What
Is the Biblical Format?
Does the typical ‘church service’
today reflect what was in existence in New Testament times?
Does it make a difference? Since it
says in ICor:11v1 ‘Follow me as I (Paul) follow Christ.’; the place to start is
the example that Christ set. But obviously we
can’t attend the Temple as there isn’t one today.
How about the synagogue? This seems a good place to start since: Lk:4v16
‘On the Sabbath day He went into the synagogue, as was his custom.’.
Has the function of the synagogue changed?
The assumption most people have is that this was the equivalent of a Jewish church,
with a ‘service’ each Sabbath. Further
study shows this not to be the case.
Originally the word synagogue was merely
referring to an assembly of men and then more specifically an assembly of
Jews formally gathered together to offer prayers and listen to the reading and exposition
of the scriptures. Eventually
it came to refer to the building in which such meetings were held.
The word Synagogue is found 45 times in the New Testament and the plural form is found 23 times. According to the New Bible Dictionary: ‘…in the 1st century AD synagogues existed wherever Jews lived. Large cities, such as Jerusalem and Alexandria, had numerous synagogues. One legend has it that there were 394 synagogues in Jerusalem when Titus destroyed the city in AD 70.’ They had an ordinary plan, nothing special. Archaeological evidence shows them to have had a hall with columns at the edges of the floor, with the benches being in tiers along each wall. In the middle of the hall was a platform or perhaps a reading desk.
The synagogue was particularly important
as a meeting place, and its religious importance was much less before the
destruction of the temple by the Romans in 70AD.
According to the NBD the synagogue acted as a meeting place when ‘…it was
necessary to take counsel over important community affairs.’
This can be seen in the New Testament, e.g.-people
were beaten and scourged with in the synagogue; Mt:10v17, Mt:23v34, Mk:13v9,
Acts:22v19 and Acts:26v11. Imagine that in churches today!
It was also the place where the magistrates deliberated, Lk:12v11 and Lk:21v12.
So from the above information we can see
Jesus did not attend a building of any religious significance but went where he was sure
to meet other Jews on the Sabbath. It was Christ’s habit to go to the synagogue on the Sabbath (Luke:4v16),
but what did he do there? There are ten
occasions where it records he taught there, two where he preached and one where he read
there. How
does teaching differ from preaching?
Teaching is from the Greek didasko (1321 St’). According to Thayer’s lexicon it
involves instruction, whereas preaching is from the Greek kerusso (2784 St’).
Here Thayer’s says it is to proclaim, ‘always with a suggestion of
formality, gravity, and an authority which must be listened to and obeyed.’
Teaching always involves a degree of interaction; recall the question and answer
sessions at school. So it appears there was
not a formal procedure adhered to, certainly not a service as such,
since it records Jesus teaching there ten times yet preaching only once.
Only a few factors can be deduced: -
The synagogue was used throughout the week for various community activities.
On the Sabbath Jewish activities would be religious in nature so the synagogue reflected this change of emphasis.
There was someone in charge of the synagogue; the KJ refers to him as the ruler of the synagogue. Thayer’s adds, ‘It was his duty to select the readers or teachers in the synagogue, to examine the discourses of the public speakers, and to see that all things were done with decency and in accordance with ancestral usage.’
There is no evidence of songs or hymns being sung there. In fact, I cannot find evidence of prayer taking place in the synagogue, though that doesn’t infer it didn’t occur.
Actually much of Jesus’ instruction
appears to be given out in the open, for example the ‘Sermon
on the Mount’. Obviously this wouldn’t be
possible today, not in the British climate. As
he was out in the open there would be no restrictions on what he said, or
how he said it, and for how long.
So our model or example for a service as
such, could only occur in the New Testament after Christ was
crucified. The only times Christians met each
other, as a group, it appears to be in their own homes, perhaps because they were
only a few in number and possibly due to persecution by the Jews. Col:4v15
‘…and Nymphas and the church which is in his house.’
However according to Thayer’s Lexicon and the NIV Study Bible Nymphas is female
so it should read, ‘her house.’ (As
it is in the NIV, Philips, TCNT and others.) No
other members of the congregation are mentioned in Laodicea so if anyone led the congregation
it most likely would have been Nymphas!
However it implies in ICor:14v26-30,
that a fair number met on these occasions because of the way they were encouraged to
participate. It could be argued that the same
people did all the different aspects of participation: hymn singing, words of instruction,
a revelation, etc.
This is unlikely since people usually have different gifts, not all of them.
According to the NIV Study Bible P.1754, 1Cor:14v30
“…a revelation.
Not an inspired revelation intended to become a part of
written Scripture. In OT times, scriptural revelation came through prophets, and in NT
times through apostles or close associates of apostles.
Prophecy referred to in chs.12-14 could come through any member of
the church (vv.26,29-31). It could be
a prediction (Agabus, Acts:11v28, 21v10-11), a divine directive (Acts:13v1-2)
or a message designed to strengthen, encourage or comfort (v.3).” Considering the possible numbers involved they could quite well have
met in ‘halls’ although it doesn’t say so.
What does Paul have to say about the
possible order of a meeting? This can be
found in ICor:14v26-39. The
meeting is to be orderly, participation is encouraged according
to the individuals’ gifts e.g. singing, teaching, prophesying etc.
The intention being that everyone will
learn and be encouraged. A
short study on v.26 using different translations helps here: -
‘Then what is our conclusion…’(Wms)
‘To sum up, my friends…’(NEB)
‘Then what is the right course, brothers…’(Gspd)
‘Whenever you meet let everyone be ready to contribute…’(Phi)
‘Whenever you meet together, each contribute something…’(Mon)
‘…a hymn…’(RSV)
‘…with a song of praise..’(Wey)
‘…a doctrine..’(KJ)
‘…a lesson..’(RSV)
‘…a piece of teaching…’(Phi)
‘…a spiritual truth…’(Phi)
‘…others will…tell some special information God has given him…’(Tay)
‘...a strange language…’(Beck)
‘…an ecstatic utterance…’(NEB) ‘…or an explanation,,,’(Beck)
‘Let all things be done for the common good and useful to all, building-up in the Lord, making your group strong in the faith, everything being constructive.’
v33. ‘For God is not the author of confusion but of peace.’(KJ)’…not of disorder but of harmony.’(Mof) ‘As in all congregations of God’s people.’(NEB)
v40.’Everything
must be done in a proper and orderly way.’(Wms)
It would appear that a large number of
Christians took an active part. For example, it is possible
that three individuals (prophets, KJ) spoke (v29), they may well have
been women ICor:11v5. Then in ICor:14v30.
‘If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.’
Or as it says in the Phillips translation: ‘But
should a message of truth come to one who is seated then the original should stop
talking.’ Hence the emphasis
Paul puts on the need for meetings to be ‘done properly and in order.’
Variety appears to be in order, which is a
prerequisite of good teaching.
The services are, certainly from my
experience, notable in their complete absence of any interactive contribution from the
congregation. It has been my misfortune to
attend a feast recently where I only recall one person,
a so called ‘ordained’ person (which point I’ll go in to later) who spoke
during all the services, other than that of
three opening prayers and on one occasion with the song leading.
Is that what we find in the Bible as examples for us to copy?
NO WAY!
Reviewing what happened when Paul was in the synagogue is a good place to start.
It seems like it was a place of verbal interaction, NOT one of an ordered and regular format.
i.e. Acts:17v2 Paul’s habit – ‘reasoning with them out of the scriptures.’(In the synagogue.)
Acts:18v4 Paul, every Sabbath – ‘reasoned …and persuaded…’
Acts:18v19 Paul ‘….entered into the synagogue and reasoned with…’
Acts:19v8 Paul. For 3 months –
‘disputing and persuading the things…’
There are only
two recorded examples of Paul ‘preaching’ (not a sermon) in the synagogue; Acts:9v20
and Acts:13v5.
So our tradition in the Churches of God of
always having a service in the Sabbath the majority of which is taken up with a sermon: (
‘always with a suggestion of formality, gravity, and an authority which must be listened
to and obeyed.’) is not based on a New Testament foundation.
It probably began with people like Diotrephes (III John:9).
Unlike Paul, who reasoned and
persuaded, Diotrephes just threw people out of the church that disagreed with him.
If he could always have a large proportion of the allotted
time: ‘always with a suggestion of formality, gravity, and an authority which
must be listened to and obeyed’, then he could introduce and maintain ‘his’ views
unchallenged. Similar to how the ‘false
doctrine’ was introduced into the W.C.of G.in the 1990’s and up to the present
day. First of all, as regards the sermon,
everybody is facing the front; the only eye contact you can possibly make is with the
speaker. The problem with this is that if the
speaker says anything that arouses your suspicions, doubts or simply shear boredom you
have no way of knowing if similar emotions are shared by any or most in the congregation.
The tendency is to think that it is you that has the problem, not the speaker,
because he is usually in a prominent position implying importance and superior knowledge,
whereas he may in fact be as thick as two short planks.
Not only that, it certainly doesn’t encourage interaction, certainly not between
fellow participants in the congregation. At
the beginning I mentioned the plan of the synagogue with the speaker more or less in the
middle. He is ‘on the spot’ in one sense,
and so he should be. The traditional sermon
today infers superiority, ‘I know it all and you have
got to listen to me’. What do the proverbs
say? Prov:27v17
‘People learn from one another, just as iron sharpens iron.’ (L.B.)
It could be that people who refuse to discuss things reject this approach and
merely show their lack of spiritual maturity. They
merely repeat things; not studying for themselves like the Bereans (Acts:17v11). Those who should know better, prefer to keep people in the dark.
Both sides must be heard because…Prov:18v17.(NIV) Recall earlier the
Biblical quotation from the Philips translation of ICor:14v30 ‘But should a message of truth come to one who is
seated then the original should stop talking.’ To
do that today would risk being shown the door, certainly the surprise of everyone and I
imagine the annoyance of the speaker at the front.
How do you get chosen to give messages at the front? From my experience it is certainly not by disagreeing with the ‘leaders’. Yes-men and those that crawl to others could be found by the handfuls around ‘ministers’. Recently I have noticed how a pastor of a church group here, has by various means removed those on the ‘council’, the thinking ones, to be replaced by ‘doormats’. If a leader promotes a ‘nobody’, he usually gets their complete and undivided loyalty. As a result of the promotion to speak by the leaders, you generally get the continuation of the same problems, inaccuracies and difficulties that have existed before. The basic problem stems from the belief in the nonsense of ordination! ‘Ordained’ and ‘ordain’ only occur 21 times in the New Testament (KJV) yet they are translated from 13 different Greek words. The Greek word: ‘hagiazo’ meaning – set apart, make holy, sanctify (Strongs:37); occurs 28 times in the New Testament but I found it surprisingly never used in connection with the word ‘ordination’. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church states the 47 translators appointed by King James were given ground rules before they started on the translation. One of which was that, old ecclesiastical terms were to be kept! Perhaps that also explains why the English word ‘addicted’ only occurs on one occasion in the KJ :- ‘….you know the house of Stephanas and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints.’ This is ICor:16v15 and the Greek word ‘addicted’ is translated from ‘tasso’ 5021. This is translated ‘ordained’ on two occasions Acts:13v48 and Rom:13v1. The other six times 5021 is translated- appoint 3, set 1, determine 1, addict 1. So this scripture could have been translated: - ‘they have ordained themselves to the ministry of the saints’. So it is obvious the translators were trying to hide something! The fact that one didn’t need a hierarchical system to ‘elect’, ‘choose’, or ‘ordain’ you to (or ‘for’) the ‘ministry’, you could decide yourself, as did the ‘house of Stephanas’.
Another verse that is significant is Acts:14v23 ‘And when they (Paul and Barnabas) had ordained them elders in every church.’ Ordained here is from the Greek word ‘cheirotoneo’ according to Thayer’s’ P.668, it is, ‘to vote by stretching out the hand’. In other words, the congregation who knew their own people voted on who would be the most suitable to be elders. However this verse is often misunderstood. This is another instance where the translation into English is misleading. It is not about ordaining individuals to a rank of elder, but rather choosing elders (older people) to serve (minister to) the congregation. It was not Paul or Barnabas who decided, since they were traveling from place to place and wouldn’t be in a position to judge. From this example it would be more biblical for the congregation to decide which elders should be placed into service, rather than Paul and Barnabas or any visiting servants/‘ministers’.
The main component of services today is that of the sermon, but where does the justification for this come from? Possibly from verses such as: - ITim:4v13’Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.’ The NIV has: - ‘Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching.’ This is what the minister ‘does’, what about our part? Reading on from ITim:4v13 , KJ v15 ‘meditate upon these things.’ So basically we need to think about the religious material that comes to us, not just accept it as fact, but to analyze the veracity of what is said to us. This is particularly true today as regards the ‘sermons’ that are given; hence the advantage of interaction to emphasize and clarify or indeed possibly correct what is said. Just because a ‘minister’ says something at the front, in no sense is it necessarily true. It should stimulate thought, not sleep. When there is not the opportunity for interaction, in or immediately after a sermon or discourse, then the assumption is that it is all-true and nothing can be added by anyone listening, to clarify, to add to, or correct. The person speaking is the sum total of truth on the subject? How arrogant and what a lack of humility this implies on the behalf of the speaker because of this unbiblical format of the service with a sermon that is ‘sacrosanct’. What is the Biblical model with those speaking at a gathering of believers? At this point I’ll repeat ICor:14v30. ‘If any thing be revealed to another that sits by, let the first hold his peace.’ Or as it says in the Phillips translation: ‘But should a message of truth come to one who is seated then the original should stop talking.’ Basically what is conjured up with the concept of a service is that you are going to hear from someone who knows it all. What should be the set-up is that fellow believers are meeting to fellowship together, encourage each other and to grow in knowledge and understanding. The concept of a service perpetuates the medieval archaic notion of the Ministry and Laity, the ‘Them and Us’ mentality that is completely alien to the New Testament.
Yet another confusing translation regarding the supposed role of ‘ministers’ occurs in Ephesians:4v11-12 (KJV), which reads: - ‘…and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.’ This gives the impression (because of the semicolon and commas) that the pastors and teachers are to do three separate things. In all the other translations I have available: - NKJV, NIV, Rhm, Con, TCVNT, Wey, Mon, Wms, NEB, Beck, Phi, NLT and GN, it is different; it is the saints who do the work of the ministry, not the pastors and teachers. The punctuation should not be there because it gives a different meaning to the verse. Giving one of the other translations, it doesn’t matter which; ‘With a view to the fitting of the saints for the work of ministering…’, (Rhm) shows the role of the saints is an active one. Far different than the one I have been given. I’ll now summarize and try and get some order to these thoughts.
What is wrong with a ‘Service’.
Roj Beaumont