In a recent Bible class, we studied the subject of church discipline. In I Corinthians 5, Paul rebuked the church at Corinth for not dealing with a brother who was caught up in sin. They were told to deliver such a one to Satan in order to hopefully save him if he repented (verse 5). The faithful brethren were told not to even eat (socialize) with him (verse 11).

To help illustrate this, let me present a scenario. A husband and wife have a young son who is eight years old. One day, the son and his mother get into an argument and the boy slaps his mom in the face. Later that day the husband (dad) comes home from work and hears what the son does. Aside from being punished, the father says to his son, “I want you to go to your mother and apologize to her.”

What if the boy does not apologize but wants to go fishing with his dad as planned – should the dad take him fishing? I know we would all say no! What if the son still refused to apologize to his mom the next day but wanted to go play ball with his dad as planned – should the dad take him and play ball? Again, I know we would all say no!

Why are we consistently saying no? Why should the father not take the son and do those fun things? The answer is obvious. If the father did that, he would be minimizing the severity of what the son did to his mother. It might even communicate approval. This is the lesson we need to learn concerning Christ and His church.

When someone sins, it can affect the rest of the members of the local church. As Paul said, “A little leaven leavens the whole lump,” (verse 8). Let us not forget that it is also a sin against the Lord and brings reproach upon His church (Eph. 5:27). When a Christian sins and does not repent, they are to be loved and admonished as a brother, not as an enemy (II Thess. 3:14-15). Although the father wants his son to apologize to his wife, it does not mean that the father hates his son until the apology is given. The father should not hate the son, but there must still be consequences for both the error and refusing to apologize. As Christians, we must all recognize this valuable lesson.

Chuck 

I do not mind studying the Bible with anyone. The problem comes when people throw out all common sense when handling the scriptures. Such happened to me this week, and I found it frustrating. I think there are many lessons we can draw from this experience.

I was asked if the event described in John 16:25 had happened to me. The person I was studying with said it had happened to him. “These things I have spoken to you in figurative language; but the time is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figurative language, but I will tell you plainly about the Father.”

I explained that in this text, Jesus is specifically dealing with His apostles. He is describing what is going to happen after the Holy Spirit comes upon them. This was mentioned earlier in the chapter (verse 13). The Lord brought this event up a number of times in the previous couple of chapters (14:26; 15:26).

Did this happen to me? Yes and no. The promise was given directly to the apostles, but everyone after them (including me) benefited from the inspired message that they recorded. In Acts 2:1-4, the Holy Spirit came upon the apostles and then they spoke the word of God (verse 6). Everybody who has heard the gospel of Christ had heard this plain message about the Father described in John 16:25. But did this happen to me in a literal sense? No, I was not alive when Jesus gave this premonition, nor was I in the audience.

However, the message that the apostles spoke was not a mystery. Paul wrote: “How that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)” (Eph. 3:3-4).  The reveals that God’s message is plain and understandable by all, which is consistent with John 16:25.

Having said all of this, why did this man ask me the question in the first place? They are many who think mankind needs divine intervention today to help us understand the message given by the apostles (the Bible). This logic is weak – why would our Lord send the Holy Spirit to guide His disciples into all truth if everyone else would not be able to understand the message that the apostles would then be preaching?  

To help this gentleman rightly divide the word, we read I Corinthians 1:26-27. As Paul said, not many mighty, noble or wise according to the flesh would be called. Few of these people would respond to the gospel because they considered it beneath them.  Consider also these words of Jesus: “I thank you Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and have revealed them to babes,” (Matt. 11:25).

Knowing this, I then answered “yes” to the original question. I can plainly understand the heavenly message. I do not need the Holy Spirit to help me understand what the Holy Spirit revealed. Why? Because the message was revealed in a way that was already understandable to those who are looking for the truth. We already noted that the message is hidden to those unwilling to see it. It is not because they cannot see it – rather because they do not want to!

I finally asked the person if he could pick up serpents and not be harmed as Jesus stated in Mark 16:18. He said that verse was not meant for him. Even though I agreed, it caused me to wonder – why consider the context surrounding the Mark passage but not the John passage? For this man, the only rule is apparently “no rules”.

Chuck

Over the years, I have heard all kind of arguments to defend the use of instrumental music in worship. In the end it usually comes down to, “Well I like it, and I can’t see God not liking it.” For many, the passages that teach Christians to simply sing (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:17) fall on deaf ears. Perhaps it will help to draw a parallel to another invocation the early saints were guilty of doing.

In I Corinthians 11, the apostle Paul discussed how that local church decided to change the Lord’s Supper into a feast (verses 20-22). There is no question that the brethren were coming together as a church (verse 18). What does it matter if the congregation decided to make a feast out of the memorial of Christ’s death? These people enjoyed themselves by having their hunger pangs satisfied. God knows the heart, right? Why did Paul feel he was able to judge their actions? They would have needed to eat anyway – why is this a big deal? The Bible contains answers for all of these questions.

Paul made it clear that this was not what they did in the beginning (verse 23). Rather, this was something that evolved over time. Someone introduced this concept. This is our first parallel to instrumental music, which was  introduced into a variety of religious groups around 670 AD. In other words, it took approximately 650 years to introduce the instrument to the worship service. Keep in mind that these religious groups were not the church you read about in the Bible.

There are several other parallels between the abuse of the Lord’s Supper and instrumental music in worship. Consider these points as you weigh the scriptures:

1. Introducing a different form of worship divides the church (verse 18).
2. Even if you say you are coming together for the Lord, you may still be coming together for the worse (verse 17).
3. Even if you say you are coming together to take the Lord’s Supper, you may not actually take it (verse 20).
4. A person can do nonsinful activities like eating on their own time. It is not necessary to add these things to worship (verse 22).
5. If you think you are going to be praised an addition to worship, you would be wrong (verse 22).
6. This change was not harmless as they were despising the church by not respecting authority (verse 22).
7. It is incorrect to think that what I do in worship has no bearing on others (verse 21).
8. The apostle was correct to tell them they were in the wrong (verse 17).

A review of these points will show that every argument made against modifying the Lord’s supper can be made against instrumental music in worship. Personal opinions on the matter need to be subjected to God’s word. If you say to yourself, “I just don’t see the similarities between the abuse of the Lord’s Supper and the abuse of singing psalms and hymns and spiritual song”, then you have closed your mind.

                                                                                                Chuck

Where in the Bible does it teach the concept of “Pope”? The term cannot be found. If anything, you learn from the scriptures that no apostle was above any other (Matt. 20:20-28). As a matter of fact, we are told that the foundation we are to build our faiths upon is the apostles with Christ being the chief cornerstone (Eph. 2:20). Peter is not specifically listed or called out in any way!

Consider Peter for a moment. He was the one that Paul had to confront due to his hypocrisy (Gal. 2:11-13). I do not want to suggest that Peter was not forgiven – he was. After all, he even became an elder within a local church (I Pet. 5:1-4). When you read the qualifications of an elder (I Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:6-9), we know he was married and had children. This is consistent with what we learned about him early in Christ’s earthly ministry when Jesus healed Peter’s mother-in-law (Matt. 8:14).

Peter’s role as an elder raises another interesting fact. Local churches were to have multiple, qualified elders. There were to be elders in every church, not a singular elder (Acts 14:23). An apostle could become an elder, but being an apostle was not a prerequisite. Why is that important? This means that when Peter worked with other elders, he as not the “head” elder. Why not? Because elders are to shepherd the flock/church of which Jesus is the head (I Pet. 5:2-5).

The reason why the false concepts about Peter even rose up in the first place was due to a misunderstanding of Matthew 16:17-18. In this text, Jesus asked all of His apostles a question (verse 13). We are told “they” answered Him (verse 14). When Jesus asked “them” another question (verse 15), Peter spoke up and answered (verse 16).  Christ then said “upon this rock I will build My church” (verse 18). It was “upon” this confession of faith Christ was talking about – not Peter specifically! If another apostle spoke up first, would the church have been built upon him?  These lines of questioning illustrate the problems with the non-Biblical concept of “Pope.” This just goes to show that all children of God need to handle His word properly and avoid elevating men beyond their intended roles.

                                                                                             Chuck 

When was the last time you cried? You might have lost a loved one or been hurt by someone physically or mentally. Perhaps you wept because you felt bad for something you did. You may have cried because you felt all alone. Whatever the reason, everybody cries and should not be ashamed of their tears.

Our Lord Jesus Christ did not hold back His emotions when he saw others mourning the death of Lazarus. We are told that “Jesus wept,” (John 11:35). This was not a sign of weakness in Jesus – recall that Jesus would express His power shortly afterward by raising Lazarus from the dead. The fact that Jesus could raise Lazarus and yet still wept over his physical death shows that His heart was heavy.

Sometimes, life deals us things that seem impossible to deal with. Consider what Job went through. Pay particular attention to Job’s response after he lost much of possessions, his servants, his own children and his health. We are told about three friends that came to him. “And when they raised their eyes from afar, and did not recognize him, they lifted their voices and wept; and each one tore his robe and sprinkled dust on his head toward heaven. So they sat down with him on the ground seven days and seven nights, and no one spoke a word to him, for they saw that his grief was very great.” (Job. 2:12-13).

All children of God can learn from Job’s example. Here are several points to consider about grief and sorrow:

It is okay to grieve

The text said that Job’s grief was great. Considering his losses, we can all agree that it was justified. Recall how the Roman brethren were admonished to weep with those that weep (Rom. 12:15). It is impossible to know who to weep with if those who hurt are not mourning. We can conclude that it is NOT wrong for Christians to reveal their sorrow. The key to this is remembering that despite all that Job went through, “in all this Job did not sin with his lips,” (2:10). Grieving is clearly acceptable, yet grieving does not give us a right to sin.

It is okay to accept sympathy

Some might feel that showing grief will draw attention to themselves. There is no question that people will notice, but this is not a bad thing. Suffering in silence might appear to be the solution when in reality it can make things harder. When Job’s friends heard about his adversity, they came to be with him. Just as it is okay for a grieving person to weep, it is acceptable for others to weep with them. Christian brothers and sisters are always ready to bear one another’s burdens (Gal. 6:2).

It is okay to say nothing

Job’s friends came to be with him. Rather than immediately trying to cheer him, they sat and said absolutely nothing for seven days. If ever there is a time to be “slow to speak”, it has to be when someone is suffering (James 1:19). A dear friend of mine lost a teenage son. After that tragic event, he remarked to me, “Why do people feel like they have to say something all the time?” Folks, this speaks volumes. Never forget that your presence can mean a lot.

It is not okay to say the wrong thing

Our last point emphasized the need for quiet. This is not to say that we should never say anything to those that grieve. Job’s friends eventually spoke to him. They were pretty hard on Job though and said many things they should not have. In the end, the Lord told those three friends that what they said was not right (Job 42:7-8). We must take care to not make things worse when extending sympathies!

                                                                                                Chuck