense and context present.  Lets look at the verses immediately
following 1 Timothy 2:8

    8 I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting; 9 in like
    manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with
    braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, 10 but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with
    good works. 11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. 12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or
    to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was
    not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. 15 Nevertheless she will be saved in
    childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.

Now, you may already be noticing some inconsistencies.   In these verses, there is a distinct line drawn between
men and women.  Paul says, “here is what I want you men to do,”  and ‘in like manner’, “here are some instructions
for you ladies”.  So, do those who practice raising hands in worship restrict this practice to the men only?  Taking
this further, if they take Paul’s instructions on ‘lifting holy hands’ literally, do they interpret verse 11 with the same
boldness and restrict the role of teaching publicly to the men only, as Paul clearly dictates?   What about modesty,
which Paul speaks of in verses 9 and 10?  I see little modesty in the assemblies where ‘lifting hands’ is encouraged.  
In fact many times you can see an uncanny resemblance between the “holy gyrations” of these worshipers and the
debaucherous dancing of a nightclub crowd.Now, that in and of itself does not prove that lifting holy hands in worship is wrong, but it does show some glaring
inconsistencies among this movement and proves that we ought to take care in accepting their interpretations of the
scriptures.

Going further, I do not believe for a moment that 1 Timothy 2:8 is even referring to the literal act of one raising up
their hands, but simply that they should have hands that they are not ashamed to hold up before the world.  Again, if
this verse is to be taken literally, then we would see those of the charismatic movement praying on street corners, in
restaurants, at the mall, etc., with their hands raised to the heavens, since Paul says to do this ‘everywhere’…  I for
one have never witnessed this.

The Jewish people had a lot of ideas about cleanliness and often this was tied directly to a persons hands.  For this
reason, Paul uses this figure simply to denote that men should not be afraid to show their holiness in any place
without any doubting and with no malice in their hearts, just as women may show their holiness everywhere by the
modesty of their dress and the humbleness of their attitudes.  Let me include here a couple of verses that show the
importance placed on the idea of ‘clean hands’ among the Jews.

Mark 7:1-6 shows the ideas that the Pharisees held about the cleanliness of one’s hands:

    Mark 7:1 Then the Pharisees and some of the scribes came together to Him, having come from Jerusalem. 2
    Now when they saw some of His disciples eat bread with defiled, that is, with unwashed hands, they found
    fault. 3 For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands in a special way, holding
    the tradition of the elders. 4 When they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And
    there are many other things which they have received and hold, like the washing of cups, pitchers, copper
    vessels, and couches. 5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, “Why do Your disciples not walk
    according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?” 6 He answered and said to
    them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: ‘This people honors Me with their lips, But
    their heart is far from Me.


Now the pharisees were focusing the importance on the physical cleanliness of things, but Jesus brings it back into
the proper sphere.  The heart must be clean or else the physical cleanness of a person means nothing.  I believe
this is the spirit that Paul had in mind, as we realize he is a follower of Jesus and not of the pharisees.  We can also
see the use of mentioning the hands to refer to a persons spiritual condition in the book of James:James 4:8 Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify
your hearts, you double-minded.

Now James uses the figure of cleansing the hands but what he actually means is that their hearts need to be
cleansed and purified.  This is what Paul was saying to Timothy.  Men ought to go about freely with pure hearts in
everyplace that they may go without a doubt in their heart.What does it prove if I raise up my hands in an assembly of worshippers?  The simple fact is that God is not into
theatrics.  He is interested in the condition of my heart and I can wave my hands in the air till they turn blue and fall
off, but if I have a hard and unbelieving heart, it amounts to absolutely nothing.

God reveals to us how He wants to be worshipped under the new covenant and no where is the literal raising of
hands mentioned.  Those who wish to worship God in spirit and in truth, will do just that without adding to or taking
away from God’s simple New Testament plan.

Finally, I leave you with this passage that shows the folly of trying to use our own feeble hands in worship to the
great I AM.  

    Then Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, “Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are
    very religious;  ”for as I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship, I even found an
    altar with this inscription: TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing,
    Him I proclaim to you: “God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth,
    does not dwell in temples made with hands.  ”Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He
    needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things.   ACTS 17:22-25 (emphasis mine)

Chris, I appreciate your desire to study and learn more about this issue and hope that the things I have presented
have been helpful to you.  I would love for you to continue studying about the simple acts of worship that God has
set forth for His church to observe in these New Testament times.  Please check out these links at your convenience
and please continue to communicate with me as you study God’s word!Here is an article titled, ” A look at our worship“And here is another called “

The Worship of the Church“:There are other articles on the site that focus in on specific areas of worship as well and we hope you find them
helpful!  Thanks you again for contacting us, and may God bless you as you study His word.

This response was prepared by Justin Murdock of the Garrett’s Creek Church of Christ for thegospelfortoday.com

UPDATE:We appreciate Chris taking the time to reply to this answer and thought we’d post the reply here.

“Thank you for the information. I feel the same as you do after researching the Bible. Sadly there are some
who want the Church to “bend over backwards” to accommodate and make people feel good. They
however seem to forget what the Bible teaches.Thanks again

~ Chris”

    ]]> http://thegospelfortoday.com/questions/2006/03/20/a-question-on-lifting-holy-hands/feed/ A question on the emblems used at the Lord’s table http://thegospelfortoday.com/questions/2006/01/20/a-question-on-the-emblems-used-at-the-lords-table/ http://thegospelfortoday.com/questions/2006/01/20/a-question-on-the-emblems-used-at-the-lords-table/#comments Sat, 21 Jan 2006 00:30:12 +0000 Administrator Questions http://thegospelfortoday.com/questions/2007/03/05/a-question-on-the-emblems-used-at-the-lords-table/ Brethren;I appreciate your courage and love of the truth.
I am a member of a multi-cup congregation. I have always wondered why you make such a distinction concerning the number
of cups. Is it not the content, not the container, that the Lord commanded to “drink ye all of it”? Also, I have never heard of
anyone being quite so careful with the bread as you are of the cup - but does not the scripture indicate that the loaf was singular
by the word “it”? (Mt.26:26)(Mk.14:22)(Lk.22:19)and (I Cor.12:24) I would hope that you would be as concerned for the
number of loaf(ves) used as you are for the number of cups. I would appreciate your reply.

As always, in search of TRUTH,

Mindy
Mindy,

Thank you so much for your questions and for your desire to search for the truth!

There are two questions and I’ll answer them in the order asked and hopefully will adequately cover them both.  The
first is ” Is it not the content, not the container, that the Lord commanded to “drink ye all of it”?”

Yes, it is the contents that we are commanded to drink, as no one can swallow the physical cup.  This does not
mean, however, that there was no significance given to the cup when Jesus was first presenting these simple
emblems to the apostles.  Jesus didn’t just tell them, “here, eat this bread,”  He made the bread significant by
saying, “take, eat; this is My body” (Matthew 26:26, emphasis mine).  Likewise, he didn’t just say, “here, drink
some of this,” He made the ‘fruit of the vine’ significant by saying, “This is My blood of the new covenant…” (Mark
14:24, emphasis mine).  And finally, he didn’t just say, “here’s a cup to drink out of,” He gave the cup significance,
just as He did with the loaf and the fruit of the vine, by saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood” (1
Corinthians 11:25, emphasis mine).  These are parallel statements.  If we believe the Lord when he tells us what the
loaf and the fruit of the vine stand for, then we must believe him when he tells us what the cup stands for, that is, the
new testament, ratified by his shed blood.The second question is, “Also, I have never heard of anyone being quite so careful with the bread as you are of the
cup - but does not the scripture indicate that the loaf was singular by the word “it”?
(Mt.26:26)(Mk.14:22)(Lk.22:19)and (I Cor.12:24) I would hope that you would be as concerned for the number of
loaf(ves) used as you are for the number of cups.”

Mindy,  you very simply yet quite adequately show that, indeed, on loaf must be used on the Lord’s table.  The very
fact that Jesus used one loaf, as shown by the use of the singular word ‘it’ as you pointed out (which is also the
same singular word used to reference the cup) and then simply saying “do this” or “do likewise,” should be enough
to convince us that the use of one loaf and one cup is how we should ‘do’ communion.  

Obviously, there are those out there who place more emphasis on the use of one cup than the use of one loaf or
you would not have asked the question, however, I can not answer you as to why this is because I and the
congregation I attend do not place importance on one above the other.  I will paste in an excerpt from another article
on our site where the case for one loaf (and one cup) is laid out (the full article can be found HERE):THE LOAFWe know that ONE loaf should be used as Jesus had (has) but one body, both symbolically, physically and
spiritually speaking. I don’t believe a specific verse is needed to prove that Jesus had just one physical body, as I
have never heard anyone argue otherwise . But we can look at a verse or two that explain the one symbolic body
and one spiritual body.

Symbolically, Christ was represented by one paschal lamb during the passover. 1 Cor. 5:7 tells us that “Christ is our
passover.” John says, “Behold the Lamb of God, which takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29) It was
commanded that when preparing the passover, no bones of the lamb should be broken (Exo. 12:46). We read of
Jesus’ crucifixion, “…when they came to Jesus and saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs”
(John 19:33), “these things were done that the Scripture should be fulfilled” (John 19:36). The paschal lamb was to
be “without blemish” (Exo. 12:5) Jesus “committed no sin, Nor was deceit found in His mouth” (1 Peter 2:22) Just as
there was one lamb per house (Exo. 12:3) during the Passover, we have one loaf representing Christ (our sacrificial
lamb, Acts 8:32, 1 Peter 1:19, Rev 5:12) in each assembly of the saints that meets to worship God on the first day of
the week (acts 20:7).

One lamb per house (Israel) = one loaf per congregation (NT church)

Spiritually, Christ has one body as well. Eph 4:4 tells us “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in
one hope of your calling” [emphasis mine]. This one body equates to the new testament church. (see Colossians
1:18; Eph 1:22-23) There is to be no ’schism’ (1 Cor. 12:25) and no “division” (1 Cor. 1:10) in that one body.
Perhaps the most compelling passage that leads us to use just one loaf during the communion comes from Paul in 1
Cor. 10:16,17 -…The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we, though many, are one bread
and one body; for we all partake of that one bread…Some may percieve that there is more emphasis placed on the cup because this is the subject that we are more
often asked or challenged about.  In fact, it was contention about dividing the cup (i.e. using individual cups) that
caused the unfortunate split between ‘our’ brethren and ‘your’ brethren.  The sad, yet true fact of the matter is that
the contention came about over concerns about sanitation, not concerns about the truth.  I would be happy to send
you some tracts with more information about the history of the individual cups debate if you would be interested.  

Again, thanks for the questions, the fact that you took time to ask shows that you have a desire to study these
matters, so please prayerfully consider what the Bible says about these matters.  Communing is an immeasurably
important part of our worship to the Lord and we must make certain that we are observing it in the way that He
desires.

Keep on studying, and we’ll do the same!  Please contact us with any more subjects you’d like our input on.

This answer has been prepared by Justin Murdock, a member of the Garrett’s Creek Church of Christ, on behalf of
thegospelfortoday.com

]]> http://thegospelfortoday.com/questions/2006/01/20/a-question-on-the-emblems-used-at-the-lords-table/feed/ A question on instrumental music http://thegospelfortoday.com/questions/2005/12/01/a-question-on-instrumental-music/ http://thegospelfortoday.com/questions/2005/12/01/a-question-on-instrumental-music/#comments Fri, 02 Dec 2005 00:28:14 +0000 Administrator Questions http://thegospelfortoday.com/questions/2007/03/05/a-question-on-instrumental-music/ Ms. Lopez writes: 

I went with a friend to a Church of Christ some 20 years ago. I asked a question to someone about the lack of
musical instramentation. I didn’t get an answer similar to what I have found here. The answer had something to do
with some person in the old testament who played some instrament and the sound annoyed or disturbed God in
some way or another. I would like to find that scripture again but have no idea what it was. Can you help me with the
chapter and verse(s)?

Ms. Lopez,Thanks for your question and your interest in this Bible topic!

The scriptures that they most likely quoted were from the prophet Amos.  In Amos 5:23.   Here it is from v 20 - 27 to
help put it in context:

Is not the day of the LORD darkness, and not light? Is it not very dark, with no brightness in it? “I hate, I despise your
feast days, And I do not savor your sacred assemblies. Though you offer Me burnt offerings and your grain offerings, I will
not accept them, Nor will I regard your fattened peace offerings.  Take away from Me the noise of your songs, For I
will not hear the melody of your stringed instruments.  But let justice run down like water, And righteousness like a
mighty stream.  ” Did you offer Me sacrifices and offerings In the wilderness forty years, O house of Israel?  You also
carried Sikkuth your king And Chiun, your idols, The star of your gods, Which you made for yourselves.  Therefore I will
send you into captivity beyond Damascus,” Says the LORD, whose name is the God of hosts.This is not a particularly good verse to use in the context of why we should not use instruments in the worship
services of the New Testament church.  Firstly, these words were delivered at a time when worship to God was still conducted by the teachings of the Law of
Moses, under which the use of instruments was permitted and even put in place as an official part of worship in the
temple era:

1 Chronicles 23:1-5  So when David was old and full of days, he made his son Solomon king over Israel.  And he
gathered together all the leaders of Israel, with the priests and the Levites. Now the Levites were numbered from the age
of thirty years and above; and the number of individual males was thirty-eight thousand.  Of these, twenty-four thousand
were to look after the work of the house of the LORD, six thousand were officers and judges,  four thousand were
gatekeepers, and four thousand praised the LORD with musical instruments, “which I made,” said David, “for
giving praise.”

Secondly,  Amos states “Take away from Me the noise of your songs, For I will not hear the melody of your stringed
instruments.”  This tells us that it was not only the instruments that God was displeased with, it was the songs they
sang as well.  Therefore, if this verse was used as the reason to dispense with instrumental music in the New
Testament age, then we would have to dispense with all songs period.  Taken in context, this passage from Amos is
showing the displeasure that God had towards the people’s worship as a whole.  Their worship had become idle and
meaningless.  They feasted for the fun of feasting, not in praise to God.  They sang and played instruments because
they enjoyed the sounds they made, not for the purpose of worshiping the Lord, and so on.  Another passage that they may have quoted is akin to the first and is from Amos 6:3-7:

Woe to you who put far off the day of doom, Who cause the seat of violence to come near;  Who lie on beds of ivory,
Stretch out on your couches, Eat lambs from the flock And calves from the midst of the stall;  Who sing idly to the
sound of stringed instruments, And invent for yourselves musical instruments like David;  Who drink wine from
bowls, And anoint yourselves with the best ointments, But are not grieved for the affliction of Joseph.  Therefore they shall
now go captive as the first of the captives, And those who recline at banquets shall be removed.Again, this verse cannot be rightly applied to our worship as Christians because it was written while the law of Moses
was still in force and because it is not speaking of worship.  In context, this statement is made simply to show the lazy
and lax attitude of the people.  They had no fear of the Lord, they took life easy and indulged in its pleasures, one of
which was singing to the sound of instruments.These passages MAY (and this is solely speculation by myself and not to be taken as a Bible truth) show us part of
the reasoning behind God’s choice to change the accepted form of music to be used in worship to him in the New
Testament age.  Let me explain.  It is much harder to just sing idly or not pay attention to the song when using your
voice only.  With instrumental music, however, it is easy to simply become lost in the melody and not pay attention to
the words of praise it contains.  The whole reason for music in the context of worship is WORSHIP!  Thus the words
of Paul to the Ephesian Brethren, “speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and
making melody in your heart to the Lord”  When singing with the voice we are speaking spiritual truths and praiseful
utterances to one another while instruments can only make noise… While it may be pleasant and enjoyable, it is still
noise and cannot truly ’speak’ to us the way that the human voice can.

I hope this answered your question Ms. Lopez and hope you’ll contact us again sometime!

If you would like to read more about the use of music in the church, I recommend this article by a preacher named
Johnny Elmore:

Singing and  making melody vs. instrumental musicThere is also an audio sermon or two about this subject available on our website at thegospelfortoday.com  Here are direct links to two of them:

1. “What kind of Music?”  with Wyn R. Baker2. ” Instrumental Music” with J. Wayne McKamie

    ]]> http://thegospelfortoday.com/questions/2005/12/01/a-question-on-instrumental-music/feed/ A question about women preaching and legalism http://thegospelfortoday.com/questions/2005/09/05/a-question-about-women-preaching-and-legalism/ http://thegospelfortoday.com/questions/2005/09/05/a-question-about-women-preaching-and-legalism/#comments Tue, 06 Sep 2005 00:27:08 +0000 Administrator Questions http://thegospelfortoday.com/questions/2007/03/05/a-question-about-women-preaching-and-legalism/ Shannon asked: 

Dear Mr. Wade,One of my questions is on your comments re: women teaching. What are your thoughts about the women who
traveled with Paul teaching, and the women (the 3 daughters) who were prophets, whom Paul also knew.

My other question is in regard to “The Good News”. This is the ministry of Christ. This is what the apostles taught
and what the disciples taught.  Gods amazing grace, Gods mercy, Gods love for you and I. What I see on your web
site is what not to do, what to do, and how wrong everyone else is. This gives the impression of legal lifestyle which
Christ freed us from. Getting so caught up in getting it all right is quite a heavy burden which is why we were freed
from that.

Thanks for your time.  

 

TheGospelForToday.com’s reply:Shannon,

Thank you for your comments and questions.

As to the women who were helpers with Paul and Philip’s daughters “which did prophesy” it is clear from 1Corinthians
14:34-35 that any teaching done by either was in private and not in a service of the church. 1Timothy 2:11-2 also
makes it clear that women are to “learn in silence” and that “I permit not a woman to teach or  have dominion over a
man.”  This teaching is obviously a reference to public teaching and not private since we have examples of women
teaching in private. (See Acts 18:26)

The good news to which you refer does indeed include God’s grace, mercy and love. In Titus 2:11-12 “For the grace
of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared unto all men. Teaching us that denying ungodliness and worldly lusts,
we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;”

Notice carefully that “grace” teaches us. What does it teach us? …That we must deny ungodliness and worldly lusts.
Is that legalism?  Isn’t that something “not to do?”  If people embrace worldly lusts are they wrong? If I tell them they
are wrong according to the scripture, does that make me a legalist? Is one who is freed from the  legal lifestyle
allowed to accept ungodliness and the worldly lifestyle?

I’m sorry if you get the idea that the only thing we do is tell people what is wrong or what is right, but remember that is
exactly what God did in the ten commandments. Do we just forget what the bible says about sin? Surely not.

Again, let me thank you for writing and sharing your thoughts.

Sincerely,

Ronny Wade, Springfield, MO ……via The Gospel For Today website

]]> http://thegospelfortoday.com/questions/2005/09/05/a-question-about-women-preaching-and-legalism/feed/