The purpose of this work is to show how the Papacy was a gradual development from the New Testament form of church organization. Today, it is commonplace to see the Pontiff traveling throughout the world, and in most countries a Papal visit is a national event. However, the Papacy as we know it today has evolved over centuries and centuries and bears no resemblance to anything we read about in Scripture.

       The Catholic Church maintains that the Papal office can be found in the words of Jesus spoken to the apostle Peter in Matthew 16:18. They view the Pope in Rome, as a successor to Peter and is the supreme head of the church. Moreover, they teach that Keys to the Kingdom were given directly and personally to Peter alone.

Cardinal Gibbons asserts the primacy of Peter and his successors as follows: ‘Our Lord conferred on St. Peter the first place of honor and jurisdiction in government of His Holy Church, and that the same spiritual supremacy has always resided in the Popes, or Bishops of Rome, as being the successors of St. Peter.’ [1]

       Earle Cairns adds this historical insight:

The Petrine theory, based on such scriptures as Matthew 16:16-18; Luke 22:31-32, and John 21:15-17, was generally accepted by 590. According to this theory, Peter had been given “ecclesiastical primogeniture” over his fellow apostles, and his superior position had been passed on from him to his successors, the bishops of Rome, by apostolic succession. As early as about 250, Stephen I had appealed to these Scriptures. [2]

       However, in Scripture Peter does not refer to himself as a Pope but as an elder, in I Peter 5:1-4.

ELDERS-BISHOPS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

       Joseph Henry Thayer in his Greek-English Lexicon says that the term for elders among Christians referred to:

Those who presided over the assemblies (or churches): Acts 11:30; 14:23; 15:2, 4, 6, 22; 16:4; 21:18; I Timothy 5:17, 19; Titus 1:5; II John 1; III John 1; I Peter 5:1, 5. That they did not differ at all from the (episkopoi) bishops or overseers (as acknowledged by Jerome on Titus 1:5)…is evident from the fact that the two words are used indiscriminately, Acts 20:17, 28; Titus 1:5, 7. [3]

       Furthermore, the New Testament knows nothing of one human being to rule God’s church here on earth. Jesus chose 12 apostles – not just one. When each congregation was set in order in the New Testament times there were elders (bishops) selected for each congregation. (Acts 14:23) Paul addressed the bishops at Philippi – not just one bishop. (Philippians 1:1)

ELDERS-BISHOPS IN THE SECOND AND THIRD CENTURY

Didache:

Elect therefore for yourselves bishops and deacons who are worthy of the Lord, men who are meek, not lovers of money, true and tested. For they minister to you the service of the prophets and teachers. Do not look down on them, for they are your honored men along with the prophets and teachers. [4]

The terms bishop and elder appear to have been used interchangeably in early post-apostolic Christianity, even as they appear in the New Testament.

Polycarp:

Likewise the deacons are to be unblameable before his righteousness as servants of God and Christ and not men. They are not slanders, double tongued, not lovers of money, but self controlled in all things…Wherefore it is necessary that… you be subject to the elders and deacons as to God and Christ….And the elders are to be compassionate, showing mercy to all, turning back those who have strayed.[5]

       Elders are plural and Polycarp says nothing about a separate bishop.

The growth of the office of the monarchical bishop did not develop until the end of the second century.

       For example Ignatius said this in his letter to the Symyrneans:

Avoid the divisions, as the beginning of evil. Follow, all of you the bishop, as Jesus Christ followed the Father; and follow the presbytery as the apostles. Moreover, reverence the deacons as the commandment of God. Let no man do aught pertaining to the Church apart from the bishop. Let that Eucharist be considered valid which is under the bishop or him to whom he commits it. Wheresoever the bishop appears, there let the people be, even as wheresoever Christ Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful apart from the bishop either to baptize, or to hold a love feast. But whatsoever he approves, that also is well pleasing to God….[6]

       Ignatius makes a distinction between the bishop and the presbyters. The Ignatian pattern of one bishop and a plurality of elders and deacons spread through out the churches by the end of the second century.

LATER HIERARCHICAL DEVELOPMENTS

The bishop in the early church was considered one of many bishops who were equal to one another in rank, power, and function. Between 313 and 450 the Roman bishop came to be acknowledged as the first among equals. But, beginning with Leo I’s accession to the Episcopal throne in 440, the Roman bishop began to claim his supremacy over other bishops….The Bishop was also considered the guarantor of orthodox doctrine. [7]

       Later Boniface III was recognized as the first Universal Bishop of Rome in the year A.D. 606.

       The zenith of Papal power was exercised between 1054 and 1305. During this time some of the Popes even had authority over government rulers.  For example, Philip of France married Ingeborg of Denmark. However, when his bride came to France, he claimed she had been bewitched. He forced the French bishops to annul the marriage, and then later took a woman by the name of Agnes home as his wife. Pope Innocent III ordered Philip to put away Agnes and restore Ingeborg to be his lawful wife. When Philip refused to do so Innocent placed France under an interdict in 1200. This decision closed all churches, forbade the celebration of mass, the priests were not allowed to preach except out in open places. The uproar all over France forced Philip to submit to the Pope. 

BIBLICAL REBUTTAL TO THE PAPACY

Psalm 118:22

²² The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone;

Isaiah 8:14

¹⁴ and he will be a sanctuary; but for both houses of Israel he will be a stone that causes men to stumble

Isaiah 9:6

⁶ For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, ^[a] Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Isaiah 22:22

²² I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.

Isaiah 28:16

¹⁶ So this is what the Sovereign LORD says: “See, I lay a stone in Zion, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone for a sure foundation;  the one who trusts will never be dismayed.

       In Old Testament prophecy, the Stone, the Foundation, the Government, and the Keys refer to Christ and not to Peter. Furthermore, the New Testament “foundational prophecies” apply directly to Christ. (Matthew 21:42; Mark 12:10; Luke 20:17; Acts 4:11; Ephesians 2:20; I Corinthians 3: 10, 11; I Peter 2:4-10)

Moreover, in Matthew 16 the context is asking about the identity of Jesus and not the identity of Peter. (Matthew 16:13-20). When Jesus spoke of His church being built upon the rock, what was he referring to? If the building is to last it must be built upon something solid. There is only one person who provides such a foundation – Jesus the Christ the Son of the living God.

In fact, the doctrine that Christ had built his church upon Peter was prominently announced for the first time in the council of Chalcedon (451) with the famous words: ‘The twice blessed and all honored Peter who is the rock and basis of the Catholic Church and the foundation of the orthodox faith.’ But even in then these words were not used to urge a claim to any pre-eminence by the bishop of Rome. They were spoken to give force to the condemnation of Dioscoros who was the most unpopular man in the Episcopal assembly at Chalcedon. Before this time, most of the fathers referred the expression ‘upon this rock’ to Peter’s faith and confession: ‘Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.’ [8]

Finally Augustine, probably the greatest mind of the Catholic Church, writing in the fifth century, did not hold the position of present day Romanists as to Peter’s having primacy over others, and not at all as to transmitting to others any special authority. In fact, in his sermon on Matthew 16:18 he affirms that the church was not built on Peter but on Christ: ‘Simon he was called before: but his name of Peter was given him by the Lord and that in figure to signify the Church. For because Christ is the Rock (Petra), Peter (Petros) is the Christian people. For the Rock (Petra) is the principle word. Therefore Peter (Petros) is from Petra, not Petra from Petros; as Christ is not called from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. ‘Thou art therefore,’ said he, ‘Peter, and upon this Rock, which thou hast confessed, upon this Rock which thou has recognized, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, I will build my church. Upon me I will build thee, not me upon thee.’[9] 

       This should help our Catholic friends to see that Matthew 16:18 was not always interpreted as Peter being viewed as the rock foundation of the church, even among their own scholars.

       Furthermore, the qualifications of apostolic succession are clearly set forth in Acts 1:21, 22.

²¹Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, ²²beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”

       The conditions are:

1)     Witness of Jesus’ baptism.

2)     Witness to all Jesus teachings, miracles and demonstrations of his divinity

3)     Witness of the ascension

4)     Witness of Jesus’ resurrection

       No one could possibly qualify for these terms today. The apostolic ministry was unique in that it formed the foundation for the church not only in the first generation, but for all future generations (Ephesians 2:20). Once that foundation was laid there was no need for that office to continue in succeeding generations. Now local churches are overseen by a plurality of bishops within each local church.

Ephesians 4:11, 12

¹¹It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, ¹²to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up

       We have a complete list of ministers and servants as found in the early church; however, there isn’t a cardinal or a pope mentioned in the list.

Colossians 1:15-23

Christ as the head of the Church certainly precludes any other person of a lesser nature to occupy that place.

CONCLUSION

       The doctrine of the Papacy is a departure from what the scriptures teach. The apostles never believed that the church was built like a pyramid with Peter at the top. Instead they portrayed the church as a flock of sheep overseen by Christ as the Chief Shepherd.

       The leaders of the church are not to be masters or rulers but only stewards of the flock committed under their care. (Matthew 20:26, 27) The truth of the matter is the supremacy of the popes can in no way be derived from the humble apostle like Peter (Acts 10:26) but the result of tradition that had developed over many years. If we will read the Bible without prejudice we will find that Christ and not a Pope in Rome is the Chief Shepherd and Universal Head of the church here on earth.

[1] Aniceto M. Sparagna, Personal Evangelism Among Catholics (Joplin: College Press, 1955) 56.

[2] Earle E. Cairns, Christianity through the Ages (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996) 151.

[3] Joseph Henry Thayer, Thayer’s Greek English Lexicon (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976) 536.

[4] Everett Ferguson, Early Christians Speak (Abilene: Biblical Research Press, 1981) 167.

[5] Ferguson, 168.

[6] J. Stevenson, A New Eusebius (Southhampton: The Camelot Press Ltd., 1957) 48.

[7] Cairns, 150.

[8] Sparagna, 67.

[9] Sparagna, 68.

The concept of the Kingdom is a very important biblical topic. The idea is first introduced in the Old Testament and then continues in the New Testament.

 THE TERM DEFINED 

            The New Testament word is Basileia which is defined by W. E. Vine as:

Primarily an abstract noun denoting sovereignty, royal power dominion… then by metononmy, a concrete noun denoting the territory or people over whom a king rules.[1]

      Nat Cooper makes this point in the use of the word in the bible.

In scripture the abstract concept of the term kingdom is used the most. It is rule rather than realm. Hence, His Kingdom is His rule or reign. God’s priests and holy nation (Exodus 19:5-6; I Peter 2:5-9) became a manifestation of His sovereignty made visible in His people (Israel in the Old Testament – the church in the New Testament). [2]

THE KINGDOM IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

God is regarded as sitting upon a throne (Psalm 103:19a; Ezekiel 1:26-28) where he is surrounded by the heavenly host who serve Him (I Kings 22:19) and from where he watches over the whole earth (Psalm 33:13f.). In the praise offered to Him by Israel He was regarded as the King of the whole world (I Chronicles 29:11; Psalm103:19b) and of all the kingdoms of men (2 Kings 19:15; Psalm 47:2, 7). He is the eternal King (Psalm 145:13; Daniel 4:3, 4), both from everlasting (Psalm 74:12; 93:2) and to everlasting (Exodus 15:18). His right to be King rests upon the fact that He is the Creator of the heaven and the earth (Psalm 95:3-5). His kingly rule is displayed in His present jurisdiction over the nations of the world (Psalm 22:28; Jeremiah 46:18; 48:15; 51:57) and in His appointment of their rulers (Daniel 2:37; 4:17; 5:21).  [3]

      Furthermore, the Kingdom in Old Testament theology would refer to the Israelites as a nation of people. God ruled more than Israel, but had a special kingdom relationship Israel. For example, in Exodus 19:5-6 we read.

⁵ Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, ⁶ you ^[a] will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites.”

The concept of the kingdom then is not about territory but ruler ship. Unfortunately many of them did not realize that God wanted to rule the hearts of the people. No doubt this is why Jesus will sternly say to some of the Jews of his day:

The kingdom of God shall be taken away from you and given to people who will produce its fruit. (Matthew 21:43)

Each man finds something that he personally appropriates. That shows us that you can be under the dominion of God and not a member of the kingdom. Everyone in the universe is under God’s rule, because He is the Sovereign of the universe. Those who are on the earth are, in a sense, in the kingdom. But many on those on earth are not subjects of the King. [4]

      Therefore, the way to be the true people of God is to acknowledge God’s rule. The kingdom of God must be personally appropriated. So in a sense God has always had a kingdom within a kingdom.

      However, there are prophecies in the Old Testament that refer to the kingdom being established in the future, like in Daniel 2:30-45.

Daniel was summoned to interpret the vision and he said unto Nebuchadnezzar, “thou art the head of gold.” (2:38) Daniel then said, “And after thee shall arise ANOTHER KINGDOM inferior to thee; and another THIRD KINGDOM of brass, which shall bear rule over the earth.” (2:39)

After these another FOURTH KINGDOM would rise. (2:40) The first kingdom, as Daniel says, was the Babylonian kingdom. History tells us that the second world power after Babylon was the Medo-Persian kingdom. (5:28) Again, history confirms that the third world power after the Medes and Persians was the Grecian kingdom of Alexander the Great. After the Greeks came the great Roman kingdom which subdued all other kingdoms of the world. In verse 44, Daniel says, “And in the days of those kings (the Roman kings) shall the God of heaven set up a KINGDOM which shall never be destroyed, nor shall sovereignty thereof be left to another people; but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and IT SHALL STAND FOREVER”.[5]

THE KINGDOM IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

      It was during the days of the Roman Kings that John the Baptist said, “Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matthew 3:2) It was also during the days of the Romans kings that Jesus came preaching, “The kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matthew 4:17; 10:7). “The time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is at hand.” (Mark 1:15)

When Jesus declared ‘The time is fulfilled,’ he was saying that it was time for all God had said and done in Israel’s history to be brought to competition. The universal reign of God was about to be manifested in a new and special way. The hopes expressed in the Old Testament prophets were ready to be realized. [6]

      It is clear that in several references the kingdom refers to the church. Therefore, in one sense the kingdom prophecies of the Old Testament were fulfilled when the church was established on the day of Pentecost, because after the day of Pentecost in Acts 2 the Bible speaks of the Kingdom as being in existence. (Revelation 1:9; Colossians 1:13; I Thessalonians 2:12)

The prophets closed with the promises of the Messiah’s coming. The Gospels close with the Messiah promising that the kingdom of God had just about arrived. The book of Acts (chapter 1 excepted) tells the story of a kingdom arrived.[7]

There is a difference between the relationships designated by the terms Kingdom and Church. The kingdom refers to the relationship Christians have with God. It’s the rule or dominion of Christ in one’s heart. The church refers to the relationship Christians have with one another. These are two different terms, yet they refer to the same group of people just as father and husband are two different terms which refer to two different relationships, yet refer to the same man. These terms are not the same, they are inseparable.[8]

      These terms are applied to the same group of people but define different aspects of the body. Kingdom refers to the “governing aspect” of God’s people and church refers to them as a “called out body” of people separate from the world. The church is a monarchy with Christ as King with all authority. (Matthew 28:18; I Timothy 6:15) Only those born again, born of water and the Spirit, can enter the kingdom. (John 3:3-5) This means they must be baptized according to Christ’s will and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38)

      Matthew uses the term kingdom of heaven thirty times. Mark uses kingdom of God sixteen times. Luke uses the phrase kingdom of God thirty two times. By cross referencing parallel accounts in the synoptics, the expressions kingdom of heaven and Kingdom of God are synonymous. (Matthew 19:23; Mark 10:23; Luke 18:24) By looking at these parallel accounts it is clear that the two expressions are interchangeable. In fact in Matthew 19:23 Matthew uses the phrase kingdom of heaven, and then in verse 24 he uses the phrase kingdom of God.

      Nonetheless, the idea of God wanting to rule the hearts of the people in the Old Testament is also found in the New Testament. It is still appropriate to pray, like Jesus first taught his disciples to pray, for the kingdom or the ruler ship of God to come into this world. (Matthew 6:10) However, by this I am not talking about the “millennial kingdom” but God’s reign in the hearts of men and women.

      Jesus emphasized the internal aspect of His kingdom in Luke 17:20, 21.

When Jesus said (Luke 17:20, 21) that the kingdom doesn’t come with observation – that the kingdom of God is ‘within’ he wasn’t denying external things, he was emphasizing internal things. These people thought of the kingdom only in terms of victory, triumph, over enemies not knowing that the central thrust of God’s rule was to produce victory within.[9]

      In Matthew 18:3 Jesus says that one cannot enter the kingdom unless one has a child-like spirit. In Matthew 18:23 one cannot enter unless he or she has a forgiving spirit. In Matthew 25:31-46 one cannot enter it unless he or she cares for their fellowman. We should desire for God to take full control of our own personal lives. (Matthew 6:33)

THE KINGDOM IN HEAVEN

      Christians have a dual citizenship. Under the flags of worldly governments we are to be citizens living exemplary lives in our communities, but there is a more valuable citizenship which is in heaven. (Philippians 3:20, 21). Those who do the will of the Father will inherit the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 7:21) Christ now reigns in heaven. (Acts 2:30-36) Ultimately he will translate all of his subjects to the heavenly kingdom. (Matthew 25:1-13)

[1] W.E. Vine, Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Mclean: Macdonald Publishing Company) 634.

[2] Nat Cooper, The Life of Christ (Lubbock: Sunset School of Preaching Extension Study Guide, 1983) 18.

[3] I. H. Marshal, The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible Volume Three (Grand Rapids: Zondervan publishing House, 1977) 801.

[4] John MacArthur, The Parables of the Kingdom (Chicago: Moody Press, 1985) 105.

[5] Roger Dickson, Millennial Mistake (Shreveport: Lambert Book House, Inc, 1976) 71.

[6] Everett Ferguson, The Church of Christ (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1996) 23.

[7] Jim McGuiggan, The Reign of God (Lubbock: Montex Publishing Company, 1979) 79.

[8] Wayne Kilpatrick, Church History (Florence: Heritage Christian University) 2-1.

[9] McGuiggan, 67.

WORSHIP IN THE EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH

Worship in the New Testament embraced both attitude and form. Jesus spoke of worship in this way in John 4:24:

²⁴God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit d in truth.”

Worship must not be robbed of its emotional content or made void of feelings. However, it must also be based upon the truth of God’s word. True worship is not based upon doing things the way we like, or the way that most people like it. We have to look through scripture to find the God affirmed acts or items of praise and devotion to God.

Worship is not a spectator sport in which the worshipers sit in the stands giving their approval or disapproval to those performing in the arena. In true worship, the worshippers are involved in the action. Worship is not a dramatic production in which the ‘clergy’ are the actors and the worshippers are the audience. In true worship, God is the audience, and the worshipers are the actors.[1]

Earle Cairns has this to say about the corporate worship of the early church.

During the first century, two services were held on the first day of the week. That day was adopted as the day of worship because it was the day on which Christ rose from the dead (Acts 20:7; I Cor. 16:2; Rev. 1:10). The morning service most likely included the reading of Scripture (Col. 3:16), exhortation…, prayers, and singing (Eph 5:19). The love feast (I Cor. 11:20-22), or agape preceded the Communion during the evening service, By the end of the first century the love feast was generally dropped and the Communion celebrated during the morning service of worship. [2]

It is also interesting to look at what we know about worship during the second and third Centuries.

WHERE CHRISTIANS MET

The early Christians did not think of a church as a place of worship. A church signified a body of believers who were called out of the world and into a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. They met in homes (Acts 12:12; Romans 16:5 Colossians 4:15; Philemon 1-4), the Temple (Acts 5:13), public auditoriums (Acts 19:9), and synagogue as long as they were permitted to do so (Acts 14:1, 3; 17:1; 18:4). Everett Ferguson said:

Not until the age of Constantine do we find specifically constructed buildings. Any space where an assembly was permitted was a possible site for Christian gatherings. [3]

CHRISTIAN ASSEMBLIES

Between A.D. 110 and 113 the Roman Emperor Trajan received a series of letters from Pliny, the governor of Bithynia. Pliny was concerned about what he considered a cult who met secretly within his governmental domain. His letters give some ideas about the types of things Christians practiced in their assembly in the early second century.

….It was their habit on a fixed day to assemble before daylight and recite by turns a form of words to Christ as a god; and that they bound themselves with an oath, not for any crime, but not to commit theft or robbery or adultery,

not to break their word, and not to deny a deposit when demanded. After this was done, their custom was to depart, and to meet again to take food, but ordinary and harmless food; and even this (they said) they had given up doing after the issue of my edict, by which in accordance with your commands I had my edict, by which in accordance with your commands I had forbidden the existence of clubs. [4]

Clement of Alexandria (150-220 A.D.)

Always giving thanks in all things to God through righteous hearing and divine reading, true inquiry, holy oblation, blessed prayer, praising, hymning, blessing, singing, such a soul is never separated from God at any time. [5]

THE DAY OF CHRISTIAN WORSHIP

Ignatius (born about 50 A.D.)

If therefore those who lived according to the old practices came to the new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath but living according to the Lord’s day, in which also our life arose through him and his death (which some deny), through which mystery we received faith, and on account of which we suffer in order that we may be found disciples of Jesus Christ our only teacher, how shall we be able to live apart from him for whom even the prophets were looking as their teacher since we are disciples in the spirit (Magnesians 9) [6]

The Epistle of Barnabus. This could be the oldest uninspired Christian writing (69-79 A.D.). He was antagonistic towards the Judaizers, and worked to harmonize the Old and New Testaments.

Moreover God says to the Jews, ‘Your new moons and Sabbaths I cannot endure.’ You see how he says, ‘The present Sabbaths are not acceptable to me, but the Sabbath which I have made in which I rested from all things, I will make the beginning of the eight day which is the beginning of another world.’ Wherefore, we (Christians) keep the eight day for joy, on which also Jesus arose from the dead and when he appeared  ascended into heaven. [7]

THE LORD’S SUPPER

The roots of the Lord’s Supper are deeply intertwined in the Passover Meal which God instituted shortly before the Israelites escaped Egyptian bondage. Jesus did share many meals with his disciples but the Passover meal he shared with them the night he was arrested was special. (Matthew 26:17-30; Mark 14:12-26; Luke 22:1-21). Jesus gave it an all new meaning. However, our knowledge of exactly how the Lord’s Supper was celebrated in the first century is limited.

In the mid second century, sometime between A.D. 140 and 155 Justin Martyr wrote his Apology to the Emperor Antionius Pius. This philosopher, teacher, apologist informed the emperor of this account of the meal:

Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he, taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at his hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen is the Hebrew for ‘so be it’. And when the President has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those of us who are called deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and the wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion. [8]

The Didache was a church manual used by the early church that some have dated between (110-120 A.D.)

Concerning the eucharist, give thanks in this way: First concerning the cup, ‘We give thanks to you, our Father, for the holy vine of David, your servant, which you made known to us through Jesus your servant. To you be the glory forever.’ Concerning the broken bread, ‘We give thanks to you, our Father, for the life and knowledge which you made known to us through Jesus your servant. To you be the glory forever. As this broken bread scattered upon the mountains and being gathered together became one loaf, so may your church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into your kingdom. Because the glory and the power are yours through Jesus Christ forever.’ No one is to eat or drink of your eucharist except those who have been baptized in the name of the Lord. [9]

SCRIPTURE READING IN WORSHIP

The first Christians were Jews. It should not be surprising that they would bring to their new faith and worship the custom of reading from Scripture. Paul wrote to Timothy, (I Timothy 4:13)

¹³Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching.

Later in the second century Justin Martyr wrote,

The memoirs of the Apostles or the writings of the prophets are read as long as time permits (1^st Apology67) [10]

CONCLUSION

The location of worship is not what is important. Worship takes place inside us. Our attitudes and emotions must blend with the God ordained items or acts of devotion. The Christians of the second and third centuries continued the external forms of worship that began in the first century by Jesus and his apostles.

We need to continue to worship God in spirit and truth today!

[1] Jimmy Jividen, More Than A Feeling Worship That Pleases God (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1999) 76.

[2] Earle E. Cairns, Christianity Through The Centuries (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996) 84.

[3] Everett Ferguson, Early Christians Speak (Abilene: Biblical Research Press, 1981) 76.

[4] J. Stevenson, A New Eusebius (Southampton: The Camelot Press Ltd., 1983) 14.

[5] Ferguson, 82.

[6] Ferguson, 67

[7] Ferguson, 67

[8] J.G. Davies, The Early Christian Church (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985) 104.

[9] Ferguson, 93.

[10] Dan Dozier, Come Let Us Adore Him (Joplin: College Press Publishing Company, 1996) 196.

Worship in the New Testament embraced both attitude and form. Jesus spoke of worship in this way in John 4:24:

²⁴God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit d in truth.”

Worship must not be robbed of its emotional content or made void of feelings. However, it must also be based upon the truth of God’s word. True worship is not based upon doing things the way we like, or the way that most people like it. We have to look through scripture to find the God affirmed acts or items of praise and devotion to God.

Worship is not a spectator sport in which the worshipers sit in the stands giving their approval or disapproval to those performing in the arena. In true worship, the worshippers are involved in the action. Worship is not a dramatic production in which the ‘clergy’ are the actors and the worshippers are the audience. In true worship, God is the audience, and the worshipers are the actors.[1]

Earle Cairns has this to say about the corporate worship of the early church.

During the first century, two services were held on the first day of the week. That day was adopted as the day of worship because it was the day on which Christ rose from the dead (Acts 20:7; I Cor. 16:2; Rev. 1:10). The morning service most likely included the reading of Scripture (Col. 3:16), exhortation…, prayers, and singing (Eph 5:19). The love feast (I Cor. 11:20-22), or agape preceded the Communion during the evening service, By the end of the first century the love feast was generally dropped and the Communion celebrated during the morning service of worship. [2]

It is also interesting to look at what we know about worship during the second and third Centuries.

WHERE CHRISTIANS MET

The early Christians did not think of a church as a place of worship. A church signified a body of believers who were called out of the world and into a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. They met in homes (Acts 12:12; Romans 16:5 Colossians 4:15; Philemon 1-4), the Temple (Acts 5:13), public auditoriums (Acts 19:9), and synagogue as long as they were permitted to do so (Acts 14:1, 3; 17:1; 18:4). Everett Ferguson said:

Not until the age of Constantine do we find specifically constructed buildings. Any space where an assembly was permitted was a possible site for Christian gatherings. [3]

CHRISTIAN ASSEMBLIES

Between A.D. 110 and 113 the Roman Emperor Trajan received a series of letters from Pliny, the governor of Bithynia. Pliny was concerned about what he considered a cult who met secretly within his governmental domain. His letters give some ideas about the types of things Christians practiced in their assembly in the early second century.

….It was their habit on a fixed day to assemble before daylight and recite by turns a form of words to Christ as a god; and that they bound themselves with an oath, not for any crime, but not to commit theft or robbery or adultery,

not to break their word, and not to deny a deposit when demanded. After this was done, their custom was to depart, and to meet again to take food, but ordinary and harmless food; and even this (they said) they had given up doing after the issue of my edict, by which in accordance with your commands I had my edict, by which in accordance with your commands I had forbidden the existence of clubs. [4]

Clement of Alexandria (150-220 A.D.)

Always giving thanks in all things to God through righteous hearing and divine reading, true inquiry, holy oblation, blessed prayer, praising, hymning, blessing, singing, such a soul is never separated from God at any time. [5]

THE DAY OF CHRISTIAN WORSHIP

Ignatius (born about 50 A.D.)

If therefore those who lived according to the old practices came to the new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath but living according to the Lord’s day, in which also our life arose through him and his death (which some deny), through which mystery we received faith, and on account of which we suffer in order that we may be found disciples of Jesus Christ our only teacher, how shall we be able to live apart from him for whom even the prophets were looking as their teacher since we are disciples in the spirit (Magnesians 9) [6]

The Epistle of Barnabus. This could be the oldest uninspired Christian writing (69-79 A.D.). He was antagonistic towards the Judaizers, and worked to harmonize the Old and New Testaments.

Moreover God says to the Jews, ‘Your new moons and Sabbaths I cannot endure.’ You see how he says, ‘The present Sabbaths are not acceptable to me, but the Sabbath which I have made in which I rested from all things, I will make the beginning of the eight day which is the beginning of another world.’ Wherefore, we (Christians) keep the eight day for joy, on which also Jesus arose from the dead and when he appeared  ascended into heaven. [7]

THE LORD’S SUPPER

The roots of the Lord’s Supper are deeply intertwined in the Passover Meal which God instituted shortly before the Israelites escaped Egyptian bondage. Jesus did share many meals with his disciples but the Passover meal he shared with them the night he was arrested was special. (Matthew 26:17-30; Mark 14:12-26; Luke 22:1-21). Jesus gave it an all new meaning. However, our knowledge of exactly how the Lord’s Supper was celebrated in the first century is limited.

In the mid second century, sometime between A.D. 140 and 155 Justin Martyr wrote his Apology to the Emperor Antionius Pius. This philosopher, teacher, apologist informed the emperor of this account of the meal:

Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he, taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at his hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen is the Hebrew for ‘so be it’. And when the President has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those of us who are called deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and the wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion. [8]

The Didache was a church manual used by the early church that some have dated between (110-120 A.D.)

Concerning the eucharist, give thanks in this way: First concerning the cup, ‘We give thanks to you, our Father, for the holy vine of David, your servant, which you made known to us through Jesus your servant. To you be the glory forever.’ Concerning the broken bread, ‘We give thanks to you, our Father, for the life and knowledge which you made known to us through Jesus your servant. To you be the glory forever. As this broken bread scattered upon the mountains and being gathered together became one loaf, so may your church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into your kingdom. Because the glory and the power are yours through Jesus Christ forever.’ No one is to eat or drink of your eucharist except those who have been baptized in the name of the Lord. [9]

SCRIPTURE READING IN WORSHIP

The first Christians were Jews. It should not be surprising that they would bring to their new faith and worship the custom of reading from Scripture. Paul wrote to Timothy, (I Timothy 4:13)

¹³Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching.

Later in the second century Justin Martyr wrote,

The memoirs of the Apostles or the writings of the prophets are read as long as time permits (1^st Apology67) [10]

CONCLUSION

The location of worship is not what is important. Worship takes place inside us. Our attitudes and emotions must blend with the God ordained items or acts of devotion. The Christians of the second and third centuries continued the external forms of worship that began in the first century by Jesus and his apostles.

We need to continue to worship God in spirit and truth today!

[1] Jimmy Jividen, More Than A Feeling Worship That Pleases God (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1999) 76.

[2] Earle E. Cairns, Christianity Through The Centuries (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996) 84.

[3] Everett Ferguson, Early Christians Speak (Abilene: Biblical Research Press, 1981) 76.

[4] J. Stevenson, A New Eusebius (Southampton: The Camelot Press Ltd., 1983) 14.

[5] Ferguson, 82.

[6] Ferguson, 67

[7] Ferguson, 67

[8] J.G. Davies, The Early Christian Church (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985) 104.

[9] Ferguson, 93.

[10] Dan Dozier, Come Let Us Adore Him (Joplin: College Press Publishing Company, 1996) 196.

I. HISTORY AND DEFINITION OF THE WORD APOCRYPHA

The word Apocrypha as used in this paper refers to a small group of ancient writings whose status has long been subject to debate and controversy. In Classical Greek the word Apocrypha was used to describe something “hidden away”. The early church writers like Jerome and Irenaeus used the word to describe noncannical books, including the Pseudepigrapha (false writings). However, since the Reformation, the word has come to mean the Old Testament Apocrypha.The Apocrypha is the collection of Jewish writings included in the Septuagint and in the Latin Vulgate, but are not found in the Hebrew Old Testament canon. The contents of the Septuagint and the Vulgate differ slightly. Some Septuagint manuscripts include III-IV Maccabees and Psalm 151, which are never found in the Vulgate. A psalm that is said by some to have been composed by David after he defeated Goliath.

In Roman Catholic Bibles these books are interspersed among other canonical Old Testament books. The Basic list for the Apocrypha includes the following:

1. The First Book of Esdras
2. The Second book of Esdras
3. Tobit
4. Judith
5. The Additions to the Book of Esther
6. The Wisdom of Solomon
7. Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach
8. Baruch
9. The Letter of Jeremiah
10. The Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Young Men
11. Susanna
12. Bel and the Dragon
13. The Prayer of Manasseh
14. The First book of Maccabees
15. The Second book of Maccabees

Only eleven of these fourteen or fifteen books are accepted as canonical by the Roman Catholic Church, which includes all but I and II Esdras (which are called III and IV Esdras) and the Prayer of Manasseh. However, according to the numbering of books in the Douay Old Testament, only seven additional books are indicated, making forty-six. The reason for this is that Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah were combined into one book, having six chapters; the additions to Esther were added at the end of the book of Esther; the Prayer of Azariah was inserted between the Hebrew Daniel 3:23 and 24, making it Daniel 3:24-90 in the Douay Version; Susanna was placed at the end of the book of Daniel (chap. 13); and Bel and the Dragon was attached as chapter 14 of Daniel. Because three of the fifteen books were rejected, the remaining twelve books were incorporated into eleven, since four of these books were incorporated into eleven, and since four of these books were added to the existing Old Testament books, only seven extra books appear in the Douay Old Testament table of contents. Nonetheless, the Roman Catholic Church has actually added eleven (twelve if Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah are separated) pieces of Apocryphal literature to the Hebrew canon, in contrast to the Protestants who followed the Hebrew canon.1

II. A SUMMARY OF THE INDIVIDUAL BOOKS OF THE APOCRYPHA

I Esdras (about 150 BC) is the Greek form of Ezra. It tells of the restoration of the Jews to Palestine after the Babylonian exile. It draws material from Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah, but the author adds a lot of legendary material.
II Esdras (AD 100) is an apocalyptic work, containing visions given to Ezra. It is also called the Apocalypse of Ezra. It contains seven visions. It is also said, that Martin Luther was so confused by these visions that he threw the book into the Elbe River.

Tobit (early 2nd century BC) is a short novel. It emphasizes the Law, clean foods, ceremonial washings, fasting and prayer. It is clearly unscriptural in its statement that alms giving atones for sin. It contains a romance of a rich young Israelite captive of Ninevah, who was led by an angel to marry a virgin widow who had lost seven husbands.
Judith (about the middle of 2nd century BC) The heroine of the novel is Judith, a beautiful widow. She offered some food to an attacking general. He was so enamored by her beauty that he gave her a place in his tent. Judith took his sword and cut off his head, and thus saved her city.

Additions to Esther (about 100 BC) the additions have long prayers attributed to Esther and Mordecai, along with a couple of letters supposedly written by Artaxerxes.
The Wisdom of Solomon (about 180 BC) was written to keep the Jews from falling into skepticism, materialism, and idolatry. It is very similar to parts of Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes. An Alexandrian Jew who impersonated as Solomon wrote it. A Platonic concept of the preexistence of the soul was upheld by the author of this book.
Ecclesiastes, or Wisdom of Jesus, son of Sirach (about 180 BC) shows a high level of religious wisdom. John Wesley quotes from this Apocrypha book several times in his sermons. And it is widely used in the Anglican Church. It extols a long list of Old Testament heroes. The characteristic themes of Proverbs were expounded and illustrated with examples from the experience of the author.

Baruch (about AD 100) supposedly was the scribe of Jeremiah. The book urges the Jews not to revolt again, but to be in submission to the emperor. It consists mostly of paraphrases from Jeremiah, Daniel, and other Prophets.

Susanna. She was the beautiful wife of a leading Jew in Babylon. Two elders became enamored with her, while she was bathing, and tried to seduce her. When she cried out, the two elders said they had found her in the arms of a young man. She was brought to trial. Since there were two witnesses who agreed in their testimony, she was convicted and sentenced to death. Daniel interrupted the proceedings and began to cross-examine the witnesses. When they gave different answers they were put to death and Susanna was saved.

Bel and the dragon was to show the folly of idolatry. However, the stories are viewed simply as fiction. It contains stories that are embellishments of the canonical book of Daniel.
Song of the Three Hebrew children follows Daniel 3:23 in the Septuagint and the Vulgate. It borrows heavily from Psalms 148. It is supposedly a prayer while in the fiery furnace, and their triumphal song of praise for deliverance. The Apocryphal works usually attempt to supply information that is missing in the canonical books. For example, the bible does not tell what the young Hebrew children were doing in the fiery furnace.

Prayer of Manasseh (2nd century BC) supposedly a prayer of Manasseh, the wicked King of Judah, which is spoken of in II Chronicles 33:12-13.
I Maccabees (1st century BC) is perhaps the most valuable book in the Apocrypha. Along with Josephus it is the most important source of history of the intertestimental period, relating events of the Jews’ heroic struggle for liberty (175-135 BC).II Maccabees (same time) is not a sequel to I Maccabees, but a parallel account. It is generally thought to be more legendary than I Maccabees. It confesses to be an abridgement of a work written by a certain Jason of Cyrene.

There is another group of religious writings produced by the Jewish people between the Testaments. They have never been accepted by any Christian group, not even the Roman Catholic Church. They are called the Pseudepigrapha; this word means “false writings”. One work of the Pseudepigrapha, the Book of Enoch. Is quoted in Jude 14,15.2
Some describe this book as an Apocryphal book while others put it into the category of Pseudepigrapha. But I mention it here because it is one of the books written during the intertestimental period, and because it quoted by Jude.

III. THE APOCRYPHA IN JUDAISM

All of the books of the Apocrypha were written by Jewish authors whose names, with the exception of Jesus the son of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus 50:27), are unknown. (II Maccabees is the summary of a five-volume history of Jason of Cyrene).

The books of the Apocrypha (except I-II Esdras) were written presumably during the last two centuries BC.

The Apocryphal books represent several types of writing; there are pieces of fiction, legends and ancient folklore, wisdom books and historical books.

These documents can be studied to learn about religion, political, and social conditions of the Jews at the end of the Old Testament period.

The Jews in the early Christian centuries had two translations of the Bible. There was the Hebrew Bible, which did not include the Apocrypha. This was called the Palestinian Canon (containing twenty two books in Hebrew. These are the same as the thirty-nine books found in most English Bibles today). This Bible was circulated around Palestine and Babylon. And there was the Greek Version (LXX) used by the Greek speaking Jews everywhere, which included the Apocrypha. This was called the Alexandrian Canon. This Greek translation of the Hebrews Scripture occurred about 250 BC.

Some of the apocryphal books may have originally been written in Hebrew but there were only known to exist in their Greek versions – one of the reasons the rabbis rejected them as part of Hebrew Scripture.3

IV. REASONS FOR ACCEPTING ALEXANDRIAN CANON

1. The New Testament reflects the thought of the Apocrypha, and even refers to it (cf. Heb. 11:35 with II Macc.7,12).
2. The New Testament quotes mostly from the Greek Old Testament (LXX), which contained the Apocrypha.
3. Some of the early Church Fathers quoted and used the Apocrypha as scripture in public worship.
4. Many of the Fathers accepted all of the books of the Apocrypha as canonical, for example, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria.
5. Catacomb scenes depict episodes from the Apocrypha.
6. The great Greek manuscripts (Aleph, A, and B) interpose the Apocrypha among the Old Testament books,
7. The Syriac Church accepted them in the fourth century.
8. Augustine and the councils he presided over at Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) accepted them.
9. The Greek Church accepts them.
10. The Roman Catholic Church proclaimed them canonical at the Council of Trent (1546).
11. The Apocryphal books continued in the Protestant Bibles as late as the nineteenth century.
12. Some Apocryphal books written in Hebrew have been found among other Old Testament canonical books in the Dead Sea community at Qumran.4

V. REASONS FOR REJECTING ALEXANDRIAN CANON

1. There may be New Testament allusions to the Apocrypha, although few are indisputable, but there are no clear New Testament quotations from it. In any event, the New Testament never refers to any of the fourteen Apocryphal books as authoritative or canonical.
2. It has not been proven that the Greek Old Testament (LXX) of the first century contained the Apocrypha. The earliest Greek manuscripts which include them date from the fourth century AD. In addition to this, if they were in the LXX of apostolic time, Jesus and the apostles implied their view of them by never quoting them, although they are supposed to have been included in the very version of the Old Testament that they quoted.
3. While some individuals in the early church had a high esteem for the Apocrypha, no council of the entire church during the first four centuries favored them, and there were many individuals who vehemently opposed them, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Origen, Jerome.
4. Scenes form the catacombs do not prove the Canonicity of the books whose events they depict. Such scenes at best could only prove the belief of those Christians in the historicity of the events portrayed.
5. The fact that the Apocrypha books were a part of the Greek manuscripts in the fourth century AD does not prove that they were considered canonical by the apostolic church.
6. The Syrian Church did not accept these books until the fourth century AD. In the second century AD the Syrian Bible (Peshitta) did not contain the Apocrypha.
7. Augustine is the single significant voice of antiquity that recognized the Apocrypha. But, even in his case several things should be noted; He omits Baruch and includes I Esdras, thus accepting one and rejecting the other in contrast to the Council of Trent; other writings of Augustine indicate that he held to a “secondary Canonicity” for the Hebrew canon; the councils at Hippo and Carthage were small, local councils dominated by Augustine and had no qualified persons present to judge the issue of Canonicity. Augustine, not a trained Hebrew scholar, led early opposition to Jerome’s use of the Hebrew Old Testament for his Latin Vulgate. Later, however, he recognized that the Septuagint was not inspired, and reverted to the authority of the Hebrew Scriptures.
8. The Greek Church has not always accepted the Apocrypha, nor is its present position unequivocal. Not until the synods of Constantinople (1638), Jaffa (1642), and Jerusalem (1672) were these books declared canonical. And, even as late as 1839, their larger Catechism expressly omitted the Apocrypha on the grounds that “they do not exist in the Hebrew.”
9. The Council of Trent was the first official proclamation of the Roman Catholic Church on the Apocrypha, and it came a millennium and a half after the books were written, in an obvious polemical action against Protestantism. Furthermore, the addition of books that support “salvation by works” and “prayer for the dead” at this time (1546), only 29 years after Luther posted his Ninety-five Theses, is highly suspect.
10. Apocryphal books appeared in Protestant bibles prior to the Council of Trent, and were generally placed in a separate section as they were not considered to be of equal authority. Even Roman Catholic scholars through the Reformation period made the distinction between the Apocrypha and the canon. Cardinal Ximenes made this distinction in his Complutensian Polyglot (1514-17) on the eve of the Reformation. Cardinal Cajetan, who opposed Luther at Augsburg in 1518, published a Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament that did not include the Apocrypha in AD 1532. Luther spoke against the Apocrypha in his bible published in 1543 by placing its books at the back.
11. The discoveries at Qumran included not only the community’s Bibles but their library with fragments of hundreds of books. Among these were some of the Old Testament Apocryphal books. While the argument from silence is in itself generally a weak one, it may be said that as far as the present evidence goes, the fact that no commentaries on the noncanonical books have been discovered tends to support the contention that the Apocryphal books were not viewed as canonical by the Qumran community.5

VI. REASONS FOR ACCEPTING THE PALESTINIAN CANON
(ONLY THE THIRTY-NINE BOOKS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT)

1. Some of the additional books have teaching which is unbiblical or heretical. Two of the main doctrines in dispute during the reformation are supported by the Apocrypha: “prayers for the dead” (II Macc. 12:45,46) and “salvation by works” (Tobit 12:9). The canonical books of the Bible are against praying for the dead (Heb 9:27; Luke 16:25-26; II Sam.12:19). They are also strongly against salvation by works (Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4:5; Gal. 3:11).
2. Some of the Apocryphal stories are extrabiblical and fanciful. The story of Bel and the Dragon is a good case in point. In it, the pagan priest of Bel try to deceive Daniel by using a trapdoor to go in and consume the food offered to Bel to prove that Bel is a “living God” who “eats and drinks every day” (v. 6). So, in order to assist the “living God,” Bel, “in the night the priest came with their wives and children, as they were accustomed to do, and ate and drank everything” (v. 15). The same unauthentic ring may be heard in the legendary books of Additions to Esther, Prayer of Azariah, and Susanna, as well as Tobit and Judith.
3. Much of the teaching of the Apocrypha is subbiblical and, at times, even immoral. Judith was assisted by God in a deed of falsehood (Judith 9:10,13), while both Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom teach a morality based upon expedience. Besides this low morality, the subbiblical nature of the Apocrypha can be seen in its historical and chronological errors. It is claimed that Tobit was alive when the Assyrians conquered Israel (722 BC) as well as when Jeroboam revolted against Judah (931 BC), yet his total life span was only 158 years (14:11; cf. 1:3-5). Judith speaks of Nebuchadnezzar as reigning in Ninevah instead of Babylon (1:1). William H. Green concisely summarizes this evidence, as he writes, ‘The books of Tobit and Judith abound in geographical, historical mistakes, so as not only to vitiate the truth of the narratives which they contain, but to make it doubtful they even rest upon the basis of fact’.
4. Most of the Old Testament Apocrypha was written in the postbiblical, intertestamental period. According to Josephus, the prophets wrote from Moses to Artaxerxes, and he adds, ‘It is true our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of the prophets since that time’. The Talmud adds a similar thought, as it records, ‘After the latter prophets Haggai, Zechariah…and Malachi, the Holy Spirit departed from Israel.’ Since the Apocryphal books were written long after Artaxerxes time (Malachi’s day, 400 BC), namely, after about 200 BC, then they could not be considered inspired. Not only does the Talmud testify to this end, but the canonical books of the Old Testament also imply this (see Zech. 1:5; Mal. 4:5), as do some of the statements in the Apocryphal books themselves. In fact, there is no claim within the Apocrypha that it is the Word of God. It is sometimes asserted that Ecclesiasticus 50:27-9
   29 lays claim to divine inspiration, but a closer examination of the passage indicates that it is illumination and not inspiration that the author claims to have….
5. Finally, all of the books of the Apocrypha are nonbiblical or uncanonical since none of them was ever accepted by the people of God as canonical books were. In order for a book to be canonical, it must satisfy the tests of canonicity:
   1. Was written by a ‘Prophet’ of God? There is neither claim and/or proof that they were.
   2. Did it come with the authority of God? No! There is a striking absence of the ring of authority in the Apocrypha….
   3. Did it have the power of God? There is nothing transforming about the Apocrypha. Its truth is not exhilarating, except as it is a repetition of canonical truth in other books.
   4. Did it tell the truth about God, man, etc.? …there are contradictions, errors, and even heresies in the Apocrypha. It does not stand the test of canonical truth.
   5. Was it accepted by the people of God? It is this final question upon which the Apocrypha takes the final and fatal fall.6

VII. ADDITIONAL REASONS FOR ACCEPTING THE APOCRYPHA

For example, some will cite that there were several early church writers who accepted the Apocrypha.

First Clement (d. AD 95) included quotations from the Wisdom of Solomon, while Polycarp of Smyrna (d.c. AD 156) quoted from Tobit. Tertullian (d.c. AD 225) and Irenaeus (d.c. AD 200) cited certain books of the LXX Canon as scriptural and were followed in this by Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Cyprian in the 3rd cent. AD.”7

Others have said that, some books (Judith, Tobit, Baruch, and Epistle of Jeremy) had qualifications for inclusion into the canon; the early date, Hebrew or Aramaic language, sound orthodox teaching, and the literary quality of these books. Some feel were on par with (if not superior to) the other parts of the canonical Old Testament.

Declaring itself supremely authoritative in all matters involving the canon of Scripture, the Roman Catholic Church has pronounced the Apocrypha canonical, and of equal value for doctrine with the Old and New Testaments.8

In fact the decrees made by the Council of Trent (1546) pronounced any man anathema who did not accept the canonical nature of the Apocrypha.

VIII. ADDITIONAL REASONS FOR REJECTING THE APOCRYPHA

According to the Interpreter’s Bible the Jews were warned that other literature was useless or dangerous. Whoever brings together in his house more than twenty four books (the Hebrew Old Testament) brings confusion. (Midrash Qoheleth 12:12). Rabbi Akiba (died ca. 132) even declared that readers of apocryphal literature had no part in the future world. (Jerusalem Talmud, Sanhedrin 100B).9

Furthermore this quote gives additional feelings that Jerome had concerning the Apocrypha.

The non-canonical works, said Jerome, were like the crazy wonderings of a man who senses have taken leave of him.” Labeling these books Apocrypha (for hidden), Jerome placed them outside the Christian Canon as well.10

Some will also bring up that Jude quotes from the Apocrypha in Jude 14,15.
14 Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men: “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones
15 to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”

However consider what Neil R. Lightfoot has to say about these verses:

Jude 14,15 gives reportedly a prophecy of Enoch, and it is true that this prophecy is found in the Apocryphal book of Enoch (1 Enoch 1:9). But here several things need to be said: (1) It is possible that Jude is acquainted with this prophecy from a different source. (2) It is possible that both the book of Enoch and the book of Jude draw upon a common source of oral tradition. (3) It is probable, however, that Jude quotes directly from the book of Enoch. If so – and the form of the quotation is almost precisely in the agreement with the book of Enoch – Jude does not quote Enoch as “scripture” nor does he say “it is written.” When a writer cites another work, this does not mean that he necessarily regards the work as divine. Paul quotes from heathen poets (Acts 17:28; Titus 1:12). He also names evidently from a noncanonical source, Jannes and Jambres as magicians of Pharaoh (2 Timothy 3:8); but in doing so he does not sanction it from being from God.11

Furthermore, Henry H. Halley offers these thoughts on the quotation from Enoch.

This is the only scripture allusion to the prophecy of Enoch. The brief story of his life is told in Genesis 5:18-24, but there is no mention of any of his words. Jude’s quotation is from the Apocryphal Book of Enoch, which was written about 100 BC. He evidently regards it as a genuine word of Enoch….Jude’s sanction of one passage in the book does not sanction the whole book.12

Moreover, Josh McDowell adds that the oldest list of the Old Testament canon that we can date (c. 170 AD) does not include the additional Apocryphal books.

Melito, Bishop of Sardis drew up the oldest list of the Old Testament canon that we can date (c.170 AD). Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History IV.26) preserves his comments. Melito said he had obtained the reliable list while traveling in Syria. Melito’s comments were in a letter to Anesimius, his friend; ‘their names are these…five books of Moses; Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy. Jesus Naue, Judges, Ruth. Four books of Kingdoms, two ofChronicles, the Psalms of David, Solomon’s Proverbs (also called Wisdom), Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job. Of the Prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, the Twelve in a single book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Ezra.

F.F. Bruce comments that ‘It is likely that Melito included Lamentations with Jeremiah, and Nehemiah with Ezra (though it is curious to find Ezra counted among the prophets). In that case, his list contains all the books of the Hebrew canon (arranged according to the Septuagint order), with the exception of Esther. Esther may not have been included from the list he received from his informants in Syria.13

IX. VIEWS DURING THE PROTESTANT REFORMATION

One early Reformer, Andreas Bodenstein used the term “Apocrypha” to designate the excess of the Alexandrian over the Palestinian Jewish canon of the Old Testament. Bodenstein held that the books of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Judith and Tobit, I and II Maccabees had some value, but that others, including I and II Esdras, Baruch, and the Prayer of Manasseh, were clearly Apocryphal. Martin Luther, a fellow student of Bodenstein, was in agreement of his conclusions, and in his 1534 German Version of the Bible the “outside books” were placed at the end of the canonical Old Testament, describing them as “Apocryphal”. John Calvin and his followers explicitly rejected any authority that the Apocrypha might have claimed or received, holding that the contents were not divinely inspired. The fact that the apocrypha was absent from the Hebrew canon must have had some influence on the minds of the Reformers. Moreover, it contained doctrines inconsistent with Protestant principles.

The Westminister Confession of Faith, which is representative of the Protestant Churches, says that the Apocrypha is of no authority in the Church of God nor to be otherwise approved or made use of other than human writing.14

X. CONCLUSION

The King James Bible of 1611 followed the normal custom in printing the Apocrypha as a separate work and inserting it between the Old and New Testaments. Subsequent issues of the KJV, however, were printed without the Apocrypha. Other Protestant Bibles included the Apocrypha up to 1827.

The Protestant churches today have emphatically rejected the Roman Catholic position concerning the inspiration and authority of the Apocrypha, maintaining that the Old Testament and New Testament are alone to be regarded as Scripture.

However, since the Bible does not contain the history of the Jews between the close of the Old Testament and the beginning of the New. Today we have three chief sources available to us concerning that period of history: secular history, the works of Josephus, and the Apocryphal writings. And from these three sources a student is able to learn important facts in the life of the Jewish people during the intertestimental period. However, it is going too far to give the Apocrypha a “semicanonical status”, as the Church of England has done. They read them for examples of life but do not apply them to establish any doctrines. However, the Apocrypha should not be viewed as part of the theological canon of 14Pryor, Trust. 52.

Scripture. The canon of the Hebrew Bible today includes the same material as the thirty-nine Old Testament books found in most editions of the English Bible.

---

1Noman L. Geisler & William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible (Chicago: Moody Press, 1978) , 168.
2Neale Pryor, You Can Trust Your Bible (Abilene: Quality Publications, 1976) , 51.
3Kenneth Davis, Don’t Know Much About The Bible (New York: Eagle Brook, 1998) , 319.6
4Geilser & Nix, Introduction 169,170.
5Geilser & Nix, Introduction 171-173.
6Geilser & Nix, Introduction 173-175.
7Merrill C. Tenney, The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible Vol. one, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975) , 205.
8Roland Kenneth Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament (Peabody: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999) , 1192
9George Arthur Buttrick, The Interpreter’s Bible (New York: Abingdon Cokesbury Press, 1952) , 393
10Robert V. Huber, The Bible Through The Ages (Pleasantville: The Reader’s Digest Association, Inc., 1996) , 223.
11John T. Willis, The World and Literature of the Old Testament (Abilene: A C U Press, 1979) , 56
12Henry H. Halley, Halley’s Bible Handbook (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1927) , 683
13Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands A Verdict (San Bernardino: Campus Crusade for Christ International, 1972) , 36

 

---

 

WORKS CITED
Buttrick, George Arthur. The Interpreter’s Bible. New York: Abingdon Coksbury Press, 1952.

The Bible. New International Version.

Davis, Kenneth. Don’t Know Much About The Bible. New York: Eagle Brook, 1998.

Geisler, Norman L. & William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible.
Chicago: Moody Press, 1978.

Halley, Henry H. Halley’s Bible Handbook. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1927.

Harrison, Roland Kenneth. Introduction to the Old Testament. Peobody: William
B. Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 1999.
Huber, Robert B. The Bible through the Ages. Pleasantville: The Reader’s Digest Association, 1996.

McDowell, Josh. Evidence That Demands A Verdict. San Bernardino: Campus
Crusade for Christ, 1972.

Tenney, Merrill C. The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible Vol. One.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975.

Willis, John T. The World And Literature Of The Old Testament. Abilene: A C U
Press, 1979.

One of the most frequently asked questions among skeptics, and even within the Christian community has to do with the problem of suffering. Indeed, human history is largely about crime, war, disease, and terror. Some people are born in pain and know nothing else. Mark Twain said that life is just one darn thing after another. Either the hose breaks on the washing machine and floods the basement, or a family member gets sick, or there are unforeseen financial expenses. That’s the way it goes in this imperfect world. Because of this some have concluded that there is nothing intelligent behind the universe, or else if there is a divine being out there, He is indifferent to the good and evil that occurs. The thinking of some is, If God was good, He would wish to make His creatures perfectly happy, and if God were almighty, He would be able to do whatever He wanted. Therefore, God lacks goodness, or power or both. Hence, the image that some have of God seems to evolve with each passing day, adjusting to whatever experiences he or she might have.

Moreover, we may try to fashion a god after our understanding of what God should be like. Some want a grandfather in heaven, who wants to see all of His creation enjoying themselves, and in the end of each day it could be said, a good time was had by all.

Atheists have not failed to note the problem. In fact, some will say that the problem of suffering is of crucial importance, because it shows that the God of popular theism does not exist. However, if something bad or something going wrong argues that God does not exist, then how about all things which are right and good? On the same basis would that not prove the existence of God? If something going wrong disproves the existence of God then something going right would prove it. Augustine put it very simply:

If there is no God, why is there so much good? If there is a God, why is there so much evil?” (The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel, page 45)

However, in this paper I have to begin with this premise, what I know about God and what can be known about God must come from the Bible. Therefore, concerning the problem of evil and suffering I will develop my ideas based upon what the Bible says about it. Knowing God accurately is vital.

It is an incorrect view of scripture to say that we will always be able to comprehend what God is doing and how suffering and disappointment fit into His plan. If you believe that God is obligated to explain all that He does, you need to examine the following scriptures. Solomon wrote in Proverbs 25:2, “It is the glory of God to conceal a matter.” Isaiah 45:15 states, “Truly you are a God who hides himself.” Isaiah 55:8-9 teaches, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.” Clearly we will not be able to grasp all the ways that God intervenes in this world. Therefore, there will be situations that God will allow which will not make sense to us. It is what one writer called – life’s imponderables – those things we desperately want to know about but can’t seem to figure out very well.

It is a common human experience to question where God is and what He is doing when we are suffering. Job felt this anguish and it is recorded for us in Job 23:2-9. David had similar feelings in his life (Psalm 13:1; Psalm 77:7-8). Even Jesus felt this way for a while on the cross (Mark 15:35). Probably all of us will go through a period when it seems that God has let us down. The danger is that Satan can use these moments to make us feel than we can no longer trust in God.

However, it is extremely important to look at Scripture and recognize that trials and suffering are part of the human condition. The bible is full of examples of heroes of faith that have gone through similar hardships.

Jesus even told his disciples that they should anticipate suffering in John 16:33. The apostle Peter left no doubt to the difficulties in this life when he wrote, I Peter 4:12-13.

God’s first act toward humanity was not the Exodus, nor the Cross, it was Creation. When God created, He acted freely and without compulsion. Humanity did not deserve to be created. It had no inherent right to exist. Creation was an act out of God’s own free will. Genesis describes God providing for His creatures. He provides life (Genesis 2:7). He provides a garden furnished with all things necessary for life. He provides a special tree which offers everlasting communion in the presence of God (Genesis 2:9). He tells humanity to be caretakers over all His creation (Genesis 1:28-30). Yet in this community God also gave humanity a choice. All the provisions in the garden are available except for one. God placed the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the middle of the garden and he forbade them to eat from it (Genesis 2:17). Apparently God sees some value in choice itself. Choice does provide us the opportunity for genuine free expression of love. Without freedom, there can be no real love. Without freedom, there is only a robotic coerced relationship. God does not drag us into the palace and force us to live with Him.

When you give people the power to choose there is risk involved. We can choose our own interests over the fellowship with God. The trees are not about fruit they are about fellowship. They are about life and death, a choice about life with God or life without God. It was a choice of moral dependence on God or an assertion of their own will. In other words, God will not prevent us from deciding to do evil (Romans 1:18-32).

Their rebellion brought the sentence of death and suffering upon the whole world (Genesis 3:15-19; Romans 5:12; I Corinthians 15:22). Adam and Eve as representatives of humanity rejected God’s offer of communion and asserted moral independence. Because human existence is bound together in this solidarity, when God acts against sin, even innocent children suffer. The death and sickness of children, more than any other thing, testifies that this world is not the way it is suppose to be. Genesis 3 reveals Satan as an alien evil force in God’s creation. The Devil opposes God’s purposes. He seeks to destroy the harmony of God with His creation. Therefore, there is a contest over the hearts of people.

In addition to this, the bible says that Satan can inflict illness or destroy one’s life (Luke 13:16; Acts 10:38). Whatever control the Devil has – God can limit and control it. Therefore, our prayer is to lead us not into temptation (Matthew 6:13).

Moreover, the Bible teaches that the holiness of God cannot commune with evil (Psalm 5:4). God is faithful to His promises and His threats.

Consequently, rebellion brought judgment on the world. We now live on a cursed planet, a planet where we as well as all creation cries out in pain (Romans 8:18-23). Childbirth has become a painful event. The joy of work has become toil and painful. The harmony between human beings is destroyed. Rebellion introduced hostility, pain, and death. God did not desire these things for us, but they are the consequences and the punishment for sin.

Imagine, if you will, a situation where our government passes a law abolishing all punishment from crimes. The status would still be on the books, but there would be no punishment for offenders. It would still be against the law to murder, but if he did, there would be nothing done about it. It would be against the law to steal, but there would be no punishment for thieves. Can you imagine the anarchy that would follow? All penitentiaries would be opened, jails unlocked, and courts dismissed. That would be unbearable. Transfer that thought to the spiritual realm. One sins, and instead of the consequences which would normally follow, God removes those sins and the sinner is unpunished. In such a case, man could rebel against God forever and ever and never suffer. That would totally destroy God’s plan for man. (Why Has All This Happened to Us? by W.T. Hamilton, page 49)

Sometimes we suffer because of our own sin. I had a friend die in a car accident because he was drunk. I have done funerals for people who have died because of living a promiscuous lifestyle and in the process contracted AIDS.

We drink too much or gamble compulsively or allow pornography to possess our minds. We drive too fast and work like there is no tomorrow. We challenge the boss disrespectfully and then blow up when he strikes back. We spend money we don’t have and can’t repay. We fuss and fight at home and create misery for ourselves and our families. We not only borrow trouble – we go looking for it. We toy with the dragon of infidelity. We break the laws of God and then honestly believe that we have beaten the odds. Then when the “wages” of those sins and foolishness come due, we turn our shocked faces up to heaven and cry, “Why me Lord?” In truth, we are suffering the natural consequences of dangerous behavior that is guaranteed to produce pain. (When God Doesn’t Make Sense by James Dobson, page 193)

Moreover, the bible does reveal cases where suffering is the result of our personal transgression, as in the case of Israel (Hebrews 3:7-11). Therefore, suffering is part of the gift of human freedom.

Suffering also can help to lead to repentance, because it was only after suffering and disaster that the Israelites turned back to God.

To quote C. S. Lewis:

God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pains. It is his megaphone to rouse a deaf world. (The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel, page 60)

Pain and suffering are frequently the means by which we become motivated to finally surrender to God and to seek comfort and hope in Christ.

At times we suffer because of the sin of others. Christians have often been persecuted because of their faith and conviction. Jesus pointed out to his disciples that such would be the case with them (John 15:18-19).

Sometimes we suffer because the laws of nature have been broken, even though they were broken unintentionally or due to matters beyond our control. God made this world and set in order various laws, like the law of gravity. Sometimes we suffer when we misuse these laws, like driving to fast, or falling off a cliff that we were climbing. To blame God under these circumstances would be like blaming Henry Ford for all of the automobile accidents, because he invented the car, or to blame the Wright brothers for all airplane crashes because they invented the airplane.

God has all power. No one can limit Him, but He can limit Himself. When God built the universe and made the laws of nature, He abides by those laws too.

I think we should be careful to refer to all suffering as God’s will. It is one thing to say that God is working His will through an event; it is quite another to say that God planned the event.

However, the Bible reveals that God’s ultimate goal for us is happiness. But not the kind that we often seek for ourselves, the self absorbed kind of happiness. The happiness that He wants to give us is to enjoy Him forever.

Meanwhile, this business of pain and suffering can be used by God to point us towards ultimate happiness.

C. S. Lewis points out one way that God can use it for our good.

No doubt pain as God’s megaphone is a terrible instrument; it may lead to final and unrepented rebellion. But it gives the only opportunity the bad man can have for amendment. It removes the veil; it plants the flag of truth within the fortress of a rebel soul. If the first and lowest operation of pain shatters the illusion that all is well, the second shatters the illusion that what we have, whether good or bad itself, is our own and enough for us. (The Problem of Pain by C.S. Lewis, page 95)

God can use all of the pain and suffering to cause us to look up to Him!

He can use troubles, tribulations, and trials to generate, strengthen or refine our faith in Him (Hebrews 12:5-11; James 1:2-3) God will use the circumstances of this fallen world to accomplish His ultimate purpose. Instead of wondering, “Why me?” You may say, “What can I do with this?” What happens to us when we experience suffering or adversity may not be as important as the way we respond to it? Dentists, athletic trainers, teachers, parents all know that sometimes testing and discipline help to achieve a greater good of physical well being and moral and spiritual education. In fact, courage would be impossible in a world without pain. The apostle Paul also testified to the refining quality of suffering (Romans 5:3-4).

An additional thought concerning pain and skeptics is stated by Strobel:

If there is no Creator and therefore no moment of creation, then everything is the result of evolution. If there was no beginning or first cause, then the universe must have always existed. That means the universe has been evolving for an infinite period of time and, by now, everything should be perfect. There would have been plenty of time for evolution to have finished and evil to have been vanquished. But there is still evil and suffering and imperfection and that proves the atheist wrong about the universe. (The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel, page 47)

Moreover, the final and best proof of an all loving God comes from God Himself. God participated in this suffering world by allowing His Son to put on human flesh (Philippians 2:5-8). The Christian affirmation is that far from being aloof, God participated in His suffering world and suffered as a real human being. The Gospel writers show how deeply touched Jesus was by people’s pain and grief. A major part of his earthly ministry was healing of the sick (Luke 4:18; 7:22). Furthermore, you cannot read the story of the crucifixion without thinking about the suffering and pain that both the Father and the Son felt. When suffering people talk about feeling alone and ask where God is, they should think about where God was when His Son was suffering on the cross. He was right there identifying with mankind and offering an ultimate answer to all the suffering in the world (Hebrews 2:14-18). Centuries earlier the prophet Isaiah had foretold the coming Messiah would be a suffering servant (Isaiah 53:3-6). When you are tempted to think that God does not care about pain and suffering close your eyes and picture Jesus on the cross. Why is God silent? Why doesn’t He intervene? He has. He has spoken and He has acted.

The British preacher and writer John R. W. Stott reached this conclusion concerning the suffering of Christ.

I could never my self believe in God, if it were not for the cross…. In the real world of pain, how could one worship a God who was immune to it? I have entered many Buddhist temples in different Asian countries and stood respectfully before the statue of Buddha, his legs crossed, arms folded, eyes closed, the ghost of a smile playing round his mouth, a remote look on his face, detached from the agonies of the world. But each time after a while I have had to turn away. And in imagination I have turned instead to that lonely, twisted, tortured figure on the cross, nails through hands and feet, back lacerated, limbs wrenched, brow bleeding from thorn-pricks, mouth dry and intolerably thirsty, plunged in God forsaken darkness. That is the God for me! He laid aside his immunity to pain. He entered our world of flesh and blood, tears and death. He suffered for us. Our sufferings become more manageable in light of his. There is still a question mark against human suffering, but over it we boldly stamp another mark, the cross symbolizes divine suffering. The cross of Christ…is God’s only self-justification in such a world as ours. (The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel, page 74).

The question is not if we are going to have trouble and pain and suffering in this world. The question is “when” or “how much”? Scripture supports the premise that we can prepare for the storms of life (Matthew 7:24-29).

For those of us who are Christians we need to keep an eye on our final destination (Romans 8:18; II Corinthians 4:17). The point of our lives in this world isn’t comfort, but training and preparation for eternity.

Sex is everywhere in our society. Television, dramas, music video’s, and advertising abound with sexual images and innuendo. The average American child, who watches about 20 hours of television a week, is subjected to an implicit sex education. Michael A. Carrera, who teaches at Hunter College in New York, says there are about 20,000 scenes on television each year that suggest sexual acts, all of them without regard to the outcome.

In a comprehensive study of sexual behavior, Samuel Janus and Cynthia Janus (1993) compiled the Janus report, which surveyed 2,765 Americans age 18 to over 65. The researchers found that sexual activity had begun earlier in life for members of each age group than it did for the next oldest age group among both males and females, and that the age of first intercourse has become progressively younger over the years. Of males in the younger age group, 91% had had sex by age 18; only about 60% of the males 65 and older had had sex by that age. By the age of 18 to 26 year old women 83% had had sex; of the women 65 and older, only 41% had had sex by the age of 18.

There is a shift in attitudes about premarital sex. In a Seventeen Magazine survey, 44% of the girls and 54% of the boys thought there was nothing wrong with premarital sex. Moreover, by the age 15 24% of both girls and boys reported having had sex.

In 1994 the University of Chicago study found that about 25% of the husbands and 15% of the wives had been unfaithful at least one during their marriage.

Furthermore, the U.S. Census bureau released a report offering a historical perspective on the state of marriage in 1994. From 1970 the number of divorced adults quadrupled from 4.3 million to 17.4 million in 1994. In addition, the number of cohabiting couples with children in the home has increased 550% from 1970 to 1994, children are present in 40% of cohabiting unions, and 27% of all nonmarital births between 1970 to 1984 were to cohabiting couples.

Views on Premarital Sex

The Natural impulse rule.

This view says that sex is a natural human impulse or instinct. Just as food can be enjoyed in a variety of settings, so one can enjoy a casual sexual encounter with some one without deep feelings of love and affection. Thus, greater human happiness is attained if people can take whatever pleasure they can get from sex without the burden of moral guilt. Some defend free love on the basis of hedonistic utilitarianism (the view that we ought to act to maximize pleasure). Thus any act that would increase pleasure ought to be performed. This is not a new view at all, because the apostle Paul alludes to some in the city of Corinth having this idea in I Corinthians 6:12-13.

However, studies have shown that can be significantly more emotionally fulfilling and physically satisfying when shared in marriage. The University of Chicago and the State University of New York at Stony Brook did a study called the National Health and Social Life Survey, a staff of 220 interviewers spent seven months interviewing 3,432 respondents. Of all sexually active people, the group with the highest percentage reporting being extremely or very satisfied with the amount of physical pleasure and emotional satisfaction they received from their partner are the faithfully married respondents. The faithfully married were also least likely to report sex making them feel sad, anxious, worried, scared or afraid, or guilty. The study also revealed that married couples, compared to single people, have more sex and are more likely to have orgasms when they do have sex. Nearly 40% of those married reported that they had sex twice a week, whereas only 25% of singles said that they had sex twice a week.

Moreover, a study conducted by the researchers at the University of Maryland and the National center for Health statistics, looking at a nationally representative sample of women ages 15 to 44, found that women who were sexually active prior to marriage faced a considerable higher risk of marital disruption than women who were virgin brides. And if young women get pregnant in their teens, they are less likely to finish High School, and less likely to find high paying jobs in the labor force. Planned Parenthood reports that 1.1 million American girls between fifteen and nineteen become pregnant every year. More than two thirds of teen mothers bear their children out of wedlock, and those who marry have a high rate of divorce. The majority of teen mothers are forced to live on welfare, and that dependence usually lasts until their children are grown. David Ellwood, Professor of Public Policy at Harvard University said: The vast majority of children who are raised entirely in a two parent home will never be poor during childhood. By contrast, the vast majority of children who spend time in a single parent home will experience poverty. In addition to this, a 1990 government survey conducted by the Centers for Disease control found that 1 in 25 students reported having had a sexually transmitted disease. There are an estimated 19 million new cases of STD’s each year in the United States, up from 15 million nearly a year ago. Experts don’t have exact numbers because not all diseases are reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta and many people don’t know they are infected. Among the most shocking estimates are that one in five Americans has genital herpes and more than half of women will contract HPV, or human papillomavirus, which causes genital warts and can lead to cervical cancer. At least a million Americans are living with the deadly AIDS virus.

There are some who believe that living in a cohabitating relationship will lead to a healthy marriage. However, studies in Canada, Sweden, and the United States found that cohabitation increased rather than decreased the risk for marital satisfaction. There is considerable empirical evidence demonstrating that premarital cohabitation is associated with lower martial stability. It was also discovered that the longer the cohabitation the higher likelihood of divorce. On the basis of this evidence we should resist the idea that cohabitation provides superior training for marriage or improves mate selection.

The Family Violence Research Program at the University of New Hampshire reveals that cohabitators are much more violent than people who are married. They found that the overall rates of violence for cohabitating couples were twice as high when compared with married couples.

Cohabitation also has a specific impact upon children. Children are present in 40 percent of all cohabitating couples. Michael Gordon and Susan Creighton, presenting their research in the Journal of Marriage and the Family, explain that a number of studies have shown that girls living with nonnatal fathers (boyfriends and stepfathers) are at a higher risk for sexual abuse than girls living with natal fathers.

Sex is a powerful force, and societies around the world have found it necessary to develop some rules regarding sexual behavior. Where are we going to get the directions?  Where are the best directions for the gift of sex?  Hugh Hefner? Jerry Springer?  MTV?  Cosmopolitan?  No.  You’ve got to go to God’s word.

The bible has much to say about sexuality, both negatively and positively.

The bible is clear on what it says about premarital sex.

Any sex, no matter how nice it looks on the movie screen, outside of God’s perimeter of marriage, is willful disobedience.  It’s thumbing your nose to God and saying, “God, I know better.  I know You invented this thing, but I know better.  I know You created it, but I know better”.

1 Thessalonians 4:1-8 “It is God’s will that you should be sanctified and that you should avoid sexual immorality and that each of you should learn to control his own body in a way that is holy and honorable.”  People say all the time, “I want to know God’s will.”  You can start right there.  That one is real obvious.  If you want to know God’s will for your life, here it us – Avoid sexual immorality and be holy.  Learn to control your sexual appetites.  God’s no killjoy.  Remember He invented sex but every gift must be controlled.  (A good example for that is Joseph in the Old Testament.)  God made water.  It’s a gift.  It can either satisfy you or it can drown you.  God created fire as a gift.  It can either warm you or it can burn you.

The Bible says that sexual sin is in a class by itself.  The verse you can look at is 1 Corinthians 6:18 “Flee from sexual immorality.  All other sins a man commits are outside his body.  But he who sins sexually sins against his own body.”  New Living translation: “Run away from sexual sin.  No other sin so clearly affects the body as this one.”  The Message: “There is a sense in which sexual sins are different from others.  In sexual sins we violate the sacredness of our bodies and these bodies were made for God given and God modeled love, for becoming one with another.”  God says, yes, there is a difference.  Why?  Because the scars are permanent.  The shame does not seem to go away.  The sense of loss affects everybody.  Some said – we do not have a condom for the heart.

The bible is also very clear about extramarital sex.

The National Opinion Research Center, in 1994 found that about 21% of men and 11% of women had an extramarital affair. The likelihood of underreporting is great because, as family therapist Frank Pittman said, if people would lie to their own husbands or wives, they would lie to a poll taker. Adultery was condemned by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:27-28. Furthermore, in Hebrews 13:4 God draws a firm line against casual and illicit sex.  I don’t know if that could be any clearer.  It says that sex is for a husband and a wife.

It may surprise many people that the bible has some very positive things to say about sex in marriage. This is a gift that’s handcrafted by God for us.  It’s valuable because our sexuality determines our identity.  Genesis 1:27 “God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him, male and female…”  Right at the beginning, that’s who we are, male and female.  Part of being created in God’s image is being a man.  Part of being created in God’s image is being a woman.  Part of being created in God’s image is our sexuality.  If we miss that, we miss one of the main truths – the first truth in the Bible about who we are.  That’s the value of God’s gift.  Our sexuality affects all of who we are.  It affects our body, our mind, our soul and our spirit.

God’s direction in marriage is to be unselfish with your body.  Notice a couple of verses in 1 Corinthians 7:2-5.  There’s the idea of sharing one another.  There’s the idea in the scripture of serving one another in marriage.

Conclusion

We need to honor God for what He’s done.  Honor God for His great gift.  The body is not meant for sexual immorality but for the Lord and the Lord for the body.  You are not your own.  You are bought with a price.  So honor God with your body.  We can honor God with the way we react to our sexuality.  It is my belief and one supported by the bible, that monogamous marriage is the relationship that best provides for the most favorable avenue to express human sexuality. It is best for the overall well being for the adults involved, and also provides the best place for the socialization and moral direction of children.

Historical Background 

To gain some measure of clarity about the ministry of elders, it may be helpful to trace back to their origins. We would be mistaken to suppose that elders were unique to the early church. Long before the church was ever established, the Jews had a rich history of elders in their communities. The Hebrew word for elder is zaqen. This rich term occurs more than one hundred times in the Old Testament. The original meaning of the word is old. In the Old Testament it can refer to that which is old or identifies one as old. In the Psalms, zaqen is compared to gray hair (Psalm 71:18). There were certain characteristics that came with age that were highly regarded by the Jews. Job tells us that “with the ancient is wisdom; and the length of days understanding” (Job 12:12). God’s people were to “honor the face of an old man” (Leviticus 19:32). Furthermore, the term was applied to men who played various leadership roles in Israelite society. Thus, older men became leaders of the people because of wisdom and knowledge gained through years of experience. The role that elders played in the Old Testament as representatives of God’s people can give insight into the intended role of elders in the New Testament.

For instance, some elders of Israel accompanied Moses and Aaron when they approached Pharaoh in Egypt (Exodus 3:18). It’s interesting that what we see most frequently mentioned in the history of Israel’s elders is their leadership from town to town.

“These “town elders” were responsible for apprehending murderers who might flee unlawfully to one of the cities of refuge (Deuteronomy 19:11-12); for admitting to those same specially-designated cities any manslayer who had a lawful right to their protection (Joshua 20:1-6); and for presiding over the bizarre ceremony where an unsolved murder happened to occur outside their own town (Deuteronomy 21:1-9). As these and other examples illustrate, Israel’s elders were respected as wise judges over criminal, civil, and religious affairs.”1

Furthermore, elders are seen in the Old Testament Scriptures sitting at the gates to the city. The elders would act as a kind of informal court from this position as can be seen in (Deuteronomy 21:18-21; 22:13-21; 25:7-10). Also, from the city gate the elders could keep a close eye on who was coming into the community and who was leaving. It is obvious that elders had a powerful influence on local and municipal affairs of the Jewish community.

These men did not hold some vague and unorganized position of leadership. Each elder was recognized as a part of organized body of men. On several occasions Moses provided the elders with the experience necessary to make them teachers of Israel. (Exodus 4:29-30; 19:7; Deuteronomy 27:1). With the departure of leading figures like Moses and Joshua, the burden of leadership and teaching fell more on the elders (Joshua 23:1-11; 24:1-14).

However, the Jewish elders did not always live up to their lofty responsibility because by the time of Christ he had many conflicts with the Jews over the tradition of the elders. (Matthew 15:1,2). The tradition of the elders was the extra biblical oral law. When a point of view was in question, those with knowledge of the tradition gave oral testimony to what they had heard from the teachers of the past. Unfortunately, many elders who were contemporary with Jesus had abused their God given power and influence over the people.

The concept of elders in the Old Testament was a wise principle. The fact that certain ones abused it through the centuries – does not argue against the wisdom of the principle any more than the fact that the presence of false prophets argues against the true and prudent principle of loyal prophets. Therefore, it should come to no surprise that when Jehovah first organized the church of His Son he chose a group of older men to be spiritual leaders over His congregations.

The eldership:
Its names

I think we can learn a great deal about the ministry of elders by looking at the various terms used to describe them.

Elders or Presbyters

The terms elders or presbyters refer to the same work in the Lord’s church. In fact the two terms come from the same root word in the Greek language in which the New Testament was written. Both words come from the Greek word presbuteros. And the root meaning is older men. In about 16 instances in the New Testament presbuteros refers to Christian leaders. Therefore the word is used both in a technical way to describe a leader in the church, and yet retains its ordinary meaning of an old man. Since the term elder or presbyter indicates spiritual age and advanced judgment, a novice or new convert could not qualify for this ministry (I Timothy 3:6). The eldership of God’s church is no realm for spiritual babes; it is a role for spiritually mature men to fulfill. Their maturity must be seen in the following hallmarks of holiness. (1) Desire (I Timothy 3:1) (2) Not a new convert (I Timothy 3:6) (3) A good reputation (I Timothy 3:7) (4) Husband of one wife (I Timothy 3:2; Titus1:6) (5) One who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity (I Timothy 3:4; Titus 1:6) (6) Above reproach (I Timothy 3:2; Titus 2:7) (7) Temperate (I Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:8) (8) Prudent (I Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:8) (9) Respectable (I Timothy 3:2) (10) Hospitable (I Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:8) (11) Uncontentious – man of peace (I Timothy 3:3) (12) Not given to wine (I Timothy 3:3) (13) Gentle – not stubborn (I Timothy 3:3; Titus1:7) (14) Not self willed (Titus 1:7) (15) Not quick tempered – patient (Titus 1:7) (16) Free from the love of money (I Timothy 3:3; Titus 1:7; I Peter 5:2) (17) Must love what is good (I Timothy 1:8) (18) Must be just (Titus 1:8) (19) Must be devout (Titus 1:8) (20) Able to teach (I Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:9) (21) Must hold fast the faithful word (Titus 1:9). Every elder while never reaching these qualities in their perfected state, yet is ever stretching himself to grow to there fullest realization. These qualifications concern the man’s character, reputation, family life and ability to be a leader. These qualifications are as apropos for the 21st Century as they were for the first century church. Furthermore, little is required of the elder that is not required of every Christian. Lynn Anderson offers a practical way to determine who should serve as elders or why some have been selected to serve as elders:

“I know ________,_________,________ well. I already have some sort of relationship with them.”

“I see _________,_________,________ as experienced and competent enough to give wise counsel.”

“________,________,________ are available. I can always find them.”

“_________,________,_________ are approachable. I find it comfortable to be open with them.”

“________,__________,_________ are hospitable, express love to me in several ways, and often create opportunities for conversation.”

“I have watched ________,__________,_________ make sound spiritual decisions in their own lives.”

“__________,__________,_________ know the Word of God.”

“___________,__________,_________ are respected by the people I most admire.”

“Christians often long for guidance from a wise and gentle big brother or big sister. God wired us up this way. When we hurt, we long for help and comfort from some one who has been where we are. When life overwhelms us, we look for someone who is strong and experienced. In the midst of the confusion, we seek people who can give steerage through treacherous waters. When shaping our lives, we reach out for mentors.”2

Moreover, in the United States, most of our Presidents have been at least in their fifties or beyond when first elected to our nations highest office. Youth has a lot of things going for it, but decades of experience and wise judgment are not yet present among the young in our age. Bible elders were older men with experience and spiritual maturity. It is clear in Scripture that elders were men who considered important matters facing the church. Paul and Barnabus were received by the elders when they came to Jerusalem to consider a doctrinal dispute (Acts 15:2-6). The decision by the apostles and elders resulted in a decree given to the Gentile churches. The elders at Ephesus came to Miletus to hear an important message from Paul (Acts 20:17f). Paul reminded them to oversee and feed the church and to watch out for false teachers (Acts 20:28-31).

Bishops or Overseers

These two terms are translated from the same Greek word episkopos. Jack Lewis gives some helpful information about the English usage of the word. “”Episkopos is used four times for leaders of the churches (Acts 20:28; Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:7). The KJV used both “overseer” (Acts 20:28) and “bishop” (Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:2; Titus1:1; I Peter 2:25) as rendering of this term. The ASV consistently used “bishop” in the text of all the passages, but listed overseer in the margin; the RSV used “guardian” in Acts 20:28 and in I Peter 2:25, but used “bishop” in other cases. The NIV has reversed the practice of the ASV and put “overseer” in the text and “bishop” in the margin in all cases. This reversal is necessary in view of the connotation “bishop” has taken in the current religious usage. The Scripture is not speaking of the “bishop” in the denominational sense of a man over a group of churches. “Overseer” corresponds to the etymology of the Greek word and avoids the erroneous connotation that may be attached to “bishop.”3

Joseph Henry Thayer, in his Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament, defines the Greek term under current consideration as: “an overseer, a man charged with the duty of seeing that things to be done by others are done rightly, a curator, guardian or superintendent.”4

Bishops or overseers certainly could not and should not do all the work that needs to be done in a given congregation. But all the work performed within a local church setting is under their oversight. The church is a monarchy, not a democracy. Jesus is Lord. Bishops are to assert Christ’s will – not the mind of the membership. Leaders must be loyal to Christ, His doctrine, His church, His morals and His worship. Jesus did not condemn all authority. He only condemned its abuse (Matthew 20:20-28). Authority must never be carried to extremes. No one in the Kingdom is to become Lord or a boss. Bishops are not called to reign but to serve (I Peter 5:1-5). Spiritual leadership sees itself as a servant – first of Christ then of the church. Furthermore, the New Testament knows nothing of one man rule in a local congregation here on earth. Even Jesus selected 12 apostles – not just one! When each congregation was set in order in the New Testament letters there were elders selected for each congregation (Acts 14:23). Paul addresses the bishops at Philippi – not just one bishop (Philippians 1:1). The New Testament is totally silent about THE elder or THE bishop concept. Such concepts came later with the deviations and departures that developed into wholesale apostasy from the truth.

J. W. McGarvey makes an excellent point in his commentary on Acts about how these fairly new congregations mentioned in Acts could have elders so quickly. “If any one is surprised that men were found in these newly founded congregations possessed of the high qualifications for the office laid down by Paul in his epistles to Titus and Timothy, he should remember that although these disciples had been but a comparatively short time in the church, many of them, in character and knowledge of the scriptures, the ripest fruits of the Jewish synagogue; and they needed only the additional knowledge which the gospel brought, in order to be models of wisdom and piety for the churches. They were not novices (I Timothy 3:6) in the sense of being newly turned away from wickedness.”5

The terms elder or presbyter do not mean the same as bishop or overseer but both sets of terms refer to different functions performed by the same office or ministry. God’s leaders are elders in that they are men of spiritual experience and maturity. They are bishops in that they are men of management. Paul said, “Now we ask you, brothers, to respect those who work hard among you, who are over you in the Lord and who admonish you. Hold them in the highest regard in love because of their work. Live in peace with each other” (I Thessalonians 5:12,13).

The bishops are to admonish, warn, and instruct the church in what is right. If elders really love the flock they will rebuke and warn them of sin.

Pastors or Shepherds

The New Testament usage of the term pastors was radically different from the denominational usage the word currently takes. Most religious people today employ the term in reference to the preacher. Now it is true that some preachers do serve as both elder and preacher. But even in those cases he is simply a pastor along with his fellow pastors, fellow elders, fellow bishops or fellow overseers. In many translations of the Bible the word pastor occurs only once. Paul says this in Ephesians 4:11.

11 It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers,

I believe that gospel preachers would be included under the word evangelist. Evangelists (preachers) should not take over the work of elders and neither should they assume their leadership role. Paul wanted Timothy and Titus to do the work of evangelists. That is why they were to appoint elders (Titus 1:5). Therefore, the word pastor then would refer to the elders of the church. The Greek word that Paul uses in Ephesians 4:11 is poimen.

Joseph Henry Thayer, refers to this term and says that it refers to the “overseers of the christian community”.6 Preachers are not the overseers of the Christian assemblies like God intended the elders to be. The word pastor is the Latin word for a shepherd. I understand that the term shepherd is the best way to express the original idea behind the meaning of poimen. J.B. Myers has an easy way to see how the verb form poimaino is used by various translations.

	KJV	ASV	NASV	RSV	NIV
Acts 20:28	feed	feed	shepherd	care for	be shepherds
I Peter 5:2	feed	tend	shepherd	tend	be shepherd
John 21:16	feed	tend	shepherd	tend	take care
Matthew 2:6	rule	shepherd	shepherd	govern	shepherd
Revelation 7:17	feed	shepherd	shepherd	shepherd	shepherd

* 7

To shepherd the flock is to tend, care for, and feed the flock. The model for a modern day shepherd is Jesus. Speaking of himself as the loving shepherd, Jesus says that he leaves the ninety-nine in the open country and goes in search of the lost one. “And he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders and goes home.” (John 10:5). The picture of a shepherd leaving the fold to seek the one lost sheep demonstrates in a vivid way one major function of a spiritual shepherd (Matthew 18:12-14; Luke 15:3-7). It is one thing to accept the return of a sinner, it is something else to go and look for him.

When the apostle Peter instructed church leaders on how to lead, he spoke of Jesus as “the Chief Shepherd.” (I Peter 5:4). The point being he is the blueprint for the way of modern leadership. Good spiritual shepherds today imitate the Chief Shepherd. The shepherding model revolves around the relationship between the shepherd and his flock. John 10:14: “I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me— Sheep follow the shepherd because they know his voice. Through hours and days and weeks and years spent with their shepherd, sheep come to know from experience that they can trust him. Trust is earned, not demanded, and it is built over time. First and foremost, elders are shepherds. And what is a shepherd? A shepherd is some one who has a flock already. The process of appointing elders is simply the process of formally acknowledging those who have been shepherding for a long time.

Conclusion

Jesus made it clear that his leadership style is based upon submission and service and sacrifice, not on human models of authority – (Matthew 20:25-28). 25 Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wants to be first must be your slave– just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Elders must remember they are servants not masters. The church is not theirs – it belongs to Christ. What the church needs is spiritual shepherds and not a board of directors. But they must also remember that they are elders and not deacons. And they need to equip others to the work of service so that they can have more time to shepherd the flock.

---

1 F. LaGard Smith, Radical Restoration (Nashville: Cotswold Publishing, 2001) , 176.

2 Lynn Anderson, They Smell Like Sheep (West Monroe: Howard Publishing Co. 1997) , 125.

3 Jack P. Lewis, Leadership Questions Confronting the Church (Nashville: Christian Communications, 1985) , 23

4 Joseph Henry Thayer, Greek English Lexicon (Grand Rapids: Zondervon Publishing House, 1976) , 243

5 J.B. Myers, The Church and Its Elders (Fort Worth: Star Bible, 1981) , 19

6 Joseph Henry Thayer, Greek English Lexicon (Grand Rapids: Zondervon Publishing House, 1976) , 527

7 J.B. Myers, The Church and Its Elders (Fort Worth: Star Bible, 1981) , 27