Q&A: Who is dividing the church, page 1 update on K.C.Moser LU foundation

David Hardin
David Hardin

February 9th, 2005, 5:11 pm #31

Donnie,

The question does to the hart of the topic. “When God specifically tells us what he wants us to do, all other alternatives are thereby prohibited.” This quote is not in scripture. It is from a man. It should be tested. I have given an example of Jesus doing something in addition to what was specifically commanded.

Only Temple Worship is commanded in the Old Law. The principle of “Generic and Specific Authority” would have applied then as well. Jesus while living under that law, by participating in worship to God the Father in a Synagogue did other than what was specifically commanded. The word ”Synagogue” does not appear in the Old Law. Jesus was a regular at these meetings. Event reading and teaching at these “unauthorized” events. We know Jesus did not sin. So it stands to reason that the man made rule, (“When God specifically tells us what he wants us to do, all other alternatives are thereby prohibited.”) does not always apply. There is even a possibility of worshiping God in ways not specifically commanded without sin.

While the man made rules of “Generic and Specific Authority” are helpful in Biblical interpretation they are not God’s word. The Authority is in His Word. It is a trap to add to His word in an attempt to help people understand His word.

David Hardin
Quote
Share

Ken Sublett
Ken Sublett

February 10th, 2005, 1:31 am #32

If ALL of the examples of the ASSEMBLY use commands and examples to MAKE IT CLEAR that the REVEALED Word is, as Paul demanded of the elders and the ONLY authorized pastor-teachers,
  • to be "taught as it HAS BEEN taught"----

    Then we claim that WE have the right to INFER that the 100% evidence can be CHANGED to mean "SING to one another" and "Make melody on a harp" --especially, giggle, giggle, if it makes the old owners squirm!

    Then DENY others the right to INFER (a meaning inherent in SYNAGOGUE)

    Does that make us a Hypocrite which was the PERFORMANCE SECT of "Scribes, Pharisees and Hypocrites" meaning ACTORS?
It is only CHANGE AGENTS who have any need of INFERENCES because a DISCIPLE will look for even hints of God's will. However, a Greek word meaning SYLLOGISM is included in the meaning of to SYNAGOGUE. You CANNOT listen to any truth without INFERING something about it--unless the singy-clappy-twangy-clangys are ACTING UP. In many of the church history writings the idea of COMMANDS, EXAMPLES and even INFERENCES is used. We give ourselves the right to exercise AUTHORITY in these well-documented ways: why do we REFUSE these ways of "communicating" His will to God?

THEY are also the same GUILTY PARTY which use the LAW OF SILENCE when they whine: "But, God DID NOT say DON'T make music during CLASS TIME when Jesus is speaking through His Words." Bible believers who have accepted the sacrifice of Christ and been WASHED by Him can HEAR the Word in the Most Holy Place under the Mercy Seat and therefore can recognize DIRECT COMMANDS about "music" when we read them. When you are in the Most Holy Place you are sufficiently REMOVED from the musical Gentiles trampling the COURT where the "musical noise" was for animal sacrifices which WAS NOT for God Who already OWNED the cattle. How about this one:
  • <font color=blue> To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn. Is.8:20
    • And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. Rev 19:10
    Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. John 8:44 </font>
Well-uh! Jesus often uses Isaiah to warn about the musical prophesiers or "lord, lord sayers" and about those BLIND as a bat and DEAF as a stone. Therefore, it was STILL VALID that there was an APPROVED source of SPEAK OR TEACH. If the Devil CAUSES liars to SPEAK ON THEIR OWN--defining almost all songs and sermons--then WHAT OTHER SOURCE of speaking and teaching IS THERE? Shelly claims to be "working out his salvation" like the olden ones to get a NEW SET OF SCRIPTURES working in PARTNERSHIP with God: can you imagine an amoeba critter YOKED to God!

The Bible and ALL of church scholars--even early Catholic ones--demanded that ONLY the Word can be used for Faith and Practice. Therefore, only latter day "prophets" from Kansas City or Abilene actually BOAST about speaking ON THEIR OWN. The Synagogue Fallacy is probably their PRIME AUTHORITY.

Synagogue is a GREEK word and we might not expect to find it too often in the Old Testament which is not ALL OLD LAW. If you cannot find the SYNAGOGUE for the PEOPLE who were EXCLUDED from the Temple sacrifices for the nation then maybe you should look for words like ASSEMBLE or GATHER. Preachers have a hard time finding the command for the CHURCH to congregate when the word CHURCH does not appear in any texts. The INFERERS even claim that there is NO COMMAND for the church to assemble. But, Paul--as Peter warned --is HARD TO UNDERSTAND especially when he did not use CHURCH but ASSEMBLE and GATHER. isn't that truly SLICK hiding the truth in plain sight?
  • <font color=blue>They said in their hearts, Let us destroy them together: they have burned up all the synagogues of God in the land. Ps.74:8 </font>
Temple is SINGULAR: synagogue is PLURAL any place where you had those who KNEW the Word or had documents and those NEEDING to be instructed could be a set time and place to hold a HOLY CONVOCATION by reading or rehearsing. Paul said that the way to GLORIFY God would be to speak with ONE MIND and ONE MOUTH "that which is written." Now, a Doctorate of the Law will surely "take away THAT key to knowledge."

One HEBREW is mowed which is EQUATED to Qahal depending on whether it is the ASSEMBLY or the ASSEMBLY:
  • <font color=blue>Mowed (h4150) mo-aw-daw'; from 3259; prop. an appointment, i. e. a fixed time or season; spec. a festival; conventionally a year; by implication, an assembly (as convened for a definite purpose); technically the congregation; by extension, the place of meeting; also a signal (as appointed beforehand): - appointed (sign, time), (place of, solemn) assembly, congregation, (set, solemn) feast, (appointed, due) season, solemn (-ity), synagogue, (set) time (appointed) </font>
This word frequently appears of the two silver trumpets which is ALL God ever commandeed:
  • <font color=blue>And when they shall blow with them, all the assembly shall assemble themselves to thee at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. Nu.10:3 </font>
These instruments could be used to CALL ASSEMBLY but NOT make music. If you need a command for a BUZZER in church then this is it but don't PLAY the buzzer when Christ is speaking through His WORDS. Paul said that we ARE NOT assembled to the SOUND of the TRUMPET because that always meant fear and trembling:
  • <font color=blue> BUT when the congregation is to be gathered together, ye shall blow, but ye shall not sound an ALARM [meaning instruments and loud singing]. Num 10:7 </font>
Congregation here is:
  • <font color=blue>Qahal (h6951) kaw-hawl'; from 6950; assemblage (usually concr.): - assembly, company, congregation, multitude.

    Of the church #1577 ekklesia - assembly, called out ones, set apart ones, congregation; in Hebrew this word is #6951 qahal (kahal) - a "synagogue" (E. W. Bullinger, Commentary on Revelation, p. 165-166), an assemblage, congregation, company from the root #6950 qahal meaning specifically a coming together, an assembling, a convocation, congregation; this word is used mostly for religious purposes (see William Wilson's Old Testament Word Studies, p. 92) </font>
There are MANY words which mean to assemble for some stated purpose: The Holy Convocation was to READ or REHEARSE. This was the "synagoguing" during the major festivals where animals were sacrificed on the other days of the week. On the first and seventh day the assembly was:
  • <font color=blue>Miqra (h4744) mik-raw'; from 7121; something called out, i. e. a public meeting (the act, the persons, or the place); also a rehearsal: - assembly, calling, convocation, reading. </font>
This NEVER CEASED in a prescribed meeting even in the wilderness even though they were apparently not observed. The same practice continued for the SABBATH which was for ekklesia or synagogue or SCHOOL OF THE BIBLE and to hear prayers which were often Biblical passages.

This is used of the ASSEMBLY for reading the Word of God: AFTER the move back to the land, the MIQRA or holy convocation to READ or REHEARSE was practiced:
  • <font color=blue> So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading {miqra]. Ne.8:8 </font>
This distinct reading was cantillation often called "singing" but it was MUSICAL only in the sense that an articulate public speaker uses the normal inflections of the language and SPEAKS sing-song to keep the words from getting jumbled in the air.

The example I quoted above EQUATES the meaning of SYNAGOGUE [where Jesus went to READ but not to WORSHIP] to the SYNAGOGUES OF MOSES:
  • <font color=blue> And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to READ. Lu.4:16

    For Moses of old time hath in every city them that PREACH him, being READ in the synagogues every sabbath day. Ac.15:21 </font>
When God spoke at Mount Sinai it was the Book of the Covenant of Grace. The people were not able to ENDURE the simple statement of God's WORD so they IMPOSED moses between themselves and God's Word
  • <font color=blue>And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: 2 Cor 3:13

    But their minds were BLINDED: for UNTIL this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the READING of the OLD TESTAMENT; which vail is done away in Christ. 2 Cor 3:14 </font>
The DID NOT hear the Old Testament read in the temple! Therefore, from Mount Sinai onward they HEARD but could not UNDERSTAND the Word of God,

Obviously, the SYNAGOGUE continued and MUSIC was outlawed until 1815 in a liberal, German synagogue which ALSO sowed discord and caused a legal dispute. The Restoration Stoneite wing was really IMITATING the lead of the Jews just as modern MUSIC TEAMS appeal to David and the SACRIFICING of innocent animals.
  • <font color=blue>But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. 2Co.3:15

    Nevertheless, when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away. 2 Cor 3:16

    Now the Lord IS THAT SPIRIT: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. 2 Cor 3:17 </font>
The LAW was added because of TRANSGRESSION and not as a system of WORSHIP: worship was as in all of Paul's example GIVING HEED to the Words of God. Animal sacrifices was a FUTILE activity God permitted to see whether they could PAY FOR THEIR FORGIVENESS OF SINS by virtually stripping their livlihood and giving it to the KING where TITHING was one of the CURSES God promised the King would enact.

The King, kingdom and Temple were CIVIL and LIKE THE PAGAN nations because that was their prayer. Therefore, TRUE WORSHIP was falling on the FACE OUTSIDE of the gates which were closed on the "musical" signal. The singing, playing and sacrifices are SEPARATED from WORSHIP in Hezekiah's reform.

The God-despising and Word-despising Israelites DID NOT hear the Word BEGINNING at Mount Sinai and CONTINUING well past the time of CHRIST. The HEARING of the Word was NOT in the temple but ALWAYS in the synagogues defined by perhaps a dozen or more words all meaning an appointed time and place to MIRQA or REHEARSE or READ the Words of Qod.

The word EKKLESIA means the same as the SYNAGOGUE. The CHURCH in the wilderness is defined by Stephen's recorded speech as EKKLESIA. Therefore, the church in the Wilderness was the EKKLESIA or SYNAGOGUE.
  • <font color=blue>This is he, that was in the CHURCH in the wilderness ith the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us: Ac.7:38 </font>
The ASSEMBLY at the foot of Mount Sinai was the ekklesia or synagogue or CHURCH IN THE WILDERNESS. Because the LAW was "because of transgression" and ONLY to cleanse the FLESH, the TRUE worship which DID NOT CHANGE ever, never, was to GIVE HEED to God by giving heed to His Word. Because there is no COMMAND or INFERENCE that God as the Spirit of Christ OUTLAWED the synagogue then we can probably INFER that Jesus the Christ of God was NOT doing something which gives the Anti-christs the authority to ADD "whut seemeth good in our own eyes."
  • <font color=blue> Ekklesia (g1577) ek-klay-see'-ah; from a comp. of 1537 and a der. of 2564; a calling out, i.e. (concr.) a popular meeting, espec. a religious congregation (Jewish SYNAGOGUE, or Chr. community of members on earth or saints in heaven or both): - assembly, church. </font>
The LORD or SPIRIT at Mount Sinai was THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST (1 Pe 1:11, Rev 19:10). He was the ANGEL, the Rock, the Water, the Manna, the Pillar. Therefore, the FIRST rejection of Christ the Holy Spirit was refusing to let Him be the Teacher in this FIRST SYNAGOUGE. This FATAL SIN was focused on the ELDERS and not 3 million people. God REMOVED he MASSES from the sacrificial system by identifying them as STRANGERS so that they could never go INTO the tabernacle court or any Holy precincts where the HORRORS of animal sacrifices took place. This WAS also the "trampling of the courts" because it was a LIKE THE NATIONS punishment and not an "approved patternism." Jesus DENIED that the clergy Jews were the children of promise even though He agreed that they were the children of Abraham. He spoke in PARABLES specificially to keep them OUT OF the gospel system (Matt 13). Any where there is an ACTOR acting out WORSHIP for others for a CUT of the sacrifice you know that their DESCENDANTS are still in total control.

If it was REMOTELY true what MOST of the ANTI-instrumental types falsely PREACH AND PREACH AND PREACH that there was NO COMMAND for the Synagogue in the Old Testament (which is not ALL the Law of Moses) it is still a fact that GOD WAS IN CHRIST reconciling us to Him. THAT would not give any of these anti-Christs the authority to make their OWN CHANGES to the "LAW." The Christian church, so-called HIGH CHURCH authority to GO WITH THE FLOW was NEVER approved in spirit or letter by any church council. And there is almost NO pre 19th century theologian who would not SPEW THEM OUT OF THEIR MOUTHS.

However, it is FALSE PROPHSYING to claim the SYNAGOGUE as the most popular examples of Christ VIOLATING the Law and therefore giving THEM the right to go and do likewise.

Because the synagogue, ekklesia or church in the wilderness existed at least at Mount Sinai and was practiced throughout the Old Testament and more organized in Babylon and NEVER OUTLAWED I am gonna INFER that Jesus did not ADD. Therefore, since the TOTAL FOUNDATION of the CHANGLINGS is based on this FALSE PREMISE I am going to INFER that they have been playing God by adding things like PROFESSIONAL CLERGY and MUSICIANS which ANYONE can prove was universally condemned throughout the Bible and all of church history until the Stonites STUMBLED on the word PSALLO as late as the year 1878 AFTER they had already became the LEGALISTIC SECTARIANS. Ok?

The so-called church is really the Ekklesia or Synagogue of Christ. Jesus approved the concept but not the hypocracy (acting prayers and sermons), there was NEVER any praise service in the synagogue nor in the ASSEMBLY or Synagogue of Paul's writings. Even if Jesus had approved an ADDED thingy called the synagogue He would have by AFFIRMATION utterly condemned the "praise services" added by the AUTHORITY of the synagogue. See the tangled tale they weave?

Ken

Quote
Share

Mark Waggoner
Mark Waggoner

February 10th, 2005, 2:28 pm #33

Donnie,

The question does to the hart of the topic. “When God specifically tells us what he wants us to do, all other alternatives are thereby prohibited.” This quote is not in scripture. It is from a man. It should be tested. I have given an example of Jesus doing something in addition to what was specifically commanded.

Only Temple Worship is commanded in the Old Law. The principle of “Generic and Specific Authority” would have applied then as well. Jesus while living under that law, by participating in worship to God the Father in a Synagogue did other than what was specifically commanded. The word ”Synagogue” does not appear in the Old Law. Jesus was a regular at these meetings. Event reading and teaching at these “unauthorized” events. We know Jesus did not sin. So it stands to reason that the man made rule, (“When God specifically tells us what he wants us to do, all other alternatives are thereby prohibited.”) does not always apply. There is even a possibility of worshiping God in ways not specifically commanded without sin.

While the man made rules of “Generic and Specific Authority” are helpful in Biblical interpretation they are not God’s word. The Authority is in His Word. It is a trap to add to His word in an attempt to help people understand His word.

David Hardin
From the previous post... '“When God specifically tells us what he wants us to do, all other alternatives are thereby prohibited.” This quote is not in scripture. It is from a man. It should be tested.'; I must agree. We must test everything against God's word and while this quote is not found in scripture, the principle it conveys certainly is.

Leviticus 10:1-2 - "And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took each of them his censer, and put fire therein, and laid incense thereon, and offered strange fire before Jehovah, which he had not commanded them. And there came forth fire from before Jehovah, and devoured them, and they died before Jehovah." Note the language that closes verse 1 - "which he had not commanded them." In plain English, they practiced something that God hadn't told them to do - they added to God's command. They didn't violate a "thou shalt not". Doesn't this convey the thought that all alternatives/additions to God's specific commands are prohibited?

I Corinthians 4:6 - "Now these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes; that in us ye might learn not to go beyond the things which are written; that no one of you be puffed up for the one against the other." This is probably as close as one will come to finding a direct quote concerning prohibiting that which is not specifically authorized. Notice the reason Paul gives for this command - "that no one of you be puffed up for the one against the other." Simply put, if one does "progress" or "go beyond" what God has authorized, they become arrogant. Isn't this very point being illustrated by the "elitists" today?

Jesus has "all authority" (Matthew 28:18). We have limited authority, only that which He has delegated to us. Delegation must be specific; otherwise, there will be chaos. We practice this principle every day of our lives. A wise man once said that if God's word must specifically prohibit a doctrine or practice, then there would be no end to what would be authorized. While the terminology of "generic" and "specific" authority may not be explicity found in scripture, we do find many examples of how authority is to be practiced and those examples convey a binding principle.

Mark Waggoner
Quote
Share

David Hardin
David Hardin

February 11th, 2005, 3:34 pm #34

Mark and Donnie,

Please deal with the example I brought up. I am truly trying to learn here! All our teachings(“When God specifically tells us what he wants us to do, all other alternatives are thereby prohibited.”) should stand the test of scripture. Where is the authority for Synagogue worship? It does not appear in the old law as the Jews of Jesus’ day were practicing it. He took part in those assemblies. He regularly attended. He taught and read. These are not even in question. It seems to be a truly unauthorized assembly. It was not what was specifically commanded. In Synagogue worship they sang, prayed, read scripture and there was a lesion. At some time the must have given money to support the synagogue. This sounds like a worship service. But it was not authorized. The way they worshiped was not authorized. They did not follow the authorized way, time, date, form or place.

If “When God specifically tells us what he wants us to do, all other alternatives are thereby prohibited.” Why did Jesus not cry out against this unauthorized assembly?

Love,
David Hardin
Quote
Share

Dr. Bill Crump
Dr. Bill Crump

February 11th, 2005, 4:19 pm #35

From the previous post... '“When God specifically tells us what he wants us to do, all other alternatives are thereby prohibited.” This quote is not in scripture. It is from a man. It should be tested.'; I must agree. We must test everything against God's word and while this quote is not found in scripture, the principle it conveys certainly is.

Leviticus 10:1-2 - "And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took each of them his censer, and put fire therein, and laid incense thereon, and offered strange fire before Jehovah, which he had not commanded them. And there came forth fire from before Jehovah, and devoured them, and they died before Jehovah." Note the language that closes verse 1 - "which he had not commanded them." In plain English, they practiced something that God hadn't told them to do - they added to God's command. They didn't violate a "thou shalt not". Doesn't this convey the thought that all alternatives/additions to God's specific commands are prohibited?

I Corinthians 4:6 - "Now these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes; that in us ye might learn not to go beyond the things which are written; that no one of you be puffed up for the one against the other." This is probably as close as one will come to finding a direct quote concerning prohibiting that which is not specifically authorized. Notice the reason Paul gives for this command - "that no one of you be puffed up for the one against the other." Simply put, if one does "progress" or "go beyond" what God has authorized, they become arrogant. Isn't this very point being illustrated by the "elitists" today?

Jesus has "all authority" (Matthew 28:18). We have limited authority, only that which He has delegated to us. Delegation must be specific; otherwise, there will be chaos. We practice this principle every day of our lives. A wise man once said that if God's word must specifically prohibit a doctrine or practice, then there would be no end to what would be authorized. While the terminology of "generic" and "specific" authority may not be explicity found in scripture, we do find many examples of how authority is to be practiced and those examples convey a binding principle.

Mark Waggoner
The discussion centers around what has been termed the Law of Exclusion, or more recently, the Law of Silence. While such a term is not mentioned specifically in the New Testament, as Mark said, the principle certainly is. We should remember that, for anything to be scriptural, it must meet at least one of three criteria:

1. It must be directly commanded by God or Christ.

2. It must be by apostolic example.

3. It must be by necessary inference from Scripture.

The Law of Silence fits the third criteria, for the Scriptures contain a number of examples. Mark mentioned some above. Other specific examples include the exclusion of musical instruments in worship by the phrase "sing and make melody in the heart" (Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16) and the exclusion of anything other than bread and fruit of the vine as emblems of the Lord's Supper. (For a detailed discussion of music, see the thread "Boswell-Hardeman Discussion on Instrumental Music in the Worship" at Sunday School in Exile.) A generic example is found in the Great Commission when Jesus said "Go." By that, we have the liberty to use whatever means of transportation are at our disposal, because He did not specify by what means we are to "Go."

Unfortunately, the Change Movement repudiates the Law of Silence as heresy, because it does not meet their man-contrived criteria of "liberty in Christ." Paul uses the term in Gal. 5:1, which the Change Movement takes out of context to mean, "We have 'liberty' to incorporate into worship whatever pleasing and entertaining innovations we wish." Paul's use of "liberty in Christ" in Gal. 5:1 applies only to freedom from the shackles and rituals of the Law of Moses; a close examination of the remaining verses of Gal. 5 bears this out. Nowhere does Paul give license to incorporate man's fancies into worship. Also remember that the Christian has the "liberty" either to worship God exactly as He directs in the New Testament, or he has the "liberty" to rebel against God. When it comes to worshiping Him, God leaves nothing to man's carnal fancies.
Quote
Share

Eddie
Eddie

February 11th, 2005, 8:04 pm #36

Dr, Crump, Ken, and Donnie,

I don't see an answer to David's direct question. I am also interested in your answer.

Eddie
Quote
Share

Ken Sublett
Ken Sublett

February 11th, 2005, 8:38 pm #37

Mark and Donnie,

Please deal with the example I brought up. I am truly trying to learn here! All our teachings(“When God specifically tells us what he wants us to do, all other alternatives are thereby prohibited.”) should stand the test of scripture. Where is the authority for Synagogue worship? It does not appear in the old law as the Jews of Jesus’ day were practicing it. He took part in those assemblies. He regularly attended. He taught and read. These are not even in question. It seems to be a truly unauthorized assembly. It was not what was specifically commanded. In Synagogue worship they sang, prayed, read scripture and there was a lesion. At some time the must have given money to support the synagogue. This sounds like a worship service. But it was not authorized. The way they worshiped was not authorized. They did not follow the authorized way, time, date, form or place.

If “When God specifically tells us what he wants us to do, all other alternatives are thereby prohibited.” Why did Jesus not cry out against this unauthorized assembly?

Love,
David Hardin
David, I will not be put off by your refusing to listen to that which CANNOT BE REFUTED and trying to STEER the response. I am hard of hearing and have no pride about being ignored because I can SENSE that you are in trouble because the LAST GASP of trying to become more powerful than Christ (as they claim) is to try to implicate Jesus with either VIOLATING the LAW of Moses or giving a PATTERNISM which says that WE TOO are so Spirit filled that WE can also ADD new things. This literal LUST is so overwhelming that people will INVENT this to try to prove to the WIDOWS that God INTENDED for them to wear a SADDLE.
  • David Hardin<font color=red> Where is the authority for Synagogue worship? It does not appear in the old law as the Jews of Jesus' day were practicing it. He took part in those assemblies. He regularly attended. He taught and read. These are not even in question. It seems to be a truly unauthorized assembly. It was not what was specifically commanded. In Synagogue worship they sang, prayed, read scripture and there was a lesion. At some time the must have given money to support the synagogue. This sounds like a worship service. But it was not authorized. The way they worshiped was not authorized. They did not follow the authorized way, time, date, form or place. </font>
David, wake up! I just told you that the SYNAGOGUE WAS COMMANDED directly. Furthermore, it is INFERRED in the command to teach. Thirdly, there are dozens of EXAMPLES defining the role as to READ or REHEARSE. They DID NOT preach in the synagogue and the Rabbi outlawed "allegorizing" or applicating. They DID NOT sing as you use the word: the word commanded by Paul was to SPEAK or READ "that which is written." Their song was not your song service. They were commanded to look out for their poor and who needs a COMMANDED time and place to give the money?

The TEMPLE SERVICE, I repeat, was NOT worship in an approved sense: this was ADDED because of the musical idolatry at Mount Sinai and the demand for a king and kingdom by the elders. This was clearly by God's PERMISSIVE will because the kings would lead the nation into captivity and death. The ONLY worship word was to fall on your face. The people could not ENTER the holy precincts so how could they engage in WORSHIP. The synagogue was worship because giving heed or holding God's thoughts in the mind IS the meaning of worship.

It is clear that as a LEADERSHIP most did not HEAR Moses at any time or any place. God did not promise a NEW WORSHIP SCHEME of rituals but that they would HEAR messiah. The sinful woman at the well was smart enough to catch on to THAT ONE: she said, "when Messiah comes He will TELL us all things." Jesus told her a NEW truth which was ALREADY in effect and had always been in effect: True worship was in the NEW PLACE of the human spirit and the PROFESSIONAL God handlers CANNOT help.

If I haven't missed something, the EXAMPLE of Jesus was to go out PREACHING but TEACHING in the synagogue. He rejected the stand-up PERFORMANCE prayers and told people to pray in their CLOSETS which meant in private and in their own SPIRIT. Set prayers were normally READ SCRIPTURE. He authorized ALMS (ONLY) and personally paid the temple tax. Paul agreed in both direct command and examples. Then, He said that the LEFT HAND (you) know what the RIGHT HAND (me) does with my ALMS. We are to LAY BY IN STORE so that we have money to give ALMS. He preached OUTSIDE of the synagogue. So, there goes preaching, giving and praying. That leaves LISTENING to the Word of God and PERSONAL prayers. Paul confirmed that our money is OUR MONEY and if we want to build a house to get in out of the rain then we DON'T NEED a direct command.
  • <font color=blue>And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont [legal or traditional place] to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither. Acts 16:13

    Sunerchomai isa synagogue word meaning: (to convene, associate, assemble, come together. </font>
God promised that in contending for the faith in the time of Jesus:
  • <font color=blue>For these nations, which thou shalt possess, hearkened unto OBSERVERS of times, and unto DIVINERS: but as for thee, the Lord thy God hath not suffered thee so to do. Deut 18:14 </font>
I pointed out that God's plan for the sabbath or REST was to quarantine the people from the Observers of Times, Diviners and Soothsayers and Wizards. An OBSERVER is the word ANAN who was a preacher person or a sanger person who could ENCHANT (i.e. CHANT) a soothsayer, sorcerer or magician. God through Isaiah and Ezekiel defines many of the prophets "who stole enchantments from one another) as PROFESSIONAL The priests were LOCKED DOWN in Jerusalem and in the temple. The PEOPLE were locked down in their own homes or to the house where SYNAGOGUE was held in every city.
  • <font color=blue>The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; Deut 18:15 </font>
Hearken means to call together to "hear intelligently" often implying obedience. Remember the Samaritan woman: "He will TELL us all things." Well, when God in Christ TELLS us something we LISTEN or HEARKEN. We do not have a command, example, inference or early scholarly record that this meant WORSHIP in the sense of performing rituals NOT RELATED to teaching the Word where the SINGING passages clearly DEMAND "that which is written, the Spirit or the Word of Christ."
  • <font color=blue>According to all that thou desiredst of the Lord thy God in Horeb in the DAY of the ASSEMBLY, </font>
We have proven to you that this assembly or QAHAL is the same as MOWED or synagogue which Stephen defined as the Ekklesia at Mount Sinai.

Stephen called that an EKKLESIA. Therefore, the ekklesia is the same as the Qahal. God CALLED this synagogue so please don't keep claiming that Jesus TOOK LIBERTIES which now belong to you.

Therefore, the FIRST assembly of the synagogue was to HEARKEN to the Words of Christ the Spirit.
  • <font color=blue>saying, Let me not HEAR again the voice of the Lord my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not. Deut 18:16
    • And the Lord said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken. Deut 18:17
    </font>
The SECULAR TEMPLE was given BECAUSE the elders refused to hear the Word of God through the Judges and Samuel who was also a prophet. We showed you 2 Cor 3 to prove that the Jews who depended on the Law as opposed to their own personal faithful obedience were struck dumb and blind and that continued UNTIL they might turn to Christ. Therefore, the Monarchy was a period of REPUDIATING the Word and engaging in Babylonian, Egyptian or Canaanite Baalism--right there in the temple.
  • <font color=blue>I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put MY words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. Deut 18:18
    • And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him. Deut 18:19
    </font>
I am VERY TROUBLED by anyone not WANTING to worship God by GIVING HEED to His Words. The DIRECT COMMAND is that all who are acceptable WILL do so. Those who REFUSE to hearken or THINK that their words are SUPERIOR or more UP TO DAY have the promise stretching from the Wilderness to NOW that "I will REQUIRE it of Him."

It is fruitless to try to TRAP Jesus into violating the Law of Moses or by TAKING AUTHORITY which He did not have.

Now, the meaning of WORSHIP and the mark of a DISCIPLE is that when God speaks they listen. They do not have any LUST to add something exciting: this was the FATAL, TERMINAL sin at Mount Sinai and it involved the Musical idolatry of a trinity.
  • <font color=blue>BUT the prophet, which shall PRESUME to speak a word in my name,
    • which I have NOT commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. Deut 18:20
    </font>
Jesus honored the Law of Silence. The term "Son" is defined as the faithful WORDS of the "Father." Jesus identified a son of the Devil as a liar because "he speaks on his own."
  • <font color=blue>For I have NOT spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. Jn.12:49

    And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak. Jn.12:50
    • It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. John 6:63
    Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends;
    • for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you. Jn.15:15
    </font>
If the revelation of Jesus even to the prophets (1 Pet 1:11; Rev 19:10) is not AN APPROVED EXAMPLE to speak only what has been revealed then a different Jesus is being spoken. Jesus identified the Devil as a SON of his father because "he speaks on his own."

Rejecting the Word is like a TOGGLE switch: when you push the truth away from you God PULLS it all the way and you will never get it back. (Heb 6 and ALL of the "musical" examples."
  • <font color=blue>For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Matt 13:12

    Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. Matt 13:13 </font>
That means that if you ever had any truth and love for the truth and reject it then God simply withdraws His Gracious Spirit from our spirit and TRUTH simply has no holy personal spirit to dwell in. That is spooky when you grasp that ALMOST ALL so-called Christians paid and paid and paid last Sunday to hear some person who has CAST out God's Spirit and are too lazy to get "work so that they have to GIVE" as opposed ot get, get, get. It is like welfare societies: the more you subsidize the MORE you get. As LONG as fools pay to be fooled don't think that anyone who would STEAL your happy church life is going to give it up: NO ONE ever gives up power voluntarily. Don't EVER expect the inmates of Jonestown or Waco to catch on.

Frankly, I am more troubled with all of the PROFESSIONALS who have kicked the traces and are out there teaching preachers to be Prophets, Chanellers and Facilitators. And the UNLAWFUL synagogue as school of the Bible is about the best they can do. Using Paul's example, it is a fact that fools love to be fooled.

If the meaning of CHURCH is really ekklesia, synagogue or school of the Bible then by definition we can take the word of Jesus to "come learn of Me" as opposed to The Purpose Driven Life If Paul's assembly or gathering words are forms of SYNAGOGUE, and the activity labeled 'singing' means speaking THAT WHICH IS WRITTEN then we can gather in a house or under a tree. However, you CANNOT get any authority to REPLACE the Word of Christ as Spirit and Life with sentimental, erotic praise songs without REFUSING to hearken to God in Christ. If instead of reading and explaining the Word of God you preach 'rhetorical simple Simon philosophy' you REFUSE to hearken to the Word of God "as it has been taught." That means that GOD WILL REQUIRE IT OF YOU.

Whatever LIBERTY we have it is NEVER the clergy's liberty to IMPOSE some silly new MUSICAL WORSHIP trafficked as the power to LEAD YOU INTO THE PRESENCE OF GOD. "Let him take himself off to himself or he will hear from God."

Ken
Quote
Share

Dr. Bill Crump
Dr. Bill Crump

February 11th, 2005, 11:12 pm #38

Dr, Crump, Ken, and Donnie,

I don't see an answer to David's direct question. I am also interested in your answer.

Eddie
David and Eddie,

Ken Sublett has given an extensive review of the subject of Jewish synagogues, yet you seem not to have read his posts about it. He quoted Psalm 74:8 (KJV), which definitely mentions "synagogue." Although some believe that synagogues arose during the Babylonian exile when the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed, Acts 15:21 (KJV) implies that synagogues existed even in the time of Moses, before the first Temple was ever constructed: "For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day."

Synagogues were in every Jewish community in Old Testament times as places for religious instruction and weekly worship. The purpose of the Temple in Jerusalem was for the offering of the sacrifices as required by the Mosaic Law and for public assembly at the several feasts that were required throughout the year. These sacrifices and feasts would not have been observed in the local synagogues. And it would not have made sense for Jews living on the far boundaries of the Holy Land at the time to travel every sabbath day to Jerusalem to the Temple for worship. But they were required to make the journey for the mandatory sacrifices and feasts.

Were synagogues authorized or scriptural? They fit the criterion of "necessary inference from Scripture" as posted earlier. Since we know that Jesus was sinless, it is pure heresy to believe that He could have defied His Father and participated in anything that His Father had not authorized. Since synagogues are mentioned in Scripture and neither the prophets nor Jesus condemned them, why would anyone believe that they would not be authorized?
Quote
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

February 13th, 2005, 3:22 am #39

Donnie,

The question does to the hart of the topic. “When God specifically tells us what he wants us to do, all other alternatives are thereby prohibited.” This quote is not in scripture. It is from a man. It should be tested. I have given an example of Jesus doing something in addition to what was specifically commanded.

Only Temple Worship is commanded in the Old Law. The principle of “Generic and Specific Authority” would have applied then as well. Jesus while living under that law, by participating in worship to God the Father in a Synagogue did other than what was specifically commanded. The word ”Synagogue” does not appear in the Old Law. Jesus was a regular at these meetings. Event reading and teaching at these “unauthorized” events. We know Jesus did not sin. So it stands to reason that the man made rule, (“When God specifically tells us what he wants us to do, all other alternatives are thereby prohibited.”) does not always apply. There is even a possibility of worshiping God in ways not specifically commanded without sin.

While the man made rules of “Generic and Specific Authority” are helpful in Biblical interpretation they are not God’s word. The Authority is in His Word. It is a trap to add to His word in an attempt to help people understand His word.

David Hardin
<font size=3 color=indigo face=Times New Roman>David,

I think we pretty much agree on what occurred in the “synagogue” assembly: reading and teaching of God’s Word (from the OT scrolls prior to New Testament writings); praying; very uncomplicated singing (without musical instruments; without “the worship leader” leading the entire congregation into God’s holy presence; and without “Praise Team” mediation, intervention and co-leading); giving to help the poor and needy. Church history reveals that the early New Testament Christians patterned their “gathering of the saints” or assembly after the “synagogue” assembly, with the exception of the observance of the Lord’s Supper—and understandably so! And so should we, 21st century Christians.

I’m not able to add anymore to Ken’s very detailed explanation of what occurred during that period in biblical history known as the intertestament period. My understanding is that this period covers about 400 years—a period between the close of the Old Testament and the events of the New Testament. Whether or not we are to categorize all the biblical events and occurrences prior to the establishment of the church on Pentecost as belonging to this period, it is undeniable that events such as the baptism of Christ and John the Baptist’s ministry, etc., had occurred prior to the founding of the NT church, including all other events and happenings in Jesus’ life on earth which point to the fulfillment of the establishment of his kingdom or the church (Matt. 16:16-19; Acts 2).

Mention of or reference to the word “synagogue” in the Old Testament is practically nil, with the exception of Ps. 74:8. The KJV renders, “They said in their hearts, Let us destroy them together: they have burned up all the synagogues of God in the land.” The NIV renders: “They said in their hearts, "We will crush them completely!" They burned every place where God was worshiped in the land.” But the implication from both versions has significance only in terms of the building or gathering place—not what occurred in the gathering.

“Synagogue” assembly, from historical perspectives and as our point of reference here, is the kind of assembly in the Jewish community during the intertestament period—from/after which, again, we can infer that the NT assembly of the first century Christians was patterned. And during this period, we need to consider important events, such as the dispersion of the Jews in the Persian era—one reason for the frequent references to the “synagogue” in the New Testament, either as a gathering place or what occurred in the gathering.

Within the New Testament, practically all references to the “synagogue” occur in the four gospels—again, pre-NT church events—and in the book of Acts, a history of Christ’s church of the first century—a period reflecting apparent “synagogue” influences among the early Christians of Jewish background. The passages point to the fact that Jesus’ ministry involved teaching in their synagogues (Matt. 4:23; 9:35; etc.); preaching in their synagogues (Mark 1:39; etc.); healing in the synagogues (Luke 6:6; etc.) even on the sabbath day (Luke 13:10; etc.)—a clear violation of the OT sabbath law, yet Jesus did so. My main point in bringing all the above events is to bring to our attention that we should not bring Jesus Christ down to our level. He is our Savior and lived a sinless life; and although we are followers of Christ, and with/because of all our human limitations, we simply cannot do some of the things he did or had, such as possession of the miraculous healing power. Therefore, to associate what Jesus did, specifically teaching, preaching and healing in the synagogue (a gathering place) or to use Jesus’ participation in synagogue “worship” as an example to unjustify the principle of “where there is a specific command, the unspecified or assumed command is ruled out”—such association is irrelevant and incongruent to the stated principle.

David, we agree with you in stating that John Waddey’s statement regarding “specific commands” is not found in the Scriptures. But neither are other statements or mottos expressed by men of the Restoration Movement and others:
  • "In matters of faith, unity; in matters of opinion, liberty; and in all things charity."

    “We speak where the Bible speaks, and are silent where the Bible is silent.”

    “Touch not, taste not, handle not … intoxicating drinks.” (he-he-he)

    “As there is, in our day, an abundance of material and diversity of opinion to choose from, insofar as the question of whose insights should be used, let the Scriptures be our guide.”

    “We establish the authority of Christ by direct command, by apostolic or approved example, or by necessary inference.”

    “When God specifically tells us what he wants us to do, all other alternatives are thereby prohibited.”
These are not exactly or directly stated in the Bible. However, these are excellent principles to live by and to keep us from perverting biblical truths. By the way, in the last stated principle above, the KEY word is “specifically”—NOT “generically.” The specific command to “love God” (even without the word “only”) excludes the command to “love other gods.”

Donnie </font>
Quote
Like
Share

John Waddey
John Waddey

February 14th, 2005, 8:27 am #40

From the previous post... '“When God specifically tells us what he wants us to do, all other alternatives are thereby prohibited.” This quote is not in scripture. It is from a man. It should be tested.'; I must agree. We must test everything against God's word and while this quote is not found in scripture, the principle it conveys certainly is.

Leviticus 10:1-2 - "And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took each of them his censer, and put fire therein, and laid incense thereon, and offered strange fire before Jehovah, which he had not commanded them. And there came forth fire from before Jehovah, and devoured them, and they died before Jehovah." Note the language that closes verse 1 - "which he had not commanded them." In plain English, they practiced something that God hadn't told them to do - they added to God's command. They didn't violate a "thou shalt not". Doesn't this convey the thought that all alternatives/additions to God's specific commands are prohibited?

I Corinthians 4:6 - "Now these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes; that in us ye might learn not to go beyond the things which are written; that no one of you be puffed up for the one against the other." This is probably as close as one will come to finding a direct quote concerning prohibiting that which is not specifically authorized. Notice the reason Paul gives for this command - "that no one of you be puffed up for the one against the other." Simply put, if one does "progress" or "go beyond" what God has authorized, they become arrogant. Isn't this very point being illustrated by the "elitists" today?

Jesus has "all authority" (Matthew 28:18). We have limited authority, only that which He has delegated to us. Delegation must be specific; otherwise, there will be chaos. We practice this principle every day of our lives. A wise man once said that if God's word must specifically prohibit a doctrine or practice, then there would be no end to what would be authorized. While the terminology of "generic" and "specific" authority may not be explicity found in scripture, we do find many examples of how authority is to be practiced and those examples convey a binding principle.

Mark Waggoner
<font size=3 face=Times New Roman>In my American Standard Version of the Bible (1901) the word synagogue is found in Ps. 74:8. There the writer laments the fact that "They have burned up all the synagogues of God in the land..." The footnote renders this "places of assembly." It is conceded by all that synagogues came into existence during the Babylonian exile. When it was impossible for the people to assemble for worship at Jerusalem, they did the best they could and assembled for prayer, praise and study of the Law of God. Upon their return to Palestine they brought their practice with them. Prior to the captivity, sacrifice and designated holy days were observed in Jerusalem at the temple. However, God had made provision for teaching in their local communities and other places as needed (Jer. 36:12-15). The people could consult the prophets in other places as needed (II King 4:38). The people were instructed to teach the law to their children (Deut. 6:7-9). When the Hebrews entered their land, specific territories were allotted to all the tribes save the Levites. They were scattered in cities throughout the other tribal states. That made them available to instruct the people as needed. (Josh. 21:20-42). James said, "Moses, from generations of old, hath them that preach him...in the synagogues..." (Acts 15:21). So those who seek to prove there was no provision for such teaching are making large assumptions. Me thinks this is but a dodge to avoid the clear teaching of the Bible that we are not to add to or take from the things God has authorized for us to do. You fail to consider:
  • That Jesus himself is the Creator of all things (John 1:3; Col. 1:16) and the I AM (John 8:58). He is the Lord of the temple and its worship. He demonstrated this by driving the moneychangers from the temple (John 2:14-16) and by declaring his new message to be a superior way than that of old times (Matt. 5:21-47). If he went to the synagogue for worship, it was not in any way wrong to do so.
  • He who spoke to Moses in the bush (John 8:58) had the right to do as he willed. He did no wrong (I Pet. 2:22) and his way was that of truth (John 14:6). He did not violate his own law.
  • They seek to justify their disobedience by appealing to something they don't know, i.e., that God did not authorize the synagogues. For example we have no example of Jesus offering sacrifices in the temple. Does that prove he did not? We have no example that he gave tithes of his income in the years prior to his ministry. But we would assume that he did so. Because he came not to destroy the law and the prophets but to fulfill them (Matt. 5:17).
  • That Jesus went to the synagogue implies certain things: (1) That it was the right thing to do in that day and age. (2) That he found it an opportunity to teach those who were seeking God's will.
  • They fail to see that it is always right for God-fearing people to assemble for prayer and study of God's will.
  • The relation of the synagogue to the temple was similar to the relationship between the Lord's Day worship with communion and a midweek Bible Class. We have no specific authority for the Class but we do have generic authority since we are told to read and teach God's Word and to grow in the knowledge thereof (Acts 17:11; II Pet. 3:18).
  • They forget that in the ancient synagogue the Jews never used instruments of music. They were used only in temple worship where they were specifically authorized (II Chron. 29:25).
  • They cannot deny that the Holy Spirit guided the biblical writers to show us that God indeed expects his people to do that which he instructs them to do and the danger of presuming to do something merely because he did not forbid that act (Deut. 4:2). For example Nadab and Abihu, Naaman, and Uzzah in the Old Testament and in the case of the Judaizing teachers (Acts 15:24 and the priesthood of Christ (Heb. 7:14).
I marvel at the ingenuity of rebellious sinners who are so determined to have their own way that they try to involve the Savior himself in their presumptuous behavior. </font>

___________________________________
John Waddey, Editor
Christianity: Then and Now

E-Mail: [url=mailto:johnwaddey@aol.com]johnwaddey@aol.com[/url]
Quote
Share