Authority, authorisation, commands and permission

greenspun.com : LUSENET : The Christian Church : One Thread

I've mentioned previously that my two kids both attended Harding University -- which I chose for them and still think is an excellent university. I'm glad they went there, so please don't take what I say after this as a criticism of the university. But -- like most of us, I suppose -- as I've gotten to know the people there better and that branch of the Brotherhood better, I'm finding that they seem to have some strange inconsistencies.

My son was a science major, so only had one or two required Biblical studies. My daughter is majoring in "Vocational Ministries" (it's intended for "tent-makers"), so has had to take a lot more classes from the Biblical studies department. She is back with us here in H.K. for the summer, and has been sharing with her mother and me some of the things she has studied this past year.

One of her classes was Principles of Biblical Interpretation. Most of the class, apparently, was quite good, but particular stress was laid on certain principles that COULD be used to support pet doctrines of the school, and the use made of these principles was not always consistent.

One principle taught in the syllabus was explained as follows (caps used in place of italics since I'm not proficient in HTML):

"DISTINGUISH BETWEEN PRINCIPLES THAT GIVE PERMISSION AND PRINCIPLES THAT SET FORTH IMPERATIVES. Statements that approve actions and those that relate accounts of approved action give us permission to perform the actions involved. However, statements not backed by antecedent commands only give permission; they do not set forth imperatives (i.e. bind requirements).

"When an account of action is backed by antecedent theology or a command, it sets forth an imperative belief or activity. If the antecedent command is general (i.e. does not specify who, what, when, how, what kind, how many, and to what extent), it gives general authority. In such cases we are granted freedom, not restricted by form. If the antecedent command is specific (i.e. specifies who, what, when, how, what kind, how many, and to what extent), it gives authority that is restricted by the particulars of the command. In these cases, we are restricted by form, not granted freedom.

"An account of SPECIFIC action that is backed by a GENERAL command does not constitute exclusive authority. In other words, it does not require that a command be carried out only in this one particular way. It simply gives specific permission to perform the action commanded in that particular way. For example, biblical accounts of people baptizing in rivers do not require that baptism be performed only in rivers or streams. They do show one of the places where it is permissible for immersion to be done. The background command to baptize is general in regard to the kind of place to baptize. It does not specify one exclusive type of place where we must baptize. The examples of the church being instructed in only one assembly (I Cor. 11-16; Acts 3) does not establish a specific imperative and exclude teaching in separate classes -- because the command to teach does not specify one assembly."

So far, so good. I have taught "How to study the Bible" numerous times in churches, and have been prepared a couple of times to teach Hermeneutics in a Bible college (only to have the class cancelled at the last minute). So I have read a lot of books on the subject. Never before have I seen anyone go into as much detail about this one small aspect of Biblical interpretation, but it seems to make sense.

It also seemed to me to provide a good answer for those who feel that we must have the Lord's Supper on Sunday and only on Sunday. The command is to "do this in remembrance of me", and we have a likely example in Acts of a group of Christians doing it on Sunday, but, according to what I understood from the above exposition, this would only be an "example" of when we are "permitted" to do it, and would not constitute a commandment as to WHEN we MUST do it.

But wait! I continued on. End of next paragraph:

"Moreover, the account of the disciples coming together on the first day of the week (i.e. Sunday) to take the Lord's Supper establishes an imperative (Acts 20:7). They were commanded to assemble (Heb. 10:25) on the first day of the week (I Cor. 16:1, 2) to take the Lord's Supper (I Cor. 11:20-34)."

Am I the only one to think there is a major inconsistency here?

-- Anonymous, July 10, 2000

Answers

Good questions, Ben. You have given three of the scriptures that have been taken out of context and traditions made out of them....traditions that are being taught as commandments of God.

Acts 20:7 is more likely discussing a common mean (a pot luke) that was given in honor of the apostle Paul as he interacted with the Christians the day before he was to leave. This does not give even a principle that this is an example for preachers today, since there was not a sermon as is had today but dialoguing.

Heb. 10:25 is a direction for Christians to keep in touch with one another by gathering together. The pupose was for encouraging and edifying one another that they might stay on the straight and narrow. Tradition, again, has taken a scripture and made a commandment out of it: The Assembly, in place of assembling themselves.

1 Cor. 16:1-2 says nothing about an Assembly where people come together and put their money in a common treasury. Each was to keep the money with HIMSELF

-- Anonymous, July 10, 2000


The scripture also says: Acts 2:46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,

If they broke bread every day, is that a 'law' for us, according to the method of interpretation they use at that school?

I saw an Adventist on the internet arguing that 'lay by him in store' refers to saving money on the first day of the week, which was, according to him, payday. Does 'lay by him in store' refer to a meeting?

Some scholars believe that the meeting Paul taught at on the first day of the week was actually held on Saturday night, the first day of the week by Jewish reckoning. Notice that the phrase the Lord's _supper_ is used in scripture. From what i've read in a few sources, a supper was a full meal eaten toward the end of the day. In English, we don't call a tiny snack in the morning 'supper' unless it's Sunday morning in church someone might say 'Lord's supper.'

Scholars believe they ate communion as a full meal- hence the mention of 'love feasts.'"

Link

-- Anonymous, July 10, 2000


OOPS! That post got away from me. I was going to say the people treasured their gathering together of their money (or whatever) at their homes so that when Paul came he would not have to wait until they got their private treasury together.

Nelta http://members.xoom.com/atlen/ 1stCen-Christianity-subscribe@egroups.com

-- Anonymous, July 10, 2000


Yes, Link,

And the Lord's Supper was begun on a Thursday evening at the Last Supper, so I wonder why people insist on it for Sunday only?

And if I am not mistaken, He said, as often as you do it, as in whenever you do it, 'do it in remembrance of me'.

-- Anonymous, July 10, 2000


Good responses, all of you. (Including Nelta! Joke! I don't agree with her idea that I Cor. 16:1-4 refers to saving money up privately rather than bringing it together into a central treasury, but I'll address that separately rather than sidetrack this thread.)

I take it, then, that you agree with me that the cited passages do not prove the case for Sunday being the only "authorised" day for having the Lord's Supper.

But what about the hermeneutical principles put forward in this section of the syllabus? Is the writer being consistent in applying the principle he has put forward, and I've just somehow failed to understand his argument, or is he, as I suspect, being inconsistent? (But if he is being inconsistent, why did he use this as an example of how to apply the principle?) And what do you think of this principle? Is it a valid principle of Bible interpretation? Would it be a valid principle for interpreting any other kind of book, e.g. legal books, or is this only for the Bible?

Comments, anyone?

-- Anonymous, July 10, 2000



Perhaps I'd better clarify my remark in my last posting -- "Including Nelta! Joke! ...." -- lest someone either be offended or hurt.

There are a few people in this forum who seem to react more to her name than to what she actually says, and who seem to feel that anything she says must be suspect. Hence my "Good responses, all of you. (Including Nelta! ..." -- as if it was a surprise that she would make a good response. But then, since I have seen other good responses from her and therefore am not necessarily surprised, I added "Joke!" so show that my feigned surprise was really only feigned. But then, after submitting it, it struck me that that could be misunderstood too. If anyone was either offended or hurt, I apologise.

I have found myself agreeing with quite a bit of what Nelta has said in various postings since I have started frequenting the forum -- perhaps because I am a bit of an "iconoclast" too and dislike too much dogmatism on things that are not and sometimes cannot be proven 100%. But I think she also has a few "hobbyhorses" (in the sense of a "pet idea or favorite topic that one is preoccupied with"), and that she rides these to death at the expense of her overall credibility.

But I started this thread to discuss hermeneutical principles, so I don't want to sidetrack it myself. As I've already said, I'll discuss the question of Sunday offerings elsewhere.

-- Anonymous, July 10, 2000


Nelta: You stated "And the Lord's Supper was begun on a Thursday evening at the Last Supper, so I wonder why people insist on it for Sunday only" Let us lay aside the RC tradion regarding Jesus being killed on Friday and having the "last supper" on Thursday. My studies show me that Jesus was Killed on Wednesday the 20th day of Nisan. The day before the High Sabbath (Not the weekly Sabbath). Jesus kept the "Passover" and had the lamb killed on the 14th day of Nisan as ordained in the law (this was a Thursday night in that year) However, the eating of the lamb was on the 15th which of course would be Friday night between the darkness of the gloaming and that of the light (6:00pm to 9:00 pm) which was Saturday) Saturday of course being the Sabbath. We must remember that the story here is by Jewish time, not Roman. The next day always began at 6:00 in the evening not midnight as we do, This also correlates with Gods activity in creation. Check out Gen. chapter one. "And the evening and the morning were the first day" etc. This is not a big point that I am making, but merely to show that yes, indeed Jesus had the Lord's Supper after 6:00 on the 15th (Thursday) which was actually the 16th or Sabbath, (the weekly one.) Part of what you have said it true however, BUT "The Lords supper" as far as WHEN the early Christians did it was caculated from the point of the resurrection of Christ, three days and three night" (According to the sign of Jonah) and that would have been on the first day of the week which began on Satuday night or early Sunday. After 6:00pm because that is when the "First day of the week" began. This also helps account for why Paul preached till midnight. If there services began after 6:00pm on Satuday night, which is the beginning of a new day, it was then that they had the Preaching of the word and this then correlates with our first day of the week and the other things they did as scripture points out. As I am finishing this, I can see another pandors box being opened up, and laying myself wide open. Oh well, I was only trying in one sense to make sense out of it all. I pray I that I did reveal and not conceal. Love you all, Bro. Jack

-- Anonymous, July 11, 2000

A-h-h! There IS a 'Jack Prentice' who posts here.

Jack, that was I, Connie, not Nelta, who mentioned the Thursday initiation of the Lord's Supper at the Last Supper. I knew there were two Sabbaths that week, but I didn't know some of the rest of what you said. I DID know that the weekly Sabbath begins at sundown Friday and ends at sundown Saturday.

Some of what you say sounds a little stretched to make it occur on what did you say? Friday? (The Lord's Supper), especially since it was the special Passover Sabbath that they were celebrating. I will defer to your greater knowledge, however. And how does that work out for His being dead for three days?

I wish I could re-read your post as I'm typing, because I can't remember exactly what you said.

Respectfully,

-- Anonymous, July 12, 2000


Jack,

I HAVE heard that, as time was reckoned in that culture (Roman? Jewish?) while there were not three full 24-hour days by ANYONE'S reckoning, they counted what we call Friday as one day; what we call Saturday as the second day; and what we call Sunday as the third day, even though all except Saturday were partial days.

Do you have an explanation for that?

Thank you,

-- Anonymous, July 12, 2000


I think this machine is eating my posts. Anyway,eitherway it is a win win situation. Of course as we study the accounts relative to that fayteful week, we learn that at the end of it was the "High Sabbath" of which John speaks and they had to get his body down from the cross because of it. So By 6:00 Jesus body was safe in the tomb. That begins the first day which began in the evening. Now as you count forward to get beyound the Regular Sabbath day to the first day of the week, you have exactly three days AND NIGHTS. The Sign of Jonah. Wallah. In fact I wrote a complete chart out and printed it on the sign of John with fujll documentation, if you would like a copy, I will be glad to send it to you. Its nothing great, but perhaps a starter kit. I hope it helps. Keep studying Bro. Jack

-- Anonymous, July 14, 2000


Thank you, Jack,

So what day are you saying that Jesus was put in the tomb? Was the night before that when He initiated the Lord's Supper? And what is your opinion of what He said to the effect that: "As often as you do this, do it in remembrance of Me". Isn't he saying that there would be times other than specific days when we might observe the Lord's table?

And I would like a copy of that. (I'll give you my address at your e- mail #). It has always made me wonder, and I have never really studied it. (As you can tell by my response).

-- Anonymous, July 15, 2000


Jesus ate the Lords supper with his disciples by date on Nisan 15 (Low Sabbath)the first day of unleavened bread,(by law-Nisan 15) a Friday, after 6:00 which also began the regular weekly sabbath. In other words they were back to back. I think it is going to be easier to send the chart, which will be on its way to you soon. I really wanted to respond to some thoughts in the earlier part of this thread regarding principles, etc. Will try again later. That is an important issue. Also will try to respond to your Lords supper question more fully. God Bless & keep you, Keep studying, Bro. Jack

-- Anonymous, July 15, 2000

Moderation questions? read the FAQ